Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Gosar

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

title), insert the following:

Mr. Chairman, the people in my district are hurting. Rising gas prices are cutting deep into family budgets. Food prices are skyrocketing. Communities that are home to destination locations like the Grand Canyon are bracing themselves for fewer summer visitors because families simply cannot afford to travel.

Main Street America can no longer afford inaction from the President and his administration, and that is why I stand here today in support of H.R. 1229. The bill not only will put thousands of Americans back to work, it would increase our production of oil here at home and lower the cost of gas.

It is time we put our country back to work and use our resources here at home instead of abroad, and it is time the government makes a serious commitment towards energy independence and an all-of-the-above approach that America wants.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of our country's wounded warriors.

Corporal Colbey Yazzie, a resident of Kayenta, Arizona and a 2007 graduate of Monument Valley High School, volunteered to serve our nation and joined the elite ranks of the United States Marine Corps just after high school graduation. We have spoken to Corporal Yazzie's father, Henry, who we know could not be more proud of his son. Corporal Yazzie is also a member of the Navajo Nation, a tribe that has provided our country with brave warriors year after year for decades. For this sacrifice, I stand here and pay our respects as a nation and I ask for a moment of prayer.

Today I want to specifically honor Corporal Colbey Yazzie. Corporal Colbey Yazzie was deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. He was assigned to the Marine Corps Combat Engineers. Corporal Yazzie was seriously wounded while supporting combat operations while engaged in a dismounted marine force patrol in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. He detonated a push plate improvised explosive device while on this combat patrol, and the resulting explosion severed his right leg above the knee.

Just shortly before Corporal Colbey Yazzie was injured, author Bing West travelled with Corporal Yazzie's unit, and described the high level of professionalism, determination and bravery these Marines demonstrated day in and day out. I truly wished everyone in America understood the sacrifice, bravery and diligence our Marines embody. The article is called ``With the Warriors: Patrol Base Fires, Sangin District, Helmand Province, Afghanistan'' and was published in the March 7th edition of the National Review. Let me excerpt some of what Mr. West wrote about Corporal Yazzie and his unit, again, shortly before Corporal Yazzie was injured:

The view from this platoon outpost in southern Afghanistan

is unobstructed, both visually and strategically. On all

sides stretch flat, bare, winter farmlands dotted with walled

compounds. The strategy is aggressive patrolling to kill and

drive out the

Taliban, who have acted as the rural government here for 15

years. . . .

The patrol base, named Fires because of the intensity of

the daily fighting, was at the northern edge of the Marine

advance. When I arrived in mid-January, Lt. Vic Garcia, the

seasoned platoon commander, handed me two tourniquets. ``If

someone goes down near you on patrol,'' he said, ``wrap him

real tight and watch where you step.'' Garcia explained that

the Taliban roam in small gangs among the farm compounds, sow

mines, and attack from the flanks. When we set out on a

combat patrol, the 15 Marines walked in single file across

brown, furrowed farmlands suggestive of New England in early

spring. Lance Cpl. Colbey Yazzie, a full-blooded Navajo

Indian, swept a narrow path with his metal detector, while

his Irish-American partner, Lance Cpl. Kyle Doyle, watched

out for snipers.

Near a footbridge across an irrigation canal, Yaz clenched

his fist to halt the platoon, then knelt down and scratched

at the dirt. He took out wire cutters, snipped a few wires,

and held up two small boards wrapped in tape. Glued to the

underside of each board was a sliver of metal. When a foot

pressed down on the boards, the metal plates came together,

completing an electrical circuit connecting a flashlight

battery to a plastic jug filled with explosives. Yaz attached

a small charge to the IED (improvised explosive device) and

blew it up, and the patrol continued.

In 100 days of patrolling four kilometers north of the

Sangin district center, Kilo Company of the 3rd Battalion,

5th Marine Regiment had found 115 IEDs. Another 14 had

exploded. Of the 136 Marines in Kilo, nine had been killed

and 35 severely wounded. Of four platoon commanders, one had

been killed and another had lost a leg to a mine. . . .

