Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 102: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 103: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), add the following:

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 115: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 268.

This resolution reaffirms congressional support for direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in an effort to achieve peace in this over six-decade-long struggle.

While the Palestinian pursuit of a state is understandable, the attempt to bypass the peace process by going first to the United Nations is inappropriate. It is a disgrace and an offense to the U.N Charter and all acceptable norms of international law to create or recognize a state that itself will not first forsake terrorism, violence, ethnic hatred, and genocide.

If a vote for Palestinian statehood comes to the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. must veto and do so until a peace agreement is achieved and maintained between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Now is not the time for either party to remove themselves from the negotiating table. Peace will not be attained with only one side seeking it. I urge my colleagues to reassert American commitment to direct negotiations by supporting H. Res. 268.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 454, I would have voted ``aye'' but was in an interview and missed the vote.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

Mr. Chair, I am offering an amendment that reduces the funding for the billion dollar Food for Peace program. Regardless of its perceived merits, our country is deep in debt, and we have problems here in America, particularly rural America, that need to be addressed.

The Food for Peace program has been rightly criticized as a waste of money and ineffective in achieving its stated goals. But the reason for my amendments are more direct: the current budget funding for this program is over $1 billion. We stand today with a $14.3 trillion deficit, and at the same time, we have unmet needs in our own backyards.

My first amendment cuts $200 million from this program and my second amendment sets aside $100 million into the spending reduction account. Then, of the $200 million cut in my first amendment, $100 million each is directed into Rural Development, Title III, here in the United States.

The reason for these amendments is straightforward. Parts of rural America rival parts of some Third World countries where we send tens of millions of dollars. We need to focus on our own people and our own communities before we spend taxpayer money in foreign lands.

One example here in the United States is the area known as the former Bennett Freeze area, an area consisting of 1.5 million acres of Navajo Nation reservation land, where the housing units have been described as ``little more than hovels'' and ``80 percent of the homes have no electricity'' and there are few paved road or communication structures. How do we justify spending $1 billion in foreign countries when we have so many unmet needs in the United States?

The Rural Development loan program would receive additional funding under this amendment, a program that gets high marks for its success; so, too, would the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program. With millions of people losing homes, they are moving into multiunit housing. This program will help Americans.

It is easy to understand the emotional appeal programs like Food for Peace may have, a program that would be reduced by this amendment. But ultimately, we are using taxpayer money for charity. Improving literacy, reducing hunger, and educating girls in foreign countries are issues that are, in fact, charitable and emotionally appealing, but we have our own literacy, hunger, and gender issues in our country. But at a time when we have a $14.3 trillion public debt, massive unemployment, and rural rates of poverty, illiteracy, and school underperformance, we should focus our money here at home. We owe it to our constituents, the taxpayers, to help them. Certainly one can see that this program has laudable aspirations, but laudable aspirations will not help the U.S. economy or the U.S. taxpayer. The problems in rural America are staggering.

On June 9, 2011, President Obama issued an Executive order to create a commission to study problems in rural America. In the Executive order, the President stated:

``Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.''

I agree. But instead of just forming a committee to study the problems, problems that are well-known and need no further study, my amendment would do something about it and direct money to the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Account Program for a rural housing voucher program and the Rural Business Program Account, which provides loan guarantees and grants for ``rural businesses development programs,'' including business grants to Indian tribes and rural economic partnership zones for farm and rural development.

Again, instead of just studying the problems of high unemployment, lagging schools, lagging infrastructure and opportunities, let's do something about it. The rural American poverty rate has exceeded the national rate since 2001 by 3 percentage points. The child poverty rate in rural America is 5 percentage points higher than urban-metro areas.

Why can't we invest millions in our rural communities instead? Why should we tolerate poverty, unemployment, and a lack of infrastructure in our rural communities while we send millions and billions of dollars to build up other countries?

In good faith, knowing how hard so many people in my district work and knowing how little they have to show for it at the end of the day, I can't agree to send their money overseas to help others while they suffer in our backyards. Knowing that infrastructure is lacking, this amendment helps start the process of directing our money to the unmet needs here in the United States.

I ask my colleagues to closely consider these amendments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment that would cut $100 million from the billion-dollar Food for Peace program and redirect it to the rural American communities, specifically to the Rural Business Development Loan Program. This $100 million will provide resources to rural business development loan programs. Small rural businesses and Indian tribes and community organizations can use these loans to jump-start businesses in our devastated rural comments.

I'll give you one example: the Bennett Freeze.

In the 111th Congress, we lifted the ban on this part of the Navajo Nation last year. This ban prohibited any type of improvement to homes, businesses and livelihoods. As a result of the Bennett Freeze, this area is worse than in many Third World nations.

What we are trying to do is address this need, and we are trying to provide some resources to this group of folks. We need to address the high unemployment by empowering our rural communities. Please vote in favor of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, my friend.

I would like to reiterate that there is an issue that we also have to take care of folks at home. For example, I brought up the Navajo Nation in the Bennett Freeze area. This is a treaty responsibility of the United States in which we forbade different groups from even raising to take care of a window pane or create economic certainty. We have to take care of our own, or we'll not be able to help anybody across the world. And that's why I actually rise in support of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

I rise in support of the amendment proposed by Mr. Gibson and Mr. Owens because I think it is exactly what the American people want us to do here in Washington. The people expect us to be responsible with their tax money. The people have made it clear, more than clear, that the Federal Government is too big. Our job is to look for waste, inefficiencies, and bloat. The Gibson-Owens amendment has found such bloat and seeks to remedy it.

There is no doubt that the USDA does good work and that the agency should have suitable workspace to conduct its work. Indeed, as Mr. Gibson has pointed out, the USDA has 3 million square feet of prime office space on The National Mall in a beautiful building that contributes to the architectural beauty of the Nation's Capital. To learn that the USDA also has a campus in Maryland that occupies 45 acres of land is, itself, concerning.

With all that office space currently available to the USDA in the Washington area and an additional $151 million to rent office space elsewhere, why does the USDA want to rent more office space in D.C.? The people of this country will not begrudge an architecturally distinguished office for the Nation's Capital, but a luxurious high- rent office in addition is too much.

Well, I would like to disagree. And that is, as I serve a vast part of Arizona, 60 percent of Arizona, in which I serve a large number of Native American tribes which are fighting to try to get economic development and trying to get broadband service, this is exactly the kind of funding that we want to direct you to the appropriate place.

The Native Americans are exactly the place that this could go. This is the economic development that they need, and they're currently in the process of trying to get that. They're trying to build that infrastructure, and this is exactly where that fund can be.

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 35: Page 49, line 23, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.

Page 80, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 36: Page 32, line 5, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

Page 35, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $100,000,000)''.

Page 49, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $200,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 31: Page 32, line 5, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

Page 35, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

Page 48, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 32: Page 48, line 11, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $75,000,000)''.

Page 80, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $75,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 50: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 51: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the table.

I rise in support of my amendment that would exempt all construction projects authorized under this act from the inflationary and unwise Davis-Bacon Act.

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. The government takes money from those who work hard for a living. In order to justify that act, we have an obligation at a minimum to spend this money wisely.

The Davis-Bacon Act adds unnecessary costs. Research shows that the Davis-Bacon Act imposes costs that average 22 percent above market wages. This is unacceptable. Every dollar wasted is a dollar we can't use on other projects.

In most cities, the Davis-Bacon Act imposes wages that bear no resemblance to prevailing market wages. In some cities, the rates are more than double the market wages.

I ask for everyone's support in stopping this wasteful use in taxpayer money.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

Amendment No. 50: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following: