Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 91: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

funding limitation related to border patrol activities

I have an amendment at the desk.

I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2584, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2012.

This summer, over a million acres of Forest Service lands, as well as another 600,000 acres of Federal, State, and private lands, burned throughout the American Southwest. Those fires are costing millions of taxpayer dollars and immediate fire response, and will cost many millions more in restoration and rehabilitation in the months and years ahead. These fires reinforce the urgent need for landscape-scale restoration.

My amendment ensures this body fully funds proactive, large-scale treatments to our national forests that will reduce wildfire risk, ultimately saving the Federal Government from having to use an astronomical amount of money for fire suppression and expensive post- fire rehab.

Specifically, my amendment increases the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program by $10 million, fully funding it at the U.S. Forest Service budget request. Authorized in fiscal year 2009, CFLRP was designed to encourage collaborative, science-based, large- scale thinning and ecosystem restoration. The program recognizes that future forest management will be most effective if it is planned and implemented in a collaborative framework through private-public partnerships at the landscape level.

As an offset, the amendment decreases a related funding account, the Wildland Fire Management-Hazardous Fuel account, by $16.6 million. The Hazardous Fuel account is funded at $334 million in the underlying bill, $80 million above the President's budget request. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed my amendment does not increase 2012 outlays.

While forest treatments focused solely on hazardous fuel reduction around communities may be appropriate in many cases, they do not achieve the enduring fire protection and ecosystem restoration that are urgently required. There are roughly 80 million acres of forest across the West that are overgrown and ripe for catastrophic wildfire, according to the Landfire multi-agency database. We simply cannot afford the status quo, using taxpayer dollars for 100 percent of the large-scale restoration work necessary to prevent unnatural fires like the Wallow fire in Arizona and New Mexico.

If we are going to save what is left of our forests, we must change our priorities and aggressively treat our forests at the pace and scale these fires are occurring. Congress must fully fund proactive collaborative large-scale forest restoration treatments if it truly wants to reverse the degradation of our forests while simultaneously reducing the risk of catastrophic fires.

The private-public partnerships facilitated through the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program empowers private industry to do important science-based ecological restoration work while minimizing the cost to the American taxpayer. In 2010, 10 landscape-scale restoration projects were selected for the CFLR program. These programs are located in nine States: Montana, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington.

In the case of the Arizona project, the Four Forest Restoration Initiative, known as 4FRI, calls for the Forest Service to contract with economically viable, appropriately scaled industries capable of restoring tens of thousands of acres per year. Once a contract is awarded, it is estimated that the 2.4 million-acre project will be completed at little or no cost to the Federal Government.

Because of this promise, the project has garnered bipartisan support in the Arizona House congressional delegation as well as the support of Senators McCain and Kyl, Governor Jan Brewer, leaders in the State legislature, the affected counties and cities, and an unprecedented range of environmental groups, such as the Center for Biological Diversity and industry partners.

Full funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program ensures that the 10 existing projects, which are urgently needed, will continue to move expeditiously while allowing the CFLRP to expand into more of the estimated 80 million acres of overgrown and wildfire-prone Forest Service lands across the country that need to be properly treated.

When the Federal Government partners with local government, stakeholder groups, and private industry, together we can create much needed jobs and a safer environment for our citizens. Landscape-scale, fiscally responsible forest restoration treatments are the only way the country is going to make real progress towards proper forest health.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Gosar Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment. As currently written, the Department of Interior appropriations bill states that education ``funds made available under this Act may not be used to establish a charter school at a Bureau-funded school.'' My amendment would allow money appropriated under this bill to be used for charter schools. Now, the bill grandfathers in charter schools funded prior to 1999, but bars no new charter schools. The committee report is silent on this.

As of the 2005 census, children made up 1.4 million of the total of American Indian and Alaskan Native populations. They, and their parents, deserve educational choices. Charter schools are semi- independent schools usually within a State's public education system that are designed and operated by educators, parents, community leaders, educational entrepreneurs, and others. As of 2006, a total of 40 States and the District of Columbia have passed charter school laws allowing this type of school to be part of their system. I see no reason to deny this opportunity to American Indians.

I believe administrators of such schools may worry about administrative issues in terms of accounting for students who transfer between a charter school and a noncharter school and the moneys that are appropriated. This is sometimes referred to as the ``ownership'' of the student. But such administrative concerns should not be a basis to completely abandon this option. Competent administrators at the BIA, the tribes, and the State educational associations can work out the transitional issues.