After discovering the first IED, we walked north at a

steady, careful pace. Not one farmer was out tilling the

lands sown with mines. Yaz again clenched his fist, knelt

down, disarmed and blew up an IED. The patrol continued for a

while, then halted suspiciously at the edge of a large field.

On the far side were two long compound walls, dotted with

``murder holes''--small peepholes for the Taliban rifle

barrels.

The Marines peered at the wall through the telescopic

sights on their rifles. Suddenly, the squad leader, Sgt.

Philip McCulloch, fired a single shot. The Marines' counter

is equally simple. One element peels off to flank the enemy,

while another keeps aimed fire on the enemy position. If the

Taliban remains too long in a fixed location, indirect fire

(fire without a line of sight to the target, as from

artillery) is called in. Every Marine has a telescopic rifle,

and most of the fleeting targets are about 400 meters

distant.

Yaz was leading the patrol back by a different route across

a furrowed field when he stopped a third time. Again he

uncovered a pressure-plate IED. ``That's crazy,'' McCulloch

said. ``An IED in the middle of nowhere.'' That IED was sure

to blow the legs off a passing farmer--or a Marine. Yaz

pointed to three small rocks several feet away, a tipoff for

a passing Taliban gang that there was a mine in the vicinity.

A few minutes later, we walked past a crumbled wall,

startling two dark brown coyotes. Again Yaz stopped, knelt.

and disarmed a pressure plate. Four mines in the path of one

patrol, and he had found them all.

Bing West, ``With the Warriors'' (emphasis added). What Mr. West has described here is an amazing act of bravery and professionalism by Corporal Yazzie and his fellow Marines. In just one patrol, on one afternoon, Corporal Yazzie located and disarmed four IEDs. Four hidden bombs designed to kill or maim indiscriminately, whether it is a child, a farmer, or a Marine. By doing his job, Corporal Yazzie can be credited with saving lives and limbs that day, and likely on many other days.

But Corporal Yazzie's service was not free. There is a high cost that has been paid, and continues to be paid. On March 26, 2011, in an effort to save lives, Corporal Yazzie detonated an IED and sacrificed his right leg.

Corporal Yazzie, we honor your service. To the others in your unit, and the rest of the Marine Corps, please know, we honor your service and sacrifice as well. You are not forgotten. You are appreciated more than you know.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Our children are being let down. Our education system is no longer the world's best. In the District of Columbia, they are facing an education crisis like none other in our country. According to some experts, the D.C. public schools spend over $20,000 per year on each and every student. Despite this, D.C. students perform the worst when compared to all 50 States. One study found that only 13 percent of eighth-graders in the D.C. public schools were proficient in reading. This must change.

You may be wondering, Why is Congress focusing on just the D.C. schools today? That is because the D.C. public schools are unique, in that under the Constitution, Congress has the sole responsibility to govern over the District of Columbia. With that in mind, it is our responsibility to ensure that we no longer allow these students to slip through the cracks. That is why I'm urging my colleagues to support H.R. 471, the SOAR Act. This bill allows low-income D.C. students a scholarship to attend a school of their parents' choice. Seventy-four percent of parents in D.C. support this plan because that has achieved real results.

While I believe education is best decided on the local level, Congress is constitutionally obligated to fund D.C. students and their education. That is why we must give parents the choice as to where their children will attend school. We can't afford to continue to ignore these students. They deserve a chance to attend better schools that achieve greater results.

Today, we have a golden opportunity to make D.C. public schools better. Today, we have an opportunity to help students in the lowest- achieving school district in the country. Today, we can give D.C. students an opportunity to succeed and pursue their dreams. Join me in supporting H.R. 471.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Theodore Roosevelt Dam, an engineering marvel that is celebrating its centennial of service to the people of Arizona, including a majority of constituents in my own District.

When Federal engineers built Roosevelt Dam on the Salt River in the beginning of the 20th Century, they did not have the conveniences of a nearby town, an existing power supply or a locally skilled labor force. Several engineering feats needed to be accomplished even before construction could begin at the site 80 miles east of Phoenix.

