Paul Gosar

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), my friend.

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the chairman of the committee.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which seeks to bolster funds for the Department of Justice inspector general in order to meet the fiscal year 2016 budget request. As a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I am a firm believer in the proper oversight of the Federal Government. The more sunlight on Federal activity, the more honest and efficient it will be. I am also a strong proponent of our inspector general community. Since the Inspector General Act was passed into law, the IG community has saved taxpayers billions of dollars and has uncovered countless examples of wrongdoing in the Federal Government. It seems only fitting that the inspector general's office receive the budget requested resources, particularly at the expense of the office it will likely need to investigate first. In the committee report, the committee noted, ``The DOJ OIG has had significant investigative and audit workload.'' In fact, we have seen numerous scandals and coverups from within this agency and at the recommendation of the previous Attorney General. I applaud the committee for including language in this bill to permanently prohibit funds for Fast and Furious-like programs and for the many other reforms contained in this legislation, but I do believe more needs to be done to ensure additional transparency and accountability within the DOJ. Let's give the DOJ OIG the resources it needs to investigate this agency and to ensure the Justice Department adheres to the law. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. I yield back the balance of my time as well.

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the chairman for his support, and I ask all my colleagues to vote for this bill.

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

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a simple good governance to the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 2016. The amendment seeks to hold the Department of Justice accountable for its failure to enforce the rule of law. Specifically, my amendment decreases available funding for the salaries of individuals who concoct ways to undermine Federal criminal immigration laws. This amendment is very similar to an amendment that passed this body last year in relation to the DOJ's lack of enforcement of Federal marijuana laws and was offered by my friend and colleague Congressman Fleming. My amendment reduces Department of Justice's general legal account by $1 million, specifically targeting the Deputy Attorney General's Office. I will continue to seek similar amendments until the Attorney General decides to enforce the Federal criminal immigration laws on the books. In 2014, the Department of Justice instructed the U.S. Attorney's Office in some States to no longer prosecute persons that violate certain criminal immigration laws. I have heard firsthand from law enforcement in my district that such actions have placed unnecessary burdens on these officers, increased costs, put local communities at risk, and encouraged more illegal immigration. The committee raised similar concerns about the selective enforcement of these laws in the committee report stating: ``The committee is concerned with the inconsistent enforcement of Federal criminal immigration laws and supports programs like Operation Streamline. The Attorney General is directed to submit a report to the committee . . . The report shall describe steps the Department is taking to ensure that the Federal criminal immigration law is enforced vigorously and consistently across the country to include prosecution guidelines and policies by district.'' My amendment is consistent with the concerns expressed by the committee and echo this message without harming the overall operation of the Department. I thank the chair and ranking member for their leadership on this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his kind words in support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my friend.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer another amendment to this bill, along with my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), that seeks to bolster another important program. First, I reiterate my thanks to the committee for the long hours they have dedicated to prioritizing limited resources in order to produce this bill, but I simply believe the House should not reward bad behavior for that type that the ATF has shown recently. My amendment is simple, and it is nearly identical to an amendment I offered last year, which was adopted by voice vote. The amendment shifts $5 million from the overreaching ATF bureaucrats to a worthy and effective program known as the Harold Rogers Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. You ask why $5 million. Because that amount would bring the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program appropriations back to the level originally approved by the House last year. The gentleman, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, is the chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, and he has been unrelenting on the issue of combating prescription drug abuse. This problem is truly plaguing our streets, our youth, and our communities. Prescription drug abuse is contributing to addiction, health deterioration, and even untimely death for too many across our country. Prescription drug abuse also fuels the demand for other illicit drugs, such as cocaine, methamphetamine, ecstasy, and heroin, along with human trafficking, gunrunning, and murder. Much of the solicitation activity flows over our southwestern border and into my home State of Arizona. The primary purpose of the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program is to enhance the capacity of regulatory and law enforcement agencies to collect and analyze controlled substance prescription data through a centralized database administered by an authorized State agency. States that have implemented the PDMP can collect and analyze this data much more effectively than States in which collection of this data requires manual review of pharmacy files. It is this body's duty, through the annual appropriations process, to evaluate which programs are worthwhile and which ones are not. The Prescription Drug Monitoring Program has shown promising results, but we must not give up. We must continue to think of our families, our friends, and our future generations. