[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18299-18306]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 4783, CLAIMS 
                         RESOLUTION ACT OF 2010

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1736 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1736

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     4783) to accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable 
     cash contributions for the relief of victims of the 
     earthquake in Chile, and to extend the period from which such 
     contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in 
     Haiti may be accelerated, with the Senate amendments thereto, 
     and to consider in the House, without intervention of any 
     point of order, a single motion offered by the chair of the 
     Committee on Natural Resources or his designee that the House 
     concur in the Senate amendments. The Senate amendments shall 
     be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
     hour, with 50 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.

[[Page 18300]]


  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 1736.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1736 provides for the consideration 
of the bill H.R. 4783, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010. It makes in 
order a motion to concur in the Senate amendment thereon by the 
chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources. It provides 1 hour of 
debate, with 50 minutes of debate controlled by the Natural Resources 
Committee and 10 minutes controlled by the Ways and Means Committee.
  The bill contains a number of important provisions, many of which 
have already passed the House. It approves settlements in the class 
action lawsuits brought against the United States Department of 
Agriculture by African American farmers and against the Interior 
Department by Native Americans.
  The bill will fully fund America's obligations in these cases and 
settles both the Cobell and Pigford class action lawsuits. Both of 
these have been in the courts and settlement talks for years and years.
  In Cobell, the Interior Department was ruled at fault for mismanaging 
billions of dollars in grazing land, gas, and other royalties owed to 
thousands of American Indians. This settlement will pay off roughly 
500,000 plaintiffs in the case. In Pigford, the Agriculture Department 
discriminated against thousands of African American farmers who applied 
for loans and other assistance during the 1980s and 1990s.
  The plaintiffs in these cases have waited decades for resolution of 
this matter. Justice must not be delayed any further. Passing this 
measure will bring closure for hundreds of thousands of Americans who 
have been mistreated or had their rights violated by the government.
  Passage will also approve four water rights settlements with American 
Indian tribes, providing the tribes with funding to rehabilitate and 
build new reservoirs, irrigation and water distribution systems. The 
House has already approved three out of four of these settlements.
  Another critical provision in this bill is the extension of Temporary 
Assistance to Needy Families, also known as TANF. This comes at a time 
when so many Americans are struggling financially and are due to lose 
the support of this program if the House does not act. While the Senate 
amendments we are considering today incur more costs in the short term, 
over 10 years this bill will actually save money and reduce the 
deficit.
  On November 19, the Senate took up the bill, adopted an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, and passed the bill, all by unanimous 
consent. The House must pass these measures without any further delay. 
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I am going to talk about this rule and the underlying 
bill, but I have to say again, in response to our colleagues who were 
speaking just before we began this debate, those across the aisle who 
are in the majority by at least 39 votes, they are in the majority in 
the Senate also, and they cannot continue to say that Republicans are 
holding any bill hostage. We do not have the capability of holding 
bills hostage in this House, and it is really a concern of mine and 
some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle that our friends keep 
making that comment. They can bring a bill up any time they want to, 
just like we will be dealing with these five bills, six bills today. 
They can't blame Republicans for their inadequacies.

                              {time}  1230

  Madam Speaker, I have several concerns with the underlying bill that 
the Democrats have brought before us today. For a start, this bill is 
over 270 pages and costs over $5.7 billion; it is not PAYGO-compliant; 
it was written behind closed doors in the dark of night; it does not 
afford Republicans the opportunity to amend the legislation to improve 
the bill and to make it more responsible to the taxpayer; and it 
combines six pieces of controversial legislation of concern to my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle.
  While there may be merit in addressing each of these items 
individually, to combine them in one single piece of legislation and to 
force a single vote with full knowledge that Members and their 
constituents have several outstanding concerns represents irresponsible 
behavior. It does not represent the kind of governing that the people 
of this country deserve.
  I do want to say to my colleague across the aisle that Republicans 
abhor any type of discrimination, and inasmuch as people have been 
discriminated in this country in the past, we object to that. We abhor 
it. So our objections have nothing to do with past discriminations but, 
rather, with the way that money is being spent and the way bills are 
being brought up continually under closed rules.
  This bill contains two bills which settle two different class action 
lawsuits and four bills approving four different water rights 
settlements.
  It provides $3.4 billion to approve a settlement reached by the 
Department of the Interior and Native Americans to resolve the Cobell 
v. Salazar case concerning the alleged mismanagement of royalties owed 
to Native American tribes by the Department of the Interior.
  There is merit to reaching a resolution to this longstanding case. 
However, individual Native Americans and respected Native American 
organizations have outstanding concerns with this settlement which they 
have voiced directly to Congress. Instead of addressing these concerns, 
Democrats have brought this bill to the floor under a structured rule 
that does not allow Members the opportunity to fix the concerns.
  One of the major concerns with this settlement is it allows plaintiff 
attorneys to be paid in excess of $100 million. Since every dollar paid 
to attorneys comes from the pockets of individual Native Americans, 
Ranking Member Dreier offered an amendment last night in the Rules 
Committee to limit attorneys' fees to $50 million, but his amendment 
was rejected by the ruling Democrats, so we are unable to consider it 
on the floor today.
  The second individual bill contained in this legislation provides 
$1.15 billion to approve the Pigford v. Glickman legal case in which 
African American farmers alleged discrimination by the Department of 
Agriculture when applying for loans in the 1980s and 1990s. Alarmingly, 
when this case was originally brought forward in 1997, it was then 
estimated that 2,000 farmers may have suffered from discrimination by 
the USDA. Today, while the number widely varies, it is estimated that 
approximately 65,000 potential claims exist.
  Former Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer stated that, while those who 
were discriminated against ``should be reimbursed,'' there are other 
hangers-on trying to game the system. According to former Secretary 
Schafer, ``The problem you have with the class action lawsuits is a lot 
of people jump in that may be on the fringe, that maybe don't deserve 
it, that sounded good because their neighbor got a check. It is very 
expensive, very time consuming. Some people will get paid that probably 
don't deserve it. I don't like that kind of thing. I like to settle on 
merit.''
  Therefore, the $1.15 billion provided in this bill may go to 
claimants who do not have valid claims but, who due to the gross 
incompetency of the Federal Government, may now receive fast-track 
payments for up to $50,000 in taxpayer money. Approval of the Pigford