A road was cut into the sides of mountains so supplies could be hauled from the Phoenix area to the dam site. Members of local Apache tribes helped build the road, and they continued with the construction effort for the dam. Federal engineers also constructed a 20-mile canal to develop hydroelectric power at the dam to power a cement mill, aerial trams and cableways, and other equipment.

Stone masons cut massive blocks from the sides of the canyon. Cranes were used to lower the stones, some weighing as much as 10 tons, to the riverbed. They were laid in a stair-step fashion, which gave the dam a distinctive appearance.

Federal engineers ensured the strength of the dam by requiring the mortar joints on the upstream face not to exceed 1 inch in width. Following the laying of the cornerstone in 1906, crews worked nearly nonstop, with strings of electric lights suspended above the site allowing men to work through the night. Five years later, Roosevelt Dam had risen 280 feet high, with a base 184 feet thick that narrowed to 16 feet at the top. On the day of its dedication on March 18, 1911, it was the largest rubble-masonry thick-arch dam in the world.

Due to its engineering and construction excellence, Roosevelt Dam stood nearly unchanged for more than 80 years. In the 1990s, a new generation of engineers needed to address dam safety, regulatory water storage and flood control in central Arizona. During this construction effort, the entire face of the dam was overlain with concrete, ranging in thickness from 10 to 50 feet. The concrete extended upward to create a new crest and spillways were constructed deeper and narrower, allowing for greater water releases during floods. Renovations used nearly 450,000 cubic yards of cement, enough to pave a two-lane road between Phoenix and Tucson. The additional 77 feet of height effectively doubled the capacity of the reservoir, enhancing its role in managing water supplies for the growing greater Phoenix metropolitan area.

Mr. Speaker, as Roosevelt Dam embarks on its second century of service, it deserves special recognition for its engineering marvel and being an economic engine for central Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 570, the Dental Emergency Responder Act. H.R. 570 will allow states to incorporate the valuable resources and knowledge of dentists and dental facilities into their emergency and disaster planning. This legislation is long overdue and will enable our state governments to take an ``all hands on deck'' approach when it comes to disaster response.

As a trained dentist, I know that dental students receive a great deal of general medical training during the course of their education. As a result, dentists are skilled at patient interviews, diagnostic evaluations, triage, suturing, infection control measures, wound dressing, bloodborne pathogens, administration of medications both intravenously and orally, and basic emergency care, to give just a few examples. Indeed, some dentists receive additional training in oral surgery and are specially trained to address emergent trauma to the maxillofacial areas. Despite these qualifications, the National Health Security Strategy precludes states from including dentists and dental schools in their disaster planning framework. This is a serious omission and an unnecessary one. H.R. 570 would strike this language, and without imposing a federal mandate would permit states to evaluate how dentistry can be helpful in times of crisis and public emergencies.

The Dental Emergency Responder Act is a concept whose time has come, and I urge my colleagues in both the House and Senate to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today I join Congressman Don Young and Congressman Doc Hastings in supporting H.R. 887. I explain separately my reasons for doing so, and specifically my concerns about a request for attorney's fees of $227 million. The resolution of the litigation in Cobell v Salazar involved claims that ultimately amounted to a breach of trust by the government to Native Americans. The plaintiffs have been denied the use of money they were otherwise entitled to, according to the settlement. The petition for fees reports that ``government officials have abused individual Indian trust beneficiaries'' for decades.

While the mismanagement of the Native trust monies is bad enough, a second injury cannot be inflicted on these same peoples by a fee request that is almost a quarter of a billion dollars. It shocks the conscience to see such a large request. Every dollar paid out in legal fees is a dollar the injured Native Americans will not have. That being said, I recognize, and appreciate, the work done by Plaintiffs' counsel on behalf of the claimants, and I recognize the value of that work and the years it took. In this case, the magnitude of the recovery cannot be used as a benchmark to determine attorney's fees. I would prefer to see an accounting of the actual attorney's fees incurred, by the hour, to see how that compares as a bench mark. But a contingency fee based on a resolution that is itself measured in the billions is simply avaricious.

I therefore support this legislation, H.R. 887, that limits the fee award to $50 million. Congress has the ultimate power over Indian affairs. It also has the duty to protect Native American rights. The Constitution grants to Congress the express power to make regulations governing the territory belonging to the United States (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2). In addition, the Indian Commerce Clause conveys the express power to Congress over Native American affairs. This clause provides that ``Congress shall have the Power . . . to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.'' (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3). As a result of these powers, it is well established that Congress has plenary power over Indian affairs. It is up to us, members of Congress, to make sure we exercise these supervisory obligations.

Finally, there is what is referred to as the federal government's ``trust relationship'' between the federal government and the Native American tribes. This trust relationship obligates Congress and the federal government to protect the well-being of Native Americans, peoples who rendered their lands in return for this trust. As elaborated by Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, the tribes of our country are considered ``domestic dependant nations'' whose relationship to the United States was like ``that of a ward to his guardian.'' We, the guardians in Congress, must now intervene to protect those under our care, especially where a fee dispute now creates a conflict of interest between the class members and their legal counsel.

That brings us to the Cobell settlement. In rectifying the breach of fiduciary duty documented in Cobell, we cannot allow another breach to proceed under our noses. Just as the government has a fiduciary duty to the Native Americans in the first instance in ensuring trust monies are not misappropriated, so too Congress has plenary power to ensure that the Native American class members are not gouged in a fee award. I have long advocated for sensible legal reform. Excessive attorney's fees in cases like this support this advocacy. Though the Cobell litigation was contentious and time consuming, no one can tell me, with a straight face, that a $50 million dollar fee award is not excellent compensation for one case. On behalf of the 21 federally recognized tribes in Arizona, over 250,000 strong, from the Dine in the north, to the Havasupai at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, down to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe in the south, and on behalf of those tribes in between and throughout the United States, I rise in support of H.R. 887.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Army Dental Corps as they celebrate their 100th year of service to our Nation. On March 3, 1911, the Congress of the United States recognized dentistry as a distinct profession by establishing a dental corps with commissioned officers.

As a long practicing dentist, I know that dental health is a critical component of overall health and military readiness. Therefore, I commend the Army Dental Corps' work to improve oral health for soldiers and their families.

I have the utmost respect for the thousands of dentists who have served in the dental corps throughout the century, providing excellent care to thousands, and I commend the Army Dental Corps' efforts to keep our troops healthy and our fighting force in the best possible shape throughout the world.

Well, you're right. I thank my good friend from Missouri for yielding.

When we start to look at it in the CR, when we're talking about cuts, we can't legislate from the CR. What we have to do is we have to just make the plain cuts. And that is why in the budgetary process, that's the second step in which we're going to have to address the entitlements, looking at how we legislate directing, redirecting, and making cuts. So I think that is an important thing that the American people need to share.

That is exactly right. And the savings that we're making here extrapolates over the next 10 years at a great discount to the American people in our budget and what we're going to have to come up with in the future. That's what's so wonderful, at least by the first 5 weeks of this Congress, is zero implications on raising debt.

Well, everybody knows the analogy of a bank. When you put money in early, and let it build up in a rolling account, compounding interest, you grow to a bigger fund. That's the opposite of what's happening here, reverse compounding interest. We are building up more and more people on the rolls with fewer and fewer people actually helping out to support it. The last part is, is that we have an economy that is lagging way behind. We are still over 9 percent for how many months now? And what we have to do is, in order to create a better economy, that's what's going to help us service these programs and get people involved. So it's a variant equation that we have to work by.

Yes.

Yes, I did.

Absolutely not, and you're not going to hire somebody when you don't know the economic rules. And we have besieged the American people with a set of rules that have a lot of uncertainty to them.

With the health profession, we have tons of it, from HIPAA disclosure to anything. When we deal with insurance, the paperwork is endless.

We have people that just do insurance filings, just do our mandatory paperwork with the Federal Government.