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. I thank Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Fattah. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to stand with the veterans throughout the country by offering a simple amendment to bolster funds in this act for Veterans Treatment Courts. Veterans Treatment Courts promote sobriety and recovery through coordinated local partnerships among community corrections agencies, drug treatment providers, the judiciary, and other community support groups. Veterans Treatment Courts have been extremely successful since they were first created in 2008 by a Buffalo judge to combat the growing numbers of veterans appearing before the court that were addicted to drugs and alcohol, as well as suffering from mental illness. Many of our Nation's heroes returning from combat are traumatized due to the associated violence and pressure of war and often cope with such feelings with substance abuse. They need focused treatment and a helping hand, and these courts provide such an avenue. The alternative to Veterans Treatment Courts is often jail time. I think we can all agree that providing treatment for our veterans through community partnerships at the local level is a far better option than locking them up. My amendment pays for this modest increase for this critical initiative by reducing funds for the salaries and expenses for the overreaching Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives by $5 million. I offered a very similar amendment last year, which was adopted by voice vote. The ATF's salaries and expenses are slated to receive an increase of $49 million from fiscal year 2015 enacted levels, which would bring the total appropriation level to $1.25 billion. My amendment redirects funds from bureaucrats in the mismanaged and overzealous ATF to a worthy treatment program for our Nation's veterans. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to, once again, show their support for the worthwhile program by passing my commonsense amendment. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, for several years, I have been actively involved in a troubling off-reservation gaming issue in my home state of Arizona involving the Tohono O'odham Nation. The tribe has been attempting to move from their ancestral lands in Tucson, into another tribe's former reservation in the Phoenix metro area, for the sole purpose of building a Las Vegas style casino. This comes after Tohono O'odham and 16 other Arizona tribes adopted a compact, approved by Arizona voters, which expressly promised there would be no additional casinos or gaming in the Phoenix metro area until 2027. In exchange for this promise, the voters granted the tribes a statewide monopoly on gaming and other tribes gave up significant rights. H.R. 308 was introduced to ensure that the promise of no additional casinos in the Phoenix area is kept until the existing tribal-state gaming compacts expire, without interfering in the trust acquisition itself Let me explain how this legislation came to be and why it must be enacted into law. In return for exclusivity in Arizona, the tribes agreed to a cap on the number of casinos in the state and in the Phoenix metro area, to restrict the number of machines in the state and to share machine revenue with rural non-gaming tribes so they could benefit from the compact. Every urban tribe, except for Tohono O'odham, agreed to this limitation. Tohono refused, citing the need for a new casino in Tucson or on the rural part of the tribe's reservation. The state and other tribes finally agreed to the restrictions on gaming being pushed by Arizona's Governor and others, but also yielded to Tohono's stated need. After the agreement was reached, the tribes and state promoted their model compact by saturating the airwaves and newspapers with the clear message that under the compact there will be no additional casinos in Phoenix and only the possibility for Tohono O'odham to build one more facility in the Tucson area. Tohono O'odham alone spent $1.8 million dollars urging Arizona voters to rely on this limitation. Tohono had begun efforts to find land in the Phoenix area to open their fourth casino. The voters approved the tribal state compact in November 2002 and rejected two competing propositions. The first would have allowed unrestricted tribal gaming without any revenue sharing for rural non- gaming tribes; the second would have allowed for full commercial gaming without restriction. Shockingly, a few months after the voters approved the compact, Tohono finalized a multiyear effort to purchase land in Glendale for a casino and used a shell corporation to conceal its identity. Tohono's dismissal of their promise to build no additional casinos in Phoenix is not something that Congress can ignore when the result will be so harmful to what had been a national model. Furthermore, Tohono has falsely been claiming a victory in court relative to their less-than-honest dealings with other tribes and the State of Arizona. This sentiment is factually wrong and morally indefensible. The Tohono ``won'' nothing based on the merits. Rather, the case was dismissed on the draconian doctrine of sovereign immunity. In other words, the court ruled that the tribe cannot be sued in court because . . . It can't be sued in court. In fact, the Court made a statement that it would have likely ruled against Tohono had it not been for sovereign immunity. Mr. Speaker, I submit evidence obtained from underlying litigation discovery in State of Arizona v. Tohono O'odham in order to supplement the record on H.R. 308. The opponents of this bill falsely claim that the Tohono O'odham Nation (Tohono O'odham, TO or the Nation) ``won'' in court relative to TO's less-than-honest dealings with other tribes and the State of Arizona. Indeed, one Member of the House publicly stated that the bill circumvents a court ruling. This sentiment is factually wrong and morally indefensible. The TO ``won'' nothing on the merits. Rather, the case was dismissed on the draconian doctrine of sovereign immunity. In other words, the court ruled that the tribe cannot be sued in court because . . . It can't be sued in court. That circular logic is pretty much the extent of the victory. The merits of the case were never addressed, and that is why Congress' oversight in these matters is so important. As it turned out, discovery in