Paul Gosar

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in strong opposition to H.R. 312. H.R. 312 is contrary to the view of the Department of the Interior. It contradicts a Supreme Court decision and aims to reverse Federal court decisions on this matter in order to build a massive 400,000- square-foot, off-reservation gaming complex for the benefit of Genting, a foreign Malaysian gaming company. H.R. 312 creates two reservations for the Mashpee Tribe of Massachusetts: One reservation will be the town of Mashpee, the Tribe's historic reservation lands. No casino will be allowed within the geographical boundaries of the town of Mashpee. The other reservation is, oddly, 50 miles away from Mashpee, in the city of Taunton. This site is not part of the Tribe's historic reservation and was selected by the Tribe and Genting for a billion- dollar casino project because of its proximity to the Providence, Rhode Island, casino market, 20 miles distant. There is no reason for the second reservation, other than to build an off-reservation casino 50 miles away from the Mashpee Tribe, where they currently reside. In fact, the new off-reservation casino will be only 20 miles from the New England Patriots' football stadium and, again, 50 miles from the Mashpees' historic reservation. In 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, with the intent to restrict casinos to Tribes' original reservations. By placing land in trust for the Mashpee Tribe for gaming in Taunton, H.R. 312 creates an off-reservation casino, which is inconsistent with congressional intent. This is often called reservation shopping, and it is an abuse of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The Tribe's lawyers knew that reservation shopping was a political headache, so they went to the bureaucrats within the BIA to obtain the two reservations through administrative action. RedState recently reported: No one is more desperate for H.R. 312 to succeed than Genting Malaysia. If the casino doesn't come through, the Tribe doesn't have to pay Genting back the over half a billion dollars it borrowed. H.R. 312 is a financial bailout for Genting. The Tribe is swamped with a $500 million-plus debt to Genting, and there is no way the Tribe can ever pay this back and still make enough money to sustain itself. Genting, therefore, will be the real owner of the project, not the Tribe. This kind of arrangement where the creditor practically controls the financial future of a debtor Tribe is contrary to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which requires every Tribal casino to be 100 percent tribally owned. At the committee hearing on this bill, counsel for the Governor of Rhode Island testified that H.R. 312 will cause the State significant harm with regards to revenues for education, infrastructure, and social programs and is contrary to the limitations contained in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Moreover, the American Principles Project also reported on the ties between convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, stating: The expansive Abramoff investigation uncovered major corruption within the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe. Its chief, Glenn Marshall, pled guilty in 2009 to multiple Federal charges, including embezzling Tribal funds and campaign finance violations committed while working with Abramoff to secure the Federal recognition of the Tribe in 2007. For my Republican colleagues: The bill was opposed by 10 of the 13 voting Republicans during the committee markup, including the ranking member, Rob Bishop; President Trump tweeted that he opposed the bill and urged Republicans to do the same; House Minority Whip Steve Scalise also sent an email recommending Members vote ``no'' on H.R. 312. Do you really want to vote for Elizabeth Warren's top Tribal priority? For my Democratic colleagues: Representatives Cicilline and Langevin strongly oppose this bill, and it is opposed by the Democratic Governor of Rhode Island. The bill is also ``strenuously opposed'' by other federally recognized Tribes in Massachusetts. For Members on both sides of the aisle: Do you really want your name tied to a Tribe that only received Federal recognition in 2007 as a result of shady lobbying by Jack Abramoff? Do you really want to vote for a $500 million bailout for a former gaming corporation? In short, H.R. 312 authorizes an off-reservation casino, bails out a foreign corporation from major financial problems of its own making, reverses the judgment of a Federal court, and contradicts the Supreme Court ruling. Wow, all in one breath. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to vote against H.R. 312, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to address Congress' intent, under article I, section 8. As I said before, the Mashpee reservation of the city of Mashpee is not of consequence. It is the area outside of their previous homeland of Taunton that is of discussion. That is only the aspect here. What has happened here is the bypassing of protocol and law that actually causes the problem. So let me give you a little bit of background about why I have this problem. We had seen previous abuse in the past where the off-reservation land was taken in a trust against the will of States, compacts, and local communities for the sole purpose of building new casinos. This was certainly the case of the Tohono O'odham Nation right in Arizona when they acted against the fellow Tribes, the State of Arizona, and the general public to open an off-reservation casino in Glendale, despite agreeing to a voter-approved compact not to build any more casinos in the Phoenix metro area until the compact was renegotiated. Litigation discovery and audio recordings affirm this shameful conspiracy implemented by the Tohono O'odham. I am concerned that this bill as written will encourage future abuse in that regard and allow for more off-reservation casinos to be built against the objections of local communities. Furthermore, there is no CBO score for this bill. There is no committee report that I have seen. We are pushing this bill through that has no chance of being signed into law without amendment and without knowing the full ramifications of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let's go back to some more of the myths. The Mashpee Tribe will lose its Federal recognition and benefits if H.R. 312 does not pass. Once again, that is false. The Mashpee Tribe will not lose its Federal recognition and will continue to receive Federal benefits and funding even if H.R. 312 does not pass. Here is the next myth. It was the intent of Congress for all Tribes to have land and trust under the IRA of 1934 regardless of when the Tribes obtained Federal recognition. Fact: That is not what the Supreme Court said in Carcieri v. Salazar. The Supreme Court said that the Tribal aspect of the IRA of 1934 does not authorize the Secretary of the Interior to place land in trust for Tribes that were not under Federal jurisdiction on the date of enactment of IRA, or 1934. Fact: There is no evidence that Congress, in 1934, thought that off- reservation gaming would turn into the controversial mess it has become today. Myth: After a Federal judge struck down the Obama administration's second definition of Indian analysis, the Trump administration chose not to defend the decision. Fact: The Trump administration chose not to defend the decision because the judge said it was ``not even close,'' and the Obama administration had not used this analysis in any other Tribe's trust land case. It was used once only for the Mashpee. The Court remanded the matter back to Interior for an examination under the same ``first definition of Indian'' analysis used for all other Tribes. In applying the Obama administration's analysis used for all other Tribes, the Trump administration determined the Mashpee did not qualify, and yet Tribes blame the Trump administration for something the Obama administration could have done years ago but chose not to. Could the fate of a billion-dollar casino be the reason why the Obama administration bent the rules? I wonder. H.R. 312 doesn't amend the IRA. It doesn't amend any law. Rather, H.R. 312 declares the Obama action struck down by the U.S. district court to be lawful and proper. The bill also orders the court to dismiss the lawsuit concerning the casino property and to prohibit the filing of any future lawsuit over it. Mr. Speaker, we constantly see over and over again, the problem with H.R. 312 is it is once again being rushed to the floor. I want to reference a letter from Eagle Forum and highlight, basically, their reservations. ``This bill is a deceptive plan to undermine the Federal Government's decision to deny the Mashpee Tribe land for a new casino. The Mashpee Tribe has previously engaged in questionable financial and lobbying dealings. They are currently $450 billion in debt to Genting, a foreign Malaysian gaming company, because of this project. ``The Tribe has no way of paying the company back, which means Genting will be the true owner of this project. Taxpayers should not be responsible for the bailout of their irresponsible dealings.'' Down further it goes: ``Just the issue of gambling alone has been devastating to families across the United States, especially among Native Americans.'' Further down it goes: ``For these reasons, we urge you to vote `no' on H.R. 312, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act.'' I also want to reference Americans for Limited Government: ``The House of Representatives should reject H.R. 312, the Senator Elizabeth Warren-led attempt to punch piecemeal holes through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. This isn't about the ability of Tribes using land that is part of their long-established heritage for casino development, but, instead, it is about whether Congress should place gambling institutions on unrelated land based upon proximity to urban areas. ``If Senator Warren and her benefactors wish to change the Indian gaming laws, they should introduce wholesale reforms rather than turning the existing