[[Page 18301]]

v. Glickman settlement is not PAYGO-compliant and is in addition to the 
$100 million already provided for in this case by the 2008 farm bill.
  The next four bills contained in this legislation are four separate 
water rights settlements with Native American tribes. Taken together, 
they direct the government to fund nearly $1 billion and to participate 
in the construction and maintenance of the specified local water 
systems.
  The first water rights settlement included in this bill provides 
$324.5 million to create a new rural water system with the White 
Mountain Apache Tribe in Arizona. The second water rights settlement 
included in this bill provides $136 million to approve a settlement 
agreement among the Taos Pueblo, the Federal Government and the State 
of New Mexico. The third water rights settlement included in this bill 
provides $465 million to approve the 1999 settlement between the Crow 
Nation and the State of Montana. The fourth water rights settlement 
included in this bill authorizes $199 million to approve the 
controversial Aamodt Litigation Settlement in New Mexico.
  Although some of these settlements are well-intended, there are 
fiscal concerns and a multitude of unanswered questions that still need 
to be addressed.
  It is unclear whether these settlement amounts are in the best 
interest of U.S. taxpayers. The Republicans on the Natural Resources 
Committee asked the Department of Justice months ago whether these 
settlement amounts represent a net benefit to taxpayers as compared to 
the consequences and costs of litigation, but we have not yet received 
a response.
  Voting to approve these water rights settlements forces Congress to 
be an arbitrator between sides involved in litigation. That is not a 
role that Congress should be forced to assume without sufficient 
information, information which still has not been provided by the 
Department of Justice. These settlements would be better resolved at 
the local level.
  As Representatives, we owe it to our constituents to make sure 
settlements are not being made that will overcompensate a group or 
locality at the expense of the taxpayers. There is no documentation 
that these settlements would save the taxpayers money, and therefore it 
is unclear whether Congress is fulfilling its fiduciary 
responsibilities to the taxpayer.
  As my colleague from Colorado said a little bit ago, the philosophy 
of our friends across the aisle is that spending saves money. That 
isn't an argument that the American people are buying anymore. As you 
can see, Madam Speaker, each of these six bills has individual concerns 
that must be addressed on the floor of the House. Instead of affording 
Members the opportunity to fix these bills, however, the bill before us 
today is another representation of the failed Democrat strategy for 
passing legislation: throw numerous bills together into one cumbersome 
legislative vehicle; slap an outrageous price tag on it; waive PAYGO; 
and call for an immediate vote under a structured rule which does not 
allow for any amendments.
  The American people have grown tired of waiting for real solutions to 
their problems. Fortunately, help is on the way, and in January, this 
House will set a new course toward protecting individual liberty and 
shrinking the unending expansion of the suffocating Federal 
bureaucracy. That's why I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this irresponsible rule and on the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. In response to my friend from North Carolina, I would 
say that the Republicans in the United States Senate are the ones who 
have been holding up legislation just as this until they get what they 
want. They put all these things together, and send it back to the 
House.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  Mr. CLAY. Madam Speaker, today I rise to urge the adoption of this 
rule as well as the underlying bill.
  I support this funding to right two historic wrongs that have 
tarnished our Nation for far too long--the Pigford and Cobell 
settlements. It is a sad truth that the USDA, under both Republican and 
Democratic administrations, have previously engaged in well-documented 
discrimination in loan, grant and trust programs.
  These indefensible actions adversely affected thousands of African 
American and Native American farmers. Patterns of discrimination 
resulted in the foreclosures of family farms and in severe financial 
hardships, some of which are still being felt to this day.
  In my home State of Missouri, I have personally met with numerous 
African American farmers who were misled, discriminated against and, in 
some cases, deliberately deceived by the USDA. These descendants of 
freed slaves were victimized by their own government time and time 
again.