State of Arizona v. Tohono O'odham revealed that the TO Nation was secretly looking to purchase land in the Phoenix metropolitan area during the last 18 months of the compact negotiations and during the entire referendum process when the tribes were actively seeking support from Arizona voters on the basis that the model compact would not permit additional casinos in the Phoenix area. Evidence of these secret plans were primarily obtained from Vi-ikam Doag Industries (VDI), a Tohono O'odham chartered and owned corporation. Below are quotations from meeting transcripts and minutes: 5/18/01: VDI meeting notes including a description of a presentation delivered by Mark Curry, Tohono O'odham's lead negotiator in compact negotiations. The notes reflect ``107th Avenue-Stadium,'' ``gaming compact-unsure what will happen,'' ``put in a shell company-need to keep it quiet especially when negotiations of compact at stake'' 6/26/01: VDI meeting with Tohono O'odham's San Lucy District Council. ``We are also looking at another project . . . based on discussions we had and continue to have about a casino on the west end of Phoenix. And part of that discussion that we've had was that--we didn't want to publicize that because of the confidentiality in terms of that issue . . . Now, in the meeting we had last summer--with the task force and Jim had met with the casino people in their--in their environment. And the understanding is that it is a good opportunity again depending on what happens with the big compact. . . You have a situation with a confidentiality issue. And that's how we're holding it, as confidential, because we don't want, you know, people to know we are seriously considering this. Because if you do, I'm sure that there's going to be a lot of resistance from, you know, the general public.'' p. 25:5-20. 8/26/01: San Lucy District Meeting: ``[Male Voice]--but that is why the Buckeye property has been identified as a casino-feasible area. And that's really why we focused on that. There--there is some county islands closer in to Phoenix that we have looked at.'' p. 24:10-15. 8/22/02: VDI meeting transcript discussing the West Phoenix casino project, whether Governor Hull's successor would also opposed additional Phoenix area casinos, and the importance is confidentiality ahead of the vote on Proposition 202. ``Max: Because if that's going to be the position of the State, they don't want any more casinos around the Phoenix area, then they're going to fight it, whoever the new governor is, (inaudible), if he's going to go along--he or she go along with Jane Hull regarding taking a position. Jim: Which is why we really want to wait until the initiative passes before its gets out.'' TON0116093-94. 9/19/02: VDI meeting transcript discussing a possible leak of information related to the West Phoenix project. ``Jim: So there is some type of information going out or a leak or-- they didn't Jonathan and Mark [two in-house Tohono O'odham attorneys] didn't seem too concerned, is what they had got it wasn't up at the governor's level or at the negotiating level . . . but it's still a concern out there, especially prior to the propositions coming up for election. . . . So, we just need to be careful about, you know, things getting out and spoiling it'' p. 14:18-15:6. 10/25/02: VDI meeting transcript discussing the upcoming Prop 202 vote. ``Male Voice: We are . . . a week and a half, two weeks away from the vote. And that's going to clarify a lot also on what we can do. And, you know, assuming that it is 202 that passes, then, you know, we'll proceed in how we need to make that project develop.'' p. 2:7-3:24. This evidence, attached hereto, establishes the fraudulent intent by the TO to deceive the state, the public and other tribes. Proposition 202, which authorized the existing tribal-state compacts, was approved by voters on November 5, 2002, less than two weeks after VDI discussed waiting for voter approval before moving forward with the West Phoenix casino plans. In addition to the above, additional transcripts underscore the same double-dealing after the vote: 2/10/03: VDI meeting transcript discussing VDI's meetings with the Tohono O'odham Gaming Authority. ``And I think that's coming about because the agreement has been signed, the compact has been signed, and so there are no more real concerns that might jeopardize our chances on this discussion. So I think they're ready to move forward.'' p. 3:2-4:5. 2/23/03: VDI meeting transcript discussing the Glendale plan. ``Through 99-503 [Gila Bend Act] we could have a casino built, it allows it, but politically we might have problems. If we decide to, we need to put it in escrow and it needs to be kept confidential for the time being.'' p. 17:22-18:14. 2/23/03: VDI meeting transcript discussing potential political problems with the proposal. ``Male Voice: I just hope that . . . in terms of the political (inaudible) that's going to be coming (inaudible), that some of the metro tribes over there don't come back and jump on us too. . . . Male Voice: Might Gila River and Salt River indicate that it's a violation of the 202 (inaudible) metro area? Male Voice: Well, that's what I said in terms of political impact, is that even--even those metro tribes, particularly those three that are right there, might--might say something. But that's a big question mark. That's all.'' p. 48:21-50:23. In March 2013, Tohono O'odham created Rainer Resources, Inc. and incorporated the company in Delaware as an attempt to keep the land purchase confidential. Rainer Resources then purchased the Glendale parcel in August 2013. Rainer Resources and Tohono O'odham kept their plan secret until April 2009, when the Nation submitted its fee-to-trust application to the Department of the Interior and finally disclosed its scheme to its sister tribes. These statements were uncovered during discovery in State of Arizona v. Tohono O'odham and revealed the depth of Tohono O'odham's conscious effort to mislead and defraud voters, as well as its State and tribal partners. Unfortunately, the U.S. District Court dismissed the State of Arizona's fraud and misrepresentation claims not on the merits, but because Tohono O'odham refused to waive its sovereign immunity from suit. With regard to the State of Arizona's ``promissory estoppel'' claim, which alleged that Tohono O'odham made false promises that induced the parties to enter into the compact to their disadvantage thus creating an enforceable promise, the court found on May