Further, to the extent someone does not like charter schools, so be it. Don't send your child to one. But we in Congress should not be picking winners and losers. Charter schools should be an available choice to those tribes that want them. If a tribe chooses not to offer a charter school approach, that is its decision. But another tribe may do so on its own. There's no reason in this appropriation bill to foreclose this option. We should not impose our personal likes and dislikes on others.

It is my further belief that allowing the tribes the maximum ability to choose the best educational program is consistent with self- determination. Having the right to decide local school decisions is a part of self-determination, and I don't see why we in Congress should deny that right. A key part of self-determination is choosing the manner in which the tribes educate their children. As far back as 1970, President Nixon addressed this issue that was then emerging, and stated: ``It is long past time that the Indian policies of the Federal Government begin to recognize and build upon the capacities and insights of the Indian people. Both as a matter of justice and as a matter enlightened social policy, we must begin to act on the basis of what the Indians themselves have long been telling us. The time has come to break decisively with the past and create the conditions for a new era in which the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions.''

Indeed, that is what Congress did when it passed the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975. Allowing the tribes to choose a charter school option makes sense from a self-determination perspective.

Finally, according to the Center for Education Reform, there are over 5,000 charter schools nationwide. There are examples of charter schools with spectacular successes and results. I'm sure there are some charter schools that have failed in their mission. The point here, however, is about choice and allowing the tribes to decide what educational opportunities they want to create.

It is well-known that charter schools are schools of choice. Unlike traditional public schools, students may choose to attend charter schools, and if those students determine that the school is not serving their needs, they may choose to leave. It is true that many charter schools typically have longer schooldays, longer school years and higher academic and behavioral expectations for their students. For those

concerned about the current public educational system, these trends should be encouraged, but let's allow the tribes to make that choice.

It is Congress' duty to describe and allow such choices as part of its oversight and application of our treaties with which American Indian tribal relations are governed. I ask for support of this amendment and support for Indian self-determination and school choice.

I yield back the balance of my time.

We were looking that up, my colleague from Washington. We don't have that on the laptop at this point of inquiry.

It allows the option for choice of charter schools as defined as ``charters schools.''

They were grandfathered in up to 1999, but no provisions were given for that detail past 1999.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the table.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As someone who has practiced chair-side dentistry for 25 years, I know firsthand the profound value of oral health, particularly for children. Oral health care access early in life is shown to be a critical aspect of primary preventative care. This is especially true in the Native American community, which I am proud to serve as a Representative of Arizona, which has 21 federally recognized tribes.

For this reason, my amendment would transfer $4,367,000 from the Office of the Department of the Interior Solicitor General to the Indian Health Service. The committee report recommends $4,367,000 less than the President's request for dental health within IHS, and while the bill does not name dental health specifically, I would like to make it clear on this floor tonight that this reallocation of funds is explicitly intended to fund dental health programs within IHS at the level recommended by the administration.

The United States Government took on long ago a number of treaty obligations to our Native people, and health care was among them. In particular, I cannot state strongly enough how imperative it is that the Indian tribes have this effort in the area of oral health fully funded.

Believe it or not, the incidence of early childhood caries, or commonly understood tooth decay, occurs among the Native American and Native Alaskan populations at 300 percent the rate of the United States average. This is unacceptable; and, again, as someone who has practiced dentistry as long as I have, I can tell you that this epidemic will have dire consequences for these children throughout their lives.

Worse still, the severity of decay is substantially higher in these children compared to the population as a whole. Preschool Native children average more than five decayed teeth compared to one decayed tooth among U.S. preschool children of all races. In many Native communities, between 25 and 50 percent of preschool children have such extensive tooth decay that they require full mouth restoration under general anesthesia, compared to less than 1 percent for non-Native children.

We have an obligation to improve this sad state of affairs, and so I offer this amendment and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it for the sake of these Native children to whom we have an obligation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 55: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

funding limitation related to border patrol activities

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 56: Page 76, lines 10 and 13, insert after

each dollar amount the following: ``(increased by

$10,000,000)''.

Page 80, line 1, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $16,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 20: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

funding limitation related to border patrol activities

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 21: Page 31, line 3, strike ``not''.

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 41: Page 76, lines 10 and 13, insert after

each dollar amount the following: ``(increased by

$10,000,000)''.

Page 80, line 1, insert after the dollar amount the

following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment submitted with my colleague from New York to reduce the spending at the Botanic Garden. We're in the middle of a spending crisis that may lead to a sovereign debt crisis. In my view, there are very few programs funded by the Federal Government that can be exempt from fiscal responsibility and scrutiny. This is an unprecedented fiscal crisis. I applaud the Appropriations Committee's leadership and commitment to making significant spending reductions in this bill, including reducing personal office expenses and committee budgets.