                              {time}  1240

  In Congress, compensation for Pigford I, Pigford II and Cobell has 
been blocked by partisan attempts to politicize this issue. This delay 
is inexcusable. This is not about politics; it is a test of our 
commitment to honesty, fairness, and justice for all.
  Today we have a bipartisan opportunity to end this obstruction and 
finally do the right thing for those whom this government has failed. I 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to exercise our shared 
sense of American decency to swiftly pass this bill and the rule as we 
take final action together to resolve this grave injustice.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for 
yielding.
  I come to the floor troubled, considerably troubled by--and in 
opposition to the rule--by this Pigford settlement proposal that we've 
heard about just now.
  It was brought to my attention sometime after I was elected to 
Congress. I had a number of Iowa USDA employees that were deployed to 
Washington, D.C., and other locations to assist in administering the 
Pigford I settlement. They distributed $1.05 billion to African 
American farmers, some of whom were discriminated against. All of those 
that were discriminated against I would agree, I think with all of my 
colleagues, that they should be compensated to the degree that is 
practicable by law. However, as I sat down with the individuals that 
were administering the Pigford I settlement, and one of them came back 
with a box of file forms and applications sick to his stomach and told 
me that he had been compelled to engage in a practice that he believed 
was 75 percent fraudulent at a minimum, I thought that was a high and 
shocking number and put the information away until it emerged again and 
again in this Congress. It emerged before the Judiciary Committee in 
hearings before the committee on Pigford II to open it up again. There, 
the president of the Black Farmers Organization, John Boyd, testified 
under oath that there are 18,000 black farmers. As I go back through 
the USDA records, I can find a peak of perhaps as many as 36,000, but 
his number of 18,000 sticks in my mind. We are up to 94,000 claims, 
Madam Speaker, and 18,000 black farmers. And if you presume that 
everyone was discriminated against--which I reject on its face--we are 
looking at something here that is a multiplier beyond what this 
Congress ever intended. And as the gentlelady from North Carolina said, 
an anticipated couple of thousand applicants turns into now 90,000-plus 
applicants, of which perhaps two-thirds of them may be successful in 
their $50,000 stipend.
  There was a statute of limitations. That consent decree was closed 
April 14, 1999, and since that time it has been opened up a second 
time. The Ag Committee is the other component of this. Myself and 
Congressman Goodlatte of Virginia are the only two that serve on 
Judiciary and on Ag. There, in the 2008 farm bill, the chairman of the 
Ag Committee, Mr. Peterson, put in $100 million to be the end, the 
settlement of Pigford. That was going to be the end of it for all time. 
We had an intense

[[Page 18302]]

conversation on that. I said it will be an additional $1.3 billion; he 
insisted that $100 million would end it. I have the language here, 
Madam Speaker, that puts the cap on this at $100 million. Here we are, 
2 short years later, with $1.3 billion, and the people that I'm talking 
to that have administered this at higher levels yet than those that 
first brought it to my attention tell me that the levels of fraud are 
higher yet. And it is not just $50,000, it's $50,000 plus 25 percent of 
that check that goes to the IRS to pay the tax liability, so there's 
another $12,500. Judge Paul Friedman estimated the debt that would be 
forgiven would be an average of $100,000 per black farmer and another 
25 percent IRS checks. So we're at $187,500, and still this Congress 
has no access to the records other than those that have been spirited 
out of the USDA.
  So it isn't just that we should not fund this; there is no deal. 
There was no Congress directive that sent Eric Holder and Tom Vilsack 
to sit down with John Boyd of the Black Farmers and make a new deal and 
come to this Congress and say appropriate $1.5 billion additional 
dollars to fund the Pigford II. That was their elective. In fact, that 
was their elective in the face of Congress' direction that it would be 
capped at $100 million in the 2008 farm bill. There is no deal unless 
Congress authorizes this today. And if we do so, we are asking Members 
that haven't had access to the information to ratify an agreement that 
was put together by Eric Holder and Tom Vilsack at their own volition, 
not by the direction of Congress.
  The next Congress has an obligation to look into these records and 
check the data and follow through the threads of fraud and be honest 
with the American taxpayers and make sure that those that have been 
discriminated against are compensated. But the central point here is 
this, Madam Speaker: For the altogether $2.3 billion that the taxpayers 
have accepted this liability, there hasn't been one USDA employee that 
has been fired or disciplined, not one. And the Secretary of 
Agriculture tells me he's not willing to relitigate Pigford I, he's not 
willing to open up the records to allow us to look at it, and he's not 
willing to allow us to look over his shoulder to assure that Pigford II 
is less fraudulent than Pigford I.
  For all of these reasons, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
rule and ``no'' on the bill.