law into Swiss cheese for nothing more than investor pecuniary interests. ``Rick Manning, President, Americans for Limited Government.'' We actually have our opposition to 312: I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 312, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act, when it comes before the House today. H.R. 312 is contrary to the view of the Department of the Interior, contradicts a Supreme Court decision, and aims to reverse Federal court decisions on this matter in order to build a massive, 400,000-square-foot, off-reservation gaming complex for the benefit of Genting, a foreign Malaysian gaming company. The bill forever strips the Federal Government of its jurisdictions over this Tribal casino and overturns a well- reasoned decision from a Federal judge. H.R. 312 also provides a massive tax shelter for Genting by shielding the land--and the casino on it--from taxation and State regulation. The bill creates two reservations for the Mashpee Tribe of Massachusetts, one reservation which we have no problem with, in the town of Mashpee, the Tribe's historic reservation lands. No casino will be allowed within the geographical boundaries of the town of Mashpee. The other reservation will be 50 miles away from Mashpee in the city of Taunton. This site is not part of the Tribe's historic reservation and was selected by the Tribe and Genting for a billion-dollar casino project because of its proximity to the Providence, Rhode Island, casino market, 20 miles away. In 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act with the intent to restrict casinos to Tribes' original reservations. By placing land in trust for gaming in Taunton, H.R. 312 creates an off-reservation casino, which is inconsistent with congressional intent. This is often called ``reservation shopping,'' and it is an abuse of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The Tribe's lawyers knew that reservation shopping was a political headache, so they went to the previous administration to obtain the two reservations through administrative action. Once again, the Federal judge, however, ruled that what the previous administration did was unlawful, so now they need legislation to authorize this off-reservation casino. The bill was opposed by 10 of the 13 voting Republicans in the committee markup. Ranking Member Rob Bishop was one of those. These Members are joined by Americans for Limited Government, the American Principles Project, the Coalition for American Values, Eagle Forum, the Governor of Rhode Island, Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, Congressman David Cicilline, Congressman James Langevin, and President Donald Trump in opposing this bill. President Trump tweeted that he opposed the bill and urged Members of Congress to do the same last week. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise also sent an email recommending Members vote ``no'' on H.R. 312. The bill is also strenuously opposed by the only other Federally-recognized Tribe in Massachusetts. All of this opposition was enough to have the bill pulled from consideration by the House of Representatives under the suspension of the rules procedures one week after it was considered in committee with no bill report or score-- actually, there was a bill report but no score from the Congressional Budgetary Office. Now, the Democrat leadership is using a closed rule and not allowing any amendments to get this controversial bill out of the House of Representatives. Given that H.R. 312 authorizes an off-reservation casino, bails out a foreign corporation from major financial problems of its own making, and reverses the judgment of a Federal court and contradicts Interior and Supreme Court decisions, it is no wonder that the majority had to resort to these drastic measures. I urge everyone to vote ``no'' and to oppose this bill that sets a dangerous precedent that will open the floodgates to off-reservation Tribal casinos all over the United States if enacted into law. Once again, I want to reiterate, if you have a problem with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, let's do the wholesale changes on a massive scale, not do it one piece at a time, one Tribe at a time, not allowing lawful actions to occur. So, I ask all my colleagues to vote ``no'' against this bill. Send a clear message that we have got to follow the law or change it wholesale for everybody. Mr. Speaker, I ask a ``no'' vote from my colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for engaging in the colloquy, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. GOSAR. All this information that we are hearing, that is myth versus fact; is that true?

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island so that we may have a quick colloquy. As the gentleman made mention, it was locals in Taunton that actually sued; is that true?

Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. GOSAR. Does the gentleman think that the court in which they sued had any of the information skewed in front of it, in front of their jurisdiction?