There are many wonderful museums and points of interest here in Washington, D.C., and the Botanic Garden is among the best. My amendment, which would reduce its funding appropriations and take away its proposed increase, is not based on any act or omission by the Botanic Garden. They run a great program here. But let me be clear: as an avid outdoorsman and a gardener myself, I personally derive much benefit from the Botanic Garden right here on Capitol Hill. I have visited these beautiful places many times and always learn and see something new.

Our amendment is not intended to make the statement that the Botanic Garden is not a good and worthy program. It is. But it is not constitutionally mandated. It is not essential to providing key services to Americans. It does not generate jobs. It does contribute to the knowledge and understanding of the world, and that has great value.

Our country is in the midst of an epic fiscal crisis that threatens the livelihood and well-being of every single American, and even good and worthy programs such as the United States Botanic Garden cannot be spared from every effort to scale down our Federal budget significantly. This proposed amendment is a fair cut, indeed, in light of our fiscal crisis, a modest cut and consistent with the committee's recommendations for other programs within this bill.

I am confident that even with this reduced budget, the Botanic Garden will be able to offer an educational experience to all of us and to our constituents when they come to visit Capitol Hill. It is for those constituents that we offer this amendment and ask you for your support.

I have an amendment at the desk, the Gosar-Altmire-Gibbs amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of our amendment that would defund a Federal regulation, a regulation that has the force of law across the United States that is, in my view, unconstitutional and simply wrong.

Currently, as a result of law passed in the 111th Congress, a person licensed by a State to carry a personal sidearm for personal defense can carry that weapon in a national park or refuge. Prior to 2009, our own Federal Government trampled the Second Amendment and prohibited citizens from protecting themselves in some of the most dangerous remote lands we have. The ability to carry a firearm in case of emergency is imperative. Later we learned that when Congress changed the law, the bill language omitted the Army Corps of Engineers, creating confusion and uncertainty.

The Corps owns or manages over 11.7 million acres, including 400 lakes and river projects, 90,000 camp sites, and 4,000 miles of trail. Soon after the law's passage, the Army Corps proudly declared that it would continue to ban self-defense on its lands. There is a bill pending, H.R. 1865, that seeks a long-term fix, but this amendment is a short-term fix. It defunds a Federal regulation by which the Army Corps of Engineers enforces, creates, and authorizes its ban on self-defense firearms.

This bipartisan amendment to the Energy and Water appropriations bill will clarify this confusing policy. We are simply asking that the Secretary of the Army not use any fiscal year 2012 funding to enforce a regulation that prohibits firearm possession that complies with State law on Corps projects and lands. The amendment would not, however, allow firearms in Federal facilities, such as Army Corps headquarters, Corps research facilities, or lock and dam buildings. This is a commonsense amendment that upholds our Constitution and gives people who use our public lands the right to defend themselves, if needed.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. Chairman, the Second Amendment is a key component of national security. And in that aspect, it allows citizens to carry. This is about possession of sidearms only. It does not apply to explosives in or around structures.

I will finish up by saying that I wish everybody would support this amendment, and I look forward to its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 2354 that seeks to defund title 40, U.S.C. section 31, up to $20 million instead of the current $2,000 threshold.

Right now we are in serious and prolonged economic recession. The construction industry has been hit the hardest throughout the United States. My amendment defunds the Davis-Bacon Act up to a certain amount in order to allow small business and small contractors the ability to compete on the smaller government contracts.

This amendment will assist the small businesses that do not have the resources to compete for the larger contracts that compel compliance with all the requirements of Davis-Bacon. That is why this amendment defunds contract applications for smaller contracts under the $20 million threshold, but the larger projects are still subject to the Davis-Bacon Act. This is a temporary measure for the duration of the fiscal year in direct response to the recession.

Now, on average, research establishes that Federal public projects that are forced to operate under this law spend 22 percent more than projects not bound by this law. By eliminating the onerous cost for small projects, there will actually be more work, up to 22 percent more work, for the same dollar and the smaller contractors will be able to compete for jobs that otherwise are out of their reach.

Yet this agreement preserves the application of the act to the larger projects, so that those big projects across the U.S., where larger contracts typically get the contracts in any event, these companies can more readily comply with the provisions of the act and have deeper pockets to handle the administrative and other requirements mandated by the act.