No, and there's not a service to be provided. It's actually servicing the public interest within the Federal Government.

That's exactly right.

The Federal Government has also made winners and losers, and so we don't know in small town USA whether we're one of the winners or the losers.

And then our rule is that something went wrong. When it's bureaucrats asleep at the wheel, what we do is pass more regulations so that the small banks that we have in our communities can't lend. They're the ones who get audited five times in less than a year. What about the same application to the big banks? Where is that equal aspect to the law?

It can be, yes.

Well, what it is--I'll give you an example from right in our own district--is that we have a small bank that has 39 percent in liquidity versus loans out.

Very, very high. It's above the norm of what would be 8 to 10 percent. And yet they gave out two loans in December, but yet have already had three audits in the fiscal year 2010 and have two more scheduled in the first quarter.

Tell me where that aspect is and how that actually works, and especially when we have one bureaucrat disagreeing with another bureaucrat that this audit wasn't supplanted for another audit. That's the disruption and that's the fleecing of America.

Well, it's actually the crux and the problem with our economy at this point in time. We actually had a government that disrupted the understanding of the way the risk was looked at. And we said, no, we don't need to follow anything, particularly in the housing industry. We actually saw bureaucrats saying, no, we don't need this application of risk. We can undermine it a little bit worse. And what we got is no skin in the game, no application, no money down, and what we had is a failure along Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Well, I don't understand that madness, but it's something you have to learn in business. But you have to have the ability to reinvest in America.

If I have got money sitting there, make it worth my while to invest back in America. That's what we can do, and that's where the incentives come in. It also helps us in giving us access to cash, which has been ladened with the banks and strapped with the new regulations that come about.

Plus, we also have to look at the certainty of the environment that we create for business to grow. We're not going to take the load on our backs if we know that there's an uncertainty in the environment, whether it be health care, whether it be taxes, whether it be all of the regulations.

All these things add up. And if you don't get people hired, they are a drain on the system. And America wants to get back to work.

Well, it's like a parent. What we have to do is also work with our children, which you can make the analogy of Federal Government versus State government, empowering and giving them the environment for them to succeed.

As a business owner, what we always want to try to do is make sure that we put an employee in the best environment with the right tools and the right education, and then they can succeed. When they succeed, they make me a better business owner and much better at what I do. And that's the same thing that we have done here.

We have had unfunded mandates from education to health care, all the way across. What we have to do is start working with the States in their individual expertise and what makes them special, and allow them the flexibility to succeed as well. But we have got to put them in that right environment. And that goes all the way down from the States to the communities. This is a group effort, and this is a family affair.

Madam Speaker, red tape, the EPA, government regulations. When I travel my district, these words come up over and over again. These are not words of encouragement; these are words of frustration. Small businesses across Arizona are struggling to keep their doors open because government will not get out of the way. Enough is enough. Now is the time to make changes that will empower our Nation and put our people back to work.

Take, for example, the Navajo Generating Station in my district. They have state-of-the-art technology that makes them one of the cleanest coal power plants in the country. Yet, the EPA says this technology is not good enough. Out-of-touch bureaucrats at the EPA are threatening over 500 high-paying jobs in my district, over 80 percent of which go to the Navajo Nation, where unemployment is approaching 60 percent. The plant provides power to the major cities of Arizona and 95 percent of the power to the Central Arizona Project's canal, which in turn delivers 45 percent of the city of Phoenix's projected water demand and 80 percent of Tucson's projected water demand.

The EPA's attempt to shut down the Navajo Generating Station will put Arizona's water and energy security at risk. What is worse, the Navajo Generating Station is willing to comply with the EPA, yet the EPA is imposing timelines that no businesses can reasonably meet. Why, you may ask? Because the EPA is more concerned with their agenda than they are about the people of Arizona.

Today, I stand here asking my colleagues, the Senate, and the administration to listen to the people of my district. We have no more time to waste. We need to rein in government before it puts the rest of our country out of business.