    H.R. 2419 SEC. 14012. DETERMINATION ON MERITS OF PIGFORD CLAIMS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Consent Decree.--The term `consent decree' means the 
     consent decree in the case of Pigford v. Glickman, approved 
     by the United States District Court for the District of 
     Columbia on April 14, 1999.
       (2) Department.--The term `Department' means the Department 
     of Agriculture.
       (3) Pigford Claim.--The term `Pigford claim' means a 
     discrimination complaint, as defined by section 1(h) of the 
     consent decree and documented under section 5(b) of the 
     consent decree.
       (4) Pigford Claimant.--The term `Pigford claimant' means an 
     individual who previously submitted a late-filing request 
     under section 5(g) of the consent decree.
       (b) Determination on Merits.--Any Pigford claimant who has 
     not previously obtained a determination on the merits of a 
     Pigford claim may, in a civil action brought in the United 
     States District Court for the District of Columbia, obtain 
     that determination.
       (c) Limitation.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), all payments or 
     debt relief (including any limitation on foreclosure under 
     subsection (h)) shall be made exclusively from funds made 
     available under subsection (i).
       (2) Maximum amount.--The total amount of payments and debt 
     relief pursuant to actions commenced under subsection (b) 
     shall not exceed $100,000,000.
       (d) Intent of Congress as to Remedial Nature of Section.--
     It is the intent of Congress that this section be liberally 
     construed so as to effectuate its remedial purpose of giving 
     a full determination on the merits for each Pigford claim 
     previously denied that determination.
       (e) Loan Data.--
       (1) Report to person submitting petition.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the 
     Secretary receives notice of a complaint filed by a claimant 
     under subsection (b), the Secretary shall provide to the 
     claimant a report on farm credit loans and noncredit 
     benefits, as appropriate, made within the claimant's county 
     (or if no documents are found, within an adjacent county as 
     determined by the claimant), by the Department during the 
     period beginning on January 1 of the year preceding the 
     period covered by the complaint and ending on December 31 of 
     the year following the period.
       (B) Requirements.--A report under subparagraph (A) shall 
     contain information on all persons whose application for a 
     loan or benefit was accepted, including--
       (i) the race of the applicant;
       (ii) the date of application;
       (iii) the date of the loan or benefit decision, as 
     appropriate;
       (iv) the location of the office making the loan or benefit 
     decision, as appropriate;
       (v) all data relevant to the decisionmaking process for the 
     loan or benefit, as appropriate; and
       (vi) all data relevant to the servicing of the loan or 
     benefit, as appropriate.
       (2) No personally identifiable information.--The reports 
     provided pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not contain any 
     information that would identify any person who applied for a 
     loan from the Department.
       (3) Reporting deadline.--
       (A) In General.--The Secretary shall--
       (i) provide to claimants the reports required under 
     paragraph (1) as quickly as practicable after the Secretary 
     receives notice of a complaint filed by a claimant under 
     subsection (b); and
       (ii) devote such resources of the Department as are 
     necessary to make providing the reports expeditiously a high 
     priority of the Department.
       (B) Extension.--A court may extend the deadline for 
     providing the report required in a particular case under 
     paragraph (1) if the Secretary establishes that meeting the 
     deadline is not feasible and demonstrates a continuing effort 
     and commitment to provide the required report expeditiously.
       (f) Expedited Resolutions Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--Any person filing a complaint under this 
     section for discrimination in the application for, or making 
     or servicing of, a farm loan, at the discretion of the 
     person, may seek liquidated damages of $50,000, discharge of 
     the debt that was incurred under, or affected by, the 1 or 
     more programs that were the subject of the 1 or more 
     discrimination claims that are the subject of the person's 
     complaint, and a tax payment in the amount equal to 25 
     percent of the liquidated damages and loan principal 
     discharged, in which case--
       (A) if only such damages, debt discharge, and tax payment 
     are sought, the complainant shall be able to prove the case 
     of the complainant by substantial evidence (as defined in 
     section 1(1) of the consent decree); and
       (B) the court shall decide the case based on a review of 
     documents submitted by the complainant and defendant relevant 
     to the issues of liability and damages.
       (2) Noncredit claims.--
       (A) Standard.--In any case in which a claimant asserts a 
     noncredit claim under a benefit program of the Department, 
     the court shall determine the merits of the claim in 
     accordance with section 9(b)(i) of the consent decree.
       (B) Relief.--A claimant who prevails on a claim of 
     discrimination involving a noncredit benefit program of the 
     Department shall be entitled to a payment by the Department 
     in a total amount of $3,000, without regard to the number of 
     such claims on which the claimant prevails.
       (g) Actual Damages.--A claimant who files a claim under 
     this section for discrimination under subsection (b) but not 
     under subsection (f) and who prevails on the claim shall be 
     entitled to actual damages sustained by the claimant.
       (h) Limitation on Foreclosures.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, during the pendency of a Pigford claim, the 
     Secretary may not begin acceleration on or foreclosure of a 
     loan if--
       (1) the borrower is a Pigford claimant; and
       (2) makes a prima facie case in an appropriate 
     administrative proceeding that the acceleration or 
     foreclosure is related to a Pigford claim.
       (i) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--Of the funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation, the Secretary shall make available for payments 
     and debt relief in satisfaction of claims against the United 
     States under subsection (b) and for any actions under 
     subsection (g) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, to remain 
     available until expended.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--In addition to funds 
     made available under paragraph (1), there are authorized to 
     be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this 
     section.
       (j) Reporting Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and every 180 days thereafter until 
     the funds made available under subsection (i) are depleted, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the Senate a report that describes the status of 
     available funds under subsection (i) and the number of 
     pending claims under subsection (f).
       (2) Depletion of funds report.--In addition to the reports 
     required under paragraph