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that my colleagues on the other side understand that, as the city of Mashpee, no one has any problems, but it is the city of Taunton that is part of the problem, and that is where we have the gist. So I caution them to watch their rhetoric. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric coming from the other side is hot and heavy like I don't know what I am talking about with Native American Tribes when I have lived my whole life in association with Tribes. So let's get through some of the false myths that are out here that continually are being talked about. Now, the myth is that Congress has done this for other Tribes, i.e, we have heard about the Gun Lake Tribe. Fact: That is false. This will be the first time, as my colleague from Rhode Island said, that Congress would overturn a Federal Court decision where the court ruled that the Tribe did not meet the Federal standard to have land taken into trust, a State-recognized Tribe. Myth: The Tribe is facing extinction unless Congress acts. That would be false. The Mashpee Tribe will not lose its Federal recognition and will continue to receive Federal benefits and funding even if H.R. 312 does not pass. Further, if this is not solely about a casino, then my amendment should have been considered and adopted in committee. The amendment was a compromise that would have secured a reservation for the Mashpee for all purposes but not gaming. Myth number three: H.R. 312 is not a casino giveaway nor a case of reservation shopping. Fact: It is both. There is no reason for the second reservation other than to build an off-reservation casino 50 miles away from where the Mashpee Tribe currently resides. If this weren't solely about a casino, then my amendment would have also been adopted in committee. Myth: The two tracts of land in the town of Mashpee and the city of Taunton both are sites within the Tribal historical territories. My colleague from Massachusetts actually alluded to this. That would be false. The Mashpee Tribe will build a massive, 400,000- square-foot, off-reservation casino away from their Tribal land on the border. That would be Taunton, Rhode Island. In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act with the intent to restrict casinos to Tribes' original reservations. By placing land in trust for gaming in Taunton 50 miles away from the Tribe's historic reservation--he also brought that point up, that it wasn't their traditional land--what Congress intended in the Gaming Regulatory Act would be severely harmed. Myth: This bill has nothing to do with approving a specific casino project. Fact: We actually heard it again from the other side. If that were the case, then my amendment would have been made in order and received votes or deemed adopted at the committee level. The amendment would have secured a reservation for the Mashpee Tribe for any nongaming purposes. These may include, but not be limited to, the construction and operation of Tribal government facilities and infrastructure, housing, a hospital, a school and library, a museum, a community center, assisted living for Tribal elders, business development, natural resources management, the Tribe's exercising its government jurisdiction over Tribal members, and many other Tribal uses. The next myth is that H.R. 312 is not a bailout. H.R. 312 is not a bailout? In fact, the Malaysian hedge fund, Genting Malaysia, that is underwriting the casino--yes, underwriting this casino. The Mashpee Tribe will not receive a penny of revenue from the casino for many years, if ever, because of the massive size of the $500 million-plus debt they have incurred to Genting. Genting, therefore, will be the real owner of the project, not the Tribe. This kind of arrangement where the creditor practically controls the financial future of a debtor Tribe is contrary to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which requires every Tribal casino to be 100 percent tribally owned. The last myth: The Mashpee Tribe will go bankrupt if H.R. 312 does not pass. Fact: The Mashpee Tribe will only be required to repay its debt to the Malaysian company underwriting the deal if H.R. 312 is enacted and the casino is approved. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Bishop for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the current form of H.R. 375. In 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or IGRA, with the intent to restrict casinos to Tribes' original reservations. H.R. 375 reverses a major 2009 Supreme Court decision, and the bill would lead to future abuses of IGRA. The bill gives unelected bureaucrats a blank check to take any land in trust without respect for impacted communities, including other Tribes. More importantly, H.R. 375 allows reservation shopping and for lands to be taken into trust for off-reservation casinos in places where States, local governments, and other Tribes oppose such action. H.R. 375 will result in a flood of new off-reservation casinos that cause harm to States and local communities. Many of these casino locations that are nowhere near Tribes' historic reservations will be handpicked by gambling investors and Washington bureaucrats. If H.R. 375 passes, all Tribes would have to do in