We also know that one study concluded that the Davis-Bacon Act will waste $10.9 billion in 2011. We also know that the Government Accountability Office states that this act is extremely difficult to administer, and the GAO has advocated for its repeal as

far back as 1979. To a certain degree, this amendment seeks to reduce that waste, but the most important aspect of this amendment is encouraging small business participation in these government building contracts.

I have stated before that we, as Members of Congress, we are stewards of the public Treasury. We have an obligation to spend taxpayer money wisely. The government does not earn money. The government does not generate wealth. We have an obligation to spend this money wisely, and we have an obligation to help the businesses of the country, and those that build our infrastructure need our help. This amendment addresses that need.

The Heritage Foundation suggests that for every billion dollars, Federal construction spending supports 14,000 workers. Then the savings from the suspension of the Davis-Bacon law for 1 year would support 163,000 new construction jobs.

My amendment addresses this very issue and seeks to boost employment and work for small businesses and small contractors who can compete for smaller government contracts temporarily if the Davis-Bacon requirements are defunded for 1 year.

I ask that you support this amendment, support small businesses, more efficient spending of our taxpayer money, spreading our limited resources and keeping more American construction workers in a job, a livelihood, and a mission to rebuild this America together.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at a national unemployment rate of 9.3 percent, this is a jobs amendment. Davis-Bacon does not protect the Federal Government nor the taxpayer. It only increases the cost to the taxpayer and the Federal Government by 22 percent. There are no studies that show that there is any difference in outcomes. As a contractor and working in contracts, we're held to the same standards. This is a temporary measure meant to help all our small companies and business contractors. It's also an investment into increasing the number of build-outs of our vital infrastructure projects.

I urge my companions on the other side of the aisle to join in this and look at this fairly and increase the access to this funding, properly and fairly, to make sure that we get more people to work and get this vital infrastructure back and get America back to work.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 85: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 66: At the end of he bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 1: Page 19, after line 8, insert the

following new subsection:

(f) Effective Date of Policies for Certain Properties

Affected by Wildfire.--Paragraph (2) of section 1306(c) of

the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.

4013(c)(2)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end

and inserting ``; or''; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

``(C) the initial purchase of flood insurance coverage

pursuant to a determination by the Administrator that the

waiting period under paragraph (1) shall be waived for

private property that is affected by flooding on Federal land

affected by wildfire.''.

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 52: Insert after section 607 the following

new section:

Sec. 608. None of the funds made available under this Act

may be expended to administer or enforce the requirements of

subchapter IV of chapter 31 or title 40, United States Code

(commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon Act), except with

respect to a contract that exceeds $20,000,000.

Page 61, line 22, strike ``SEC. 608'' and insert ``SEC.

609''.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I ask for your support of my limiting amendment that would prohibit any military expenditure that would assist any entity that has a policy calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.

My amendment is specific and would prohibit this type of expenditure to any entity that has a policy calling for the destruction of the State of Israel. Most prominent, of course, is Iran. Just last month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated his nation's policy calling for the complete elimination of Israel.

It is not just formally recognized states, however, we need to be concerned about. History has shown that entities we consider terrorist fringe groups sometimes, through force, manipulation and popular vote, take over the state apparatus. This happened in the Gaza Strip when Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, won a plurality of legislative seats, 44 percent, in the 2006 election. The United States and Israel classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, but the United Nations, for example, does not. The Hamas Charter of 1988, never withdrawn or amended, states that ``Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it has obliterated others before it.'' This mirrors the Iranian policy, as that ``the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation.''

In the last budget, according to the State Department, U.S. military aid to Egypt totals over $1.3 billion annually in funding referred to as Foreign Military Financing. Currently, questions exist about the Muslim Brotherhood, now a key player in Egypt and potentially in Libya with the rebel opposition, and its hostility to Jews and the State of Israel. It is quite possible that extremist groups who seek the destruction of Israel are taking over the state operations in Egypt and part of Libya. Time will tell.

My amendment would ensure that we do not use our money and military assistance to help any entity that will not recognize the right of Israel to exist and to exist peacefully. That includes the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. No other nation on Earth except Israel has had to face systematic, ideological and persistent existential threats.

My amendment would prohibit military aid, assistance or funding to any nation, state or entity that espouses a policy that refuses to recognize Israel's right to peacefully exist. With the prospect of not receiving our money and assistance, the new Egyptian regime may take a more respectful approach to Israel. In this sense, my amendment takes a carrots approach.

I appreciate your support of my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.