Date: 2010-01-20
Speaker: LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Florida

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for the time. and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Over the next 2 days. the House is set to consider three separate bills that would approve and ratify tribal claims to water rights made by the White Mountain Apache tribe in Arizona and the Pueblos of Pojoaque. San Ildefonso. Tesuque. and Taos in New Mexico. The bills would also restore and protect some environmentally sensitive land and watersheds. and require the maintenance of the water systems in question until they are conveyed to the respective tribes. I support these bills when the McClintock amendments are included because I believe that the settlements will bring longterm certainty and stability to the respective tribes and water users in the affected areas. Mr. Speaker. last night the majority in the Rules Committee decided to allow for consideration all three of the amendments submitted to the three bills we are set to consider this week. I wish to thank them for their uncharacteristic generosity in allowing minority amendments. These important amendments would prevent the bill from taking effect until the Attorney General assures Congress in writing that the settlements in these bills would represent a net benefit to the U.S. taxpayer based on the costs and risks of litigation and the odds the tribes would prevail in the litigation. I believe these amendments are important because they require the Attorney General to conduct a costbenefit analysis of the settlements and make sure that they are fiscally responsible before the settlement funds can be paid. Now. I assume that the other side of the aisle will highlight that this rule allows debate on all of the amendments which were submitted to the Rules Committee. but it restricts any and all possible further amendments from consideration. It is not an open rule. The majority campaigned on a promise to allow open and bipartisan debates in Congress. yet this year they have yet to allow even one open rule. That is correct. not one open rule. And that. Mr. Speaker. includes even the traditionally open appropriations process. They could have changed that glaring and unfortunate statistic by allowing an open rule on the underlying. uncontroversial bill. but the majority in the Rules Committee decided to continue to make this the most closed Congress in history. Now. lets look at the possible reasons the majority on the Rules Committee decided to vote against an open rule for these bills. Could it be that there is not enough time on the House schedule this week? Well. the House. until last night. was scheduled to be in session until Friday. And this rule. as proposed. only allows for a total of 31/2 hours of total debate time for all three bills and all three amendments. Even though we are now scheduled to leave on Thursday. we still have more than enough time to complete the three bills with an open rule. I sincerely doubt that an open rule would garner more than a handful of amendments. It would allow the majority to say for the first time. and to prove. at least offer some evidence. that they are living up to their pledge to run an open Congress. I believe the real reason is that the majority is afraid of an open debate even on uncontroversial bills. and so they restrict debate consistently. It has become their standard operating procedure to close debate in the House. It is unfortunate. but it is a fact. I reserve the balance of my time.