order to get land taken into trust and open off-reservation casinos is to show that they are federally recognized by the Department of the Interior. In the Natural Resources Committee markup of this bill, the gentleman from the Second District of California, Mr. Huffman, and I engaged in a productive debate on this bill. We both agreed to try to find common ground on which to respond to my concerns about off-reservation casino abuse and the valid concerns brought to the committee by State and county governments. Bringing H.R. 375 up via suspension this week and not allowing any amendments prohibits us from making good on that agreement. H.R. 375 should have been amended prior to being brought to the floor to address these bipartisan concerns. Taking land into trust divests the affected State and local governments of jurisdiction. When land is taken into trust, for example, the Tribe will not pay any applicable taxes on the land, but the county or city in which the land is located might nonetheless be required to supply the Tribe with county and city services, and non- Tribal residents will pay for it. At least consultation should be a minimum. The bill as currently drafted therefore increases the power of an unelected bureaucracy to divest nonconsenting State and local governments of jurisdiction over their land. This, by itself, is a great cause of concern. Let's be clear about H.R. 375 and how a bill of this scope and magnitude deserves more careful consideration than is being given here today. Currently, there are almost 600 recognized Tribes in the United States, about 240 of which have gaming operations. H.R. 375 removes the dam that provided some restraint on the number of Tribal casinos and would be a dramatic departure from existing Federal law that has been in place for almost a century. Before voting on this bill, I hope Members all understand that H.R. 375 will open the floodgates to off-reservation Tribal casinos all over the United States. If H.R. 375 passes, all federally recognized Tribes will be eligible to receive land in trust and potentially open off- reservation casinos. This includes any Tribe recognized by the Department of the Interior that was ineligible to receive land in trust and/or was denied land in trust prior to H.R. 375. According to the National Indian Gaming Commission fact sheet, as of 2016, approximately 329, or 58 percent, of the recognized Tribes had no gaming operations. President Trump opposes H.R. 312 and with good reason. That bill gives land in trust and a casino to a single Tribe that is otherwise ineligible to receive those benefits, as well as reverses Federal court and Interior decisions. But H.R. 375 does all that and more. Instead of giving land in trust to only one Tribe, it lets an unelected bureaucracy give whatever land it wants to all recognized Tribes. Thus, the same concerns that exist with respect to H.R. 312, which we will be talking later about, exist at an even greater level with respect to H.R. 375. The purpose of considering bills under suspension is to dispose of noncontroversial measures expeditiously, but H.R. 375 has controversy written all over it. H.R. 375 has ridden alongside H.R. 312 largely unnoticed, and no one has pointed out two crucial facts: one, that it exists as a contingency plan in case its sister bill, H.R. 312, fails; and two, that its effect would be national rather than local. H.R. 375 and H.R. 312 are two heads of the same snake, one large, one small. Senator Warren, regardless, will get her casino if either bill passes. Further, passage of H.R. 375 will allow for new off-reservation casinos to be opened in your States and communities and for land to be ripped away from local jurisdictions without recourse. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Bishop for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 375. Send it back to get consultation, at least, put in.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Frank Ayers for his remarkable career in education and his dedicated service to the Prescott, Arizona community. Dr. Ayers is the 7th Chancellor of Embry- Riddle Aeronautical University's Prescott, Arizona Campus. He is a preeminent example of an educator who enriched and inspired his students every step of way. His tenure at Embry-Riddle has shaped the careers of the next generation of aviators, national security experts, and aerospace engineers. In his 10 years as Chancellor, Dr. Ayers has dedicated his efforts to better the Embry-Riddle community by promoting the creation of new degree programs, establishing seven new athletic programs and creating a family atmosphere at the Prescott Campus. In addition, he was instrumental in working with the Prescott and Prescott Valley City Councils so that Embry-Riddle could help serve the greater Yavapai County region in the best ways possible. This semester was Dr. Ayers last as Chancellor at Embry-Riddle. He leaves a remarkable legacy and Embry-Riddle, along with the greater Prescott community, will miss his outstanding leadership. I wish him a long and happy retirement surrounded by his family and friends, and thank him for all he has done for our community.