[[Page 18303]]

     (1), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on the Judiciary of the Senate a report that notifies the 
     Committees when 75 percent of the funds made available under 
     subsection (i)(1) have been depleted.
       (k) Termination of Authority.--The authority to file a 
     claim under this section terminates 2 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would just say to my friend from Iowa that the 
settlement now applies to all African American farmers who were 
discriminated against, not just those that filed their claim by 1997, 
and as a consequence, it's a much broader class that is being settled 
with. We just can't have this kind of discrimination going on in this 
country, and America needs to pay its debts and not allow this kind of 
discrimination to go forward.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Ohio, 
Congresswoman Fudge.
  Ms. FUDGE. Thank you for the time.
  Madam Speaker, here we go again. It's just a matter of delay, delay, 
no, no, no.
  Eleven years ago, tens of thousands of black farmers settled a 
landmark court case which addressed years and years of discrimination 
by the Department of Agriculture. Finally, finally, today, Madam 
Speaker, these farmers, these men and women who literally put food on 
our tables are receiving justice.
  While litigation against the USDA for discrimination against black 
farmers began in August of 1997 with the Pigford and Glickman case, the 
injustice has spanned decades. Over 66,000 black farmers were routinely 
denied USDA farm loans or forced to wait, to wait and wait for loan 
approvals much longer than non-minorities. These farmers faced 
foreclosure and financial ruin because of USDA's discriminatory denials 
and unconscionable actions. Many of these farmers died, helplessly, 
hopelessly waiting for justice. Today, finally this Congress will pass 
the funding legislation, which is about more than just money; today's 
vote is about justice.
  Now, make no mistake, I do indeed take issue with redirecting money 
from our Nation's needy infants and children to right this wrong. 
However, justice delayed is justice denied, and I would hope that my 
colleagues across the aisle who keep talking about fraud, we've been 
talking about Pigford for years, if there is fraud, where is your 
proof? Madam Speaker, I say today that there is no fraud. The courts 
have put in every single hoop they can possibly put in for black 
farmers to jump through. It is time for us to pay these people their 
just due.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think the debate on this bill today points out why we have such a 
broken system in this country right now.