Mr. Speaker, rural Arizona is under attack from overregulation, out-of-control spending, and government redtape. The small businesses that power my district can no longer compete. I just wrapped up a weeklong tour of my district, and one thing was clear: The Federal Government is in the way and inhibiting my district from creating jobs. Government agencies have over-regulated our businesses out of existence.

Take for example the Schultz Pass Fire in Coconino County. Last year, a 12-year-old girl, Shaelyn Wilson, lost her life because of the government's inability to use our forest resources in a commonsense fashion. As a further insult, this manmade, bureaucrat-dictated disaster resulted in a fire that could have been prevented, and now we, the American taxpayer, will be forced to pay for it for the next 50 to 100 years.

Enough is enough. A bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., should not dictate decisions that are best left to local communities that have to suffer the tragic consequences of government's actions.

I stand here today in support of Senate Bill 188. Judge Roll lost his life in the tragic shooting in Tucson 1 month ago, and I believe it is a fitting tribute to honor his memory and service to our country by designating the Yuma courthouse the John M. Roll United States Courthouse.

Judge Roll loved his country. His service as a Federal judge and the chief judge for the United States District Court was admirable. He served selflessly, as he always worked to ensure that the rule of law was upheld.

Judge Roll loved Arizona. Attending the University of Arizona for his undergraduate work and the University of Virginia for his law degree, he returned to the State he loved to serve Pima County, Arizona, and the United States.

Judge Roll's patriotism was evident in the fact that he went out to talk with his Representative at the local Congress on Your Corner event. His love for his country inspired him to serve and motivated him to come and support Gabby Giffords.

Judge Roll lost his life trying to protect another. His act of courage will always be remembered and his upstanding character will never be forgotten. My thoughts and prayers are with his family today.

The United States and Arizona has lost a distinguished public servant, but he will always be remembered for diligence and dedication to our Nation.

May God be with Judge Roll's family and all the victims of the shooting in Tucson.

I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to honor President Ronald Reagan and to commemorate his hope, optimism, and eternal belief that America is truly the greatest country in the world.

Reagan once said, ``It is not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work--work with us, not over us; stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.''

I can think of no better time than the present to listen to the wisdom of Reagan's words. We are at a turning point in our Nation and the American people are asking for a government that works with the people, not one that picks winners and losers. I am forever encouraged by the words of Reagan and will always be inspired to keep his dream of a smaller, more nimble government alive.

Thanks to my colleague, Dr. Gingrey, to acknowledge me for some time.

As a practicing dentist for 25 years, I have seen how government-run health care actually works. It doesn't. I have actually seen where what we've done has spilled over into the private sector trying to laden the private sector with the liabilities from the public sector. What we have got to do is we've used creative accounting, taking 10 years of revenue to pay for 6 years of actual treatment. I don't know as a practicing dentist and as a businessman how that actually works in anybody else's terms.

We also have to look back at our past to go forward. And there's three things I was always taught: look at your mistakes, where you're failing; look at your accounts and your liabilities; and then make sure that you make an equal playing field. That's what we haven't done here. Where is the tort reform? Where is the liabilities and assets that we've had? And make sure that we're using those properly. And

last but not least is increase the competition in the marketplace, true insurance reform where we have insurance companies competing for us on the private sector as the individual on a patient-based center.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

Madam Speaker, America is hurting, but the health care law passed last year did not fix any problems. It will only make things worse. Small businesses can barely make ends meet. And now the Federal Government is imposing more mandates, more taxes, and more red tape? Enough is enough.

As a health care provider, a small business owner, and a father, I know that the way to provide health care to more individuals and create more jobs is not through government bureaucracies, deficit spending, and higher taxes. Rather, we need to empower businesses--big and small--to band together to purchase health insurance. We need to open markets with free competition. We also need to implement real health care reform that will lower the cost of care and open up access.

Tort reform, red tape reform, preexisting conditions reform: these are reforms that will work--reforms the current law fails to adequately address or ignores altogether.

If we are serious about putting our Nation back to work, then we can start by repealing this onerous health care law and work hand-in-hand with the American people to implement true health care reform.