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that strikes section 3 of the bill. Section 3 prohibits the use of funds to advance the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement. My amendment ensures any decision made on the Paris Agreement will be based on the merits, not politics. I have said this before, and I will say it again: Either the Paris Agreement is a treaty, or it is not. If it is not a treaty, then the current administration may independently terminate the agreement without congressional approval, as the previous administration entered into the agreement without congressional approval. Makes sense, right? What one administration does by executive action can be undone by the next administration by executive action. If the Paris Agreement is not an agreement entered into by the United States by executive action and constitutes a treaty, then it should be presented to the Senate and put on the floor for a two-thirds vote per Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution. For the last several years, Democratic Members have crowed at the top of their lungs about none of the funds provisions and forced the U.S. Senate to agree to only take up appropriation bills if they don't include political riders. Riders have not been included in the final appropriations bills signed into law as a result. Well, folks, section 3 is a political, none-of-the-funds rider, whose sole ability is to try and prevent the administration from doing something they currently have the authority to do. The hypocrisy here is outrageous, and this amendment should pass based on that precedent utilized over the last several years alone. We have heard folks on the other side of the aisle claim we need to stay in the Paris Agreement in order to protect future generations. Americans for Tax Reform estimates the Paris Agreement will cost the U.S. an estimated 6.5 million jobs by 2040 and reduce our GDP by over $2.5 trillion. NERA Consulting estimates those numbers are even higher, and that the Paris Agreement will cost the U.S. an estimated 31.6 million jobs by 2040 and reduce our GDP by over $3 trillion. How does killing 6.5 to 31.6 million jobs and costing our economy more than $3 trillion protect future generations? I don't know. The European Climate Action Network reported that no single country in Europe is performing sufficiently to meet the Paris Agreement goals. A recent United Nations Emissions Gap report found that all participating countries will have to at least triple their efforts in order to meet the Paris Agreement's basic goals. China and India, the world's two biggest polluters, have said they will not even consider reducing carbon emissions until 2030 at the earliest, while we are pledging to reduce our emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025. How does tying ourselves to a nonbinding agreement that puts us at a competitive disadvantage and that countries throughout the world are failing to implement protect the American people? This is not a partisan issue, Madam Chairwoman. This is about doing what is right for America and about protecting freedom and opportunity for our children and grandchildren. If the administration didn't already have the authority to withdraw the United States from the fundamentally flawed Paris Agreement, then there should be no reason to include the section 3 political rider being debated here today. But since the United States Senate has failed to take up the Paris Agreement and weigh in one way or the other whether the Paris Agreement is a treaty or not, this body should not attempt to tie the administration's hands with a political none-of-the-funds rider. Either you are for the Constitution or you are not. Either you believe executive action can be taken to enter and leave the Paris Agreement or you don't. I urge adoption of my amendment, which removes the politics from the bill and allows any decision made on the Paris Agreement to be based on merits, not politics. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOSAR. Once again, Madam Chairwoman, this is an important application. Once again, you have to realize that we are talking about the Constitution. The other side talks out of both sides of their mouth. They want it one way when they are in the minority, they want it the other way when they are in the majority, and they can't have that. This is about the rule of law and about good policy. Good process builds good policy builds good politics, and that is just not what is here today. So when we start looking at the applications here, let's make sure the American taxpayer, the American family, is treated fairly, not put at a disadvantage by the rest of the world. Too often we have taken the short end of the stick. It is fine for us to stand up. And, by the way, if I am not mistaken, in 2015, 2016, and 2017 we led the world in carbon emissions reductions. Yes, it is that very application of entrepreneurialism and technology that has driven that boat. Let's continue doing it that way. Let's get back to good process. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I will finish that up. The State Department has a Circular 175, and there are ten opportunities that tell us whether they are an agreement or whether they are a treaty. So let me highlight just four or five of these. Number one, the extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole. This obviously impacts everybody across this country, therefore, ratification by the Senate. Whether the agreement is intended to affect State laws. This will bind all State laws, because they have to fulfill the ratification based on that activity. So, therefore, it, once again, has to be a treaty. Whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress. This agreement obligates U.S. taxpayer funds to the Green Climate Fund, which is a slush fund, but it still obligates those applications and that money to that fund. Therefore, it must be fulfilled by a treaty. Madam Chair, I ask Members to adopt my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my amendment ensuring the constitutionality of the Paris Agreement. The previous administration refused to abide by the Constitution and called this an agreement, not a treaty, despite the agreement having an impact on every American. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the President shall ``have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.'' My amendment simply states that the Paris Agreement is a treaty, and before anything can be implemented to abide by the agreement, it should be submitted to the Senate for approval. My good friend from Virginia, Representative Morgan Griffith, said it best yesterday in our Special Order when he eloquently stated: ``If we are going to bind our hands and seal our fate to be the number two or number three or number five economy in the world instead of being the number one economy in the world, if that is what we are going to do, then there ought to be votes taken down the hall. Men and women in the United States Senate should put their name on the line and say yes or no. And the American people then will know who has voted yes and who has voted no. They won't be hiding behind any games or circumstances or procedural maneuvers. Then the American people can use the power that was given to them by our Constitution and an inalienable right granted by God to use the ballot box to make a decision as to whether or not they wanted to be bound, whether or not they wanted to have their economy reduced, and have their children and grandchildren to be lesser than what we have today in our economic wealth.'' Many radical environmental groups are saying the Paris Agreement does not need to go to the Senate, that the agreement reiterates obligations already contained in article 4 of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or the UNFCCC. This is completely a falsehood. The Congressional Research Service has already proven them wrong. Let me quote the CRS: ``The George H.W. Bush administration stated that Article 4.2 of the UNFCCC, which commits the parties to, inter alia, adopt national policies and, accordingly, mitigate climate change by limiting GHG emissions did `not require any new implementing legislation nor added regulatory programs.' Perhaps, most importantly, it stated that an amendment or future agreement under the UNFCCC to adopt targets and timetables for emissions reductions would be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent.'' Furthermore, in a subsequent report, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations wrote: ``A decision by the conference of parties to adopt targets and timetables would have to be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent before the United States could deposit its instruments of ratification for such an agreement. The committee notes further that a decision by the executive branch to reinterpret the convention to apply legally binding targets and timetables for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to the United States would alter the `shared understanding' of the convention between the Senate and the executive branch and would therefore require the Senate's advice and consent.'' The previous administration purposely ignored the will of Congress by refusing to send the Paris Agreement to the Senate. I often hear Members from both sides of the aisle lament about executive overreach. Here we have a clear case of the executive branch telling Congress it doesn't matter. If Congress refuses to exercise its constitutional authority and not demand the Paris Agreement to be sent to the Senate, then this body is telling future Presidents that there are no checks and balances. Madam Chair, I urge the adoption of my amendment that preserves the constitutional checks and balance, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. The facts are that carbon emissions from the developing countries have gone up. We know that much of the money was not used to reduce carbon emissions. Once again, we are not solving it. It is clear that H.R. 9, that is what it will do. It will put the country back on the road to job losses, higher electric bills, and more government regulations while wasting significant amounts of taxpayer money in the process. We become victims in this economy. We should be leading the way. Freedom comes with technology and opportunity, and that is what the American people want. This is something where we should show the way by leadership, by saying: Listen, follow us by the way that we do things. That seems like a better approach, doesn't it, to the gentleman from Virginia?