                              {time}  1250

  The Federal Government has no business being in the farm business. We 
need to get our Federal Government back to the intended purposes of the 
Federal Government, which are very limited in our Constitution. Every 
time the Federal Government gets involved in things it has no business 
getting involved in, they go awry, and I think the arguments from our 
colleagues across the aisle point that out.
  I also want to point out that contrary to statements repeated over 
and over again by our colleagues across the aisle, Americans have not 
enjoyed any tax cuts in the past 4 years since they have been in charge 
of this Congress. To the contrary, the House Republican Ways and Means 
Committee has highlighted more than $680 billion in tax increases that 
have been imposed on the American people since the ruling liberal 
Democrats took control of Washington in January of 2009. Now, because 
of Democrat inaction, the American people are looking at the largest 
tax increase in the history of our country, which would affect all 
married couples, all families with children, seniors, and small 
businesses. That would destroy an average of 693 jobs every year 
through 2020; drain $726 billion from disposable income, $38 billion 
from personal savings, and $33 billion from business investments.
  That would raise taxes on the 55 percent of all joint filers earning 
more than $250,000 who run small businesses that employ others; cost 
the average nonfarm small business owner $3,500 more in taxes; cost the 
49 percent of all seniors with income below $250,000 525 more dollars 
in additional dividend taxes, and cost the 25 percent of seniors with 
income below $250,000 $742 in higher taxes.
  President Obama's plan to allow portions of the 2001 and 2003 tax 
rates to expire, resulting in steep tax hikes beginning in January of 
2011 for small businesses and those earning $250,000 or more would 
significantly affect the economy in North Carolina, most notably in the 
number of jobs and changes in personal income.
  According to the Heritage Foundation, from 2011 to 2020, North 
Carolina's Fifth Congressional District would lose, on average, 1,577 
jobs annually; lose, per household, $4,647 in total disposable income; 
and see total districtwide individual income taxes increase by $827 
million.
  The job-killing consequences continue with evidence based on a 
simulation of the Moody's Analytics macroeconomic model, which 
indicates that an across-the-board tax increase would precipitate a 
double-dip recession during the first half of 2011; leave employment in 
decline throughout 2011, ultimately leading to 8.6 million fewer jobs 
than we had in 2007; aggravate the unemployment rate, which would 
remain above 10 percent through late 2012; promote a sluggish GDP 
growth of 0.9 percent in 2011; and prevent a return to full employment 
until 2015.
  Although the proposal to increase income taxes for those earning over 
$250,000 technically applies to 2 percent of taxpayers, the simple 
truth is that the top two income brackets play a critical role in 
keeping the economy running, as they already contribute 50 percent of 
all tax dollars, spend 25 percent of U.S. personal outlays, and 
generate 50 percent of small business income.
  Those with income under $250,000 will be impacted by the increase in 
dividends and capital gains taxes as 24 percent of tax filers with 
incomes less than $250,000 would be hit by increased dividend taxes and 
10 percent by increased capital gains taxes. Furthermore, half of 
seniors earning under $250,000 would have to pay higher taxes for 
dividends, capital gains, or both. Over the next 10 years, the Heritage 
Foundation projects a $1.1 trillion GDP loss if current tax rates are 
not extended.
  The case is clear. The Democrats' misguided tax plan is motivated by 
class warfare, not sound economic policy.
  Fortunately, Americans roundly rejected this incompetent governance 
and Republicans stand ready to promote policies to help restore 
America's economic vitality.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I would remind the body that we're 
here to discuss Cobell v. Salazar, Pigford v. Glickman, plus the 
settlement of a number of water right cases.
  But even having said that, I would like to respond to my friend from 
North Carolina that not even the Republican Congress that set forth 
these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires thought they would go 
on forever. They set them so that they would expire at the end of this 
year so that this Nation would have the revenue that it needs to pay 
its bills. But the Republicans who have now taken this House want to 
continue those tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires so that this 
country can't pay its bills as it's supposed to.
  So the tax cuts, prosecuting two wars without paying for them, 
allowing the bottom to fall out of Wall Street without any regulation 
sent this country into a huge deficit which has to stop, and it has to 
stop now.
  Now, we've seen, since we've passed the Recovery Act, growth in the 
economy, not that loss of 6 percent as we saw in the final quarter of 
the Bush administration. But we've seen five consecutive quarters of 
growth. We've seen increased employment from the private sector. We 
have a long way to go, and tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires 
are not the way to do it.

[[Page 18304]]

  With that, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Texas, 
Congresswoman Jackson Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank my good friend from Colorado, 
and I will agree with you that this underlying bill is not a bill about 
billionaires and millionaires.
  I am delighted to rise now and support H.R. 4783, which has been 
amended by the Senate. And I will tell you that this bill is not an 
entitlement. It is a bill that was earned by the sweat and tears and 
the loss of land and the death of many who stood for the empowerment on 
the basis of the ownership of land that would generate a legacy for 
those who happened to be Native Americans and, as well, justice for 
those who happened to be African Americans.
  I'm delighted that we have come to a conclusion on the Cobell 
settlement and the Pigford settlement--one dealing with the trust lands 
of Native Americans, and the other dealing with the inequities in the 
Department of Agriculture dealing with black farmers.
  This is the work of the Agriculture Committee, and it's the work of 
the Judiciary Committee, the Department of Justice, and President 
Obama's administration.
  How many of you have stood alongside of farmers who have had tears in 
their eyes because the only thing they wanted to do is to till the soil 
and to produce for the American people? This has happened across 
America. The name of Shirley Sherrod, who attempted in her new 
appointment to make sure that all farmers were included as related to 
the resources of the Department of Agriculture. How many of you have 
heard of stories where one farmer would get a small pittance of a loan 
and another farmer would not just because of the color of their skin, 
and it would result in a bankruptcy, a loss of land?
  America is a place of equality. And so to the Apache Tribe, the Crow 
Tribe, the Taos Pueblo Tribe dealing with water rights, legitimate 
issues addressing native lands have now been resolved. This is not a 
handout. The courts determined that the Native Americans prevailed, and 
they determined over 2 or 3 years ago that the black farmers prevailed 
as well. There was an inequity in addressing the question of treatment 
under the Department of Agriculture.
  So who are we as a Nation? We are proud Americans who have been able 
to produce our own food. That has been one of the elements of our 
greatness. These farmers simply wanted to do what was right by America, 
and they were not allowed to do so.
  And with respect to Native American lands and the trust of dealing 
with, specifically, water rights, these were lands owned and designated 
historically by law, but they were not treated right and we have now 
addressed that question.

                              {time}  1300

  This legislation is paid for. So I support the rule and the 
underlying bill. But I don't want my colleagues to rise mistakenly to 
the floor and suggest that we are handing out dollars, that we are not 
paying for dollars, that we are not being fiscally responsible. We are. 
And I ask my colleagues to support this.
  Justice finally has arrived, and it is time for us to accept the call 
to justice and provide for those who simply want to provide for the 
American people in their own way. Thank you for this settlement for 
black farmers and Native Americans.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I realize that we are here to debate something other than the 
continuation of the tax cuts and staving off the tax increases which 
are coming right around the corner. However, it is important that we 
continue to remind the American people that our colleagues across the 
aisle continue to refuse to deal with what's the most important issue 
that we need to be dealing with. Instead, we are here day after day, 
day after day naming post offices and celebrating anniversaries of 
sports figures when our colleagues have known that the tax increases 
were going to occur on January 1, 2011, since that bill was passed. But 
they have been in control for 4 years, and they have refused to deal 
with it.
  Furthermore, we have a President and a Congress of the same party. 
They both know this had to be dealt with, but they seem to want to 
leave everything until the last possible minute and then blame 
Republicans because something isn't being done. Well, ladies and 
gentlemen, that is just not the case. Our colleagues across the aisle, 
the Democrats, are in control. They could have brought the tax increase 
bill up any time they wanted to. They refused to do it. They have left 
it until the last minute. We need to remind the American people of 
that, and we are not going to be told that we are holding something 
hostage.
  I would also like to point out to my colleague from Colorado that 
when the stimulus bill was passed, what you call the Recovery Act, we 
were promised, the American people were promised that unemployment 
would not go above 8 percent. The Treasury Department recently issued 
its Final Monthly Treasury Statement for Fiscal Year 2010. This 
statement indicated the deficit for that fiscal year totaled $1.294 
trillion, or 8.9 percent of GDP. This is only the second time in 
history that an annual deficit has exceeded $1 trillion. When was the 
last time? Last year, when again we had a Democratic President and 
Democrats in control of the Congress.
  Over the past 22 months, President Obama and congressional Democrats 
have embarked on an unprecedented spending spree that has lowered 
economic growth, reduced investment, increased the cost of borrowing, 
and killed American jobs. Now, rather than reducing spending, Democrats 
hope to move a $1.11 trillion omnibus discretionary spending bill that 
would increase expenditures by hundreds of billions of dollars. In 
doing so, Democrats are ignoring the clear message of the American 
people and endangering the well-being of future generations.
  Since President Obama took office in January 2009, the liberals 
ruling over Washington have implemented an agenda of record spending 
and deficits that's unprecedented in this country's history. Since the 
liberals seized control of the White House and Congress last year, 
profligate spending has led to $2.51 trillion in budget deficits. To 
give a little perspective, the total amount of deficit spending in the 
first 22 months of President Obama's administration is more than the 
combined deficits of President Bush 43's administration over 8 years, 
which were previously the highest deficits of any President in history.
  In the 22 months since President Obama moved into the White House, 
Democrats have spent $6.1 trillion, which is more than the first 22 
months of the administrations of President Clinton and Bush 43 
combined.
  The Treasury Department reported that in October 2010 alone, the 
government spent $24.1 billion to make interest payments on the money 
it borrowed. In fiscal year 2010, the government has spent $414 billion 
on interest payments, an amount equal to 32 percent of our deficit.
  Americans made it very clear they want the Washington spending spree 
to end. Democrats, however, have turned a deaf ear, and still want to 
pass a disastrous $1.1 trillion spending bill in the lame duck session 
of Congress. The growing deficits under the Democrats' leadership will 
ultimately lead to a lower standard of living and less opportunity for 
future generations of Americans. As spending by the Federal Government 
grows to unsustainable levels, the U.S. will sacrifice its sovereignty 
by becoming dependent on debt borrowed from foreign countries. As the 
Nation's debt grows, confidence in financial markets will erode and 
propel the U.S. into a perpetual economic spiral.
  Everything from a senseless energy tax, government takeover of health 
care, bailouts of the auto industry, megabanks, and the European Union, 
combined with endless tax and spending increases leave the American 
people sitting in amazement wondering where the imagination of these 
European wannabes will lead us next.
  As the American people have been scared to death witnessing the 
deterioration of everything from the economy,

[[Page 18305]]

foreign policy, and national security, they should know that 
fortunately there is a choice between the same old tired liberal agenda 
and new, innovative solutions being offered by the GOP.
  In September, House Republicans put forward a pledge that will put 
America on a path toward economic prosperity. The pledge includes 
actions that will create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make 
America more competitive. Specifically, the pledge would permanently 
stop all job-killing tax hikes; allow small business owners a 20 
percent tax deduction against income to allow capital formation and 
investment, which will stimulate business expansion and new hiring; 
require congressional approval of costly regulations to reduce the cost 
burden that government growth imposes on businesses; repeal the 
ObamaCare 1099 requirement, to eliminate the wasteful and expensive 
mandate that all businesses report vendor purchases in excess of $600 
annually; immediately cut government spending to pre-bailout levels to 
save at least $100 billion in the first year, and put the Federal 
Government on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt, 
moving away from a debt-driven economy, and eliminating the fear that 
unsustainable spending has created.
  The evidence is in, Madam Speaker: The liberal Democrat agenda has 
failed. They need to go back to the drawing board and come back to the 
American people with real solutions to their real problems. This isn't 
the time to dither and blame the Republican minority for the 
disappointing collapse of governance we have seen since the liberal 
majority seized control of Congress in 2007.
  I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to force the ruling 
liberal Democrats to rethink their misguided proposals by rejecting 
this rule and the underlying bill to protest the liberal agenda that 
continues to distract from private sector job creation and getting the 
economy back on its feet.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I guess I have a completely opposite 
view of my friend from North Carolina as to the importance of this 
bill. The payment for wrongs against thousands and thousands and 
thousands of people that were delayed under Republican Congresses, 
Republican Presidents, it is about time that we settle these cases and 
pay the bills to people who were either discriminated against or had 
their trust moneys bungled by the Interior Department.
  We actually, through the course of all this, had one Interior 
Secretary under a Republican President who got herself in trouble. 
Ultimately, it was all resolved. Now it's time to settle these 
particular cases. Decades of litigation, decades of settlement talks. 
It is a red-letter day that the discrimination and the mismanagement 
that harmed so many people are resolved.

                              {time}  1310

  That's the purpose. That's why this has been a bipartisan bill and I 
hope will be a bipartisan vote later today when we take up the bill.
  There are 500,000 Native Americans whose communities were deprived of 
revenue rightfully and legally owed to them for commercial development 
of their land. There are thousands of other Native Americans whose 
communities will benefit by completing long overdue water projects.
  There are also 70,000 farmers in the Pigford case who were deprived 
of their ability to farm because of their race, out and out 
discrimination. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will receive some 
help this holiday season because we will extend temporary assistance 
for needy families.
  My Republican friends like to talk about tax cuts for millionaires 
and billionaires, tax cuts that were supposed to expire, have been 
planned to expire by a Republican Congress from the beginning of the 
decade. This isn't something new. This isn't some big surprise. But the 
Republicans in the House and the Republicans in the Senate would like 
to hole up and do nothing until their friends, the millionaires and 
billionaires, continue these tax cuts, and at the same time stop 
payment and satisfaction of claims that have been long overdue to these 
hundreds of thousands of Native Americans and thousands and thousands 
of black farmers, as well as millions of people who need assistance 
under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
  This country pays its bills, doesn't just give tax cuts to the 
wealthiest Americans among us. That's what this Democratic Congress is 
about. That's what the Democratic Senate and this President is about. 
It is about honoring our commitments and stopping discrimination.
  I am pleased we are going to pass this bill today, and I hope that 
all Members support it and not delay any further these rightful claims 
that have existed for so long.
  With that I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the 
rule.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 168, not voting 42, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 583]

                               YEAS--223

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Djou
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Heinrich
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--168

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw

[[Page 18306]]


     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--42

     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Carney
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Davis (AL)
     DeFazio
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Edwards (TX)
     Fallin
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Himes
     Honda
     Inglis
     Langevin
     Lee (CA)
     Marchant
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shadegg
     Taylor
     Tiahrt
     Tsongas
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Wittman
     Woolsey
     Wu

                              {time}  1343

  Messrs. RYAN of Wisconsin, SMITH of Texas, BERRY, and KING of Iowa 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Madam Speaker, on November 30, 2010, I missed a vote on 
the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4783, the Claims 
Resolution Act of 2010. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' 
on this measure.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Madam Speaker, a meeting at the Department of Commerce 
prevented my presence in the House for a vote earlier today. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the motion to concur in the 
Senate Amendments to the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (H.R. 4783).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, on November 30, 2010, I was unavoidably 
detained and was unable to record my vote for rollcall No. 583. Had I 
been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 583: ``yes''--Providing 
for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 4783) to 
accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions 
for the relief of victims of the earthquake in Chile, and to extend the 
period from which such contributions for the relief of victims of the 
earthquake in Haiti may be accelerated.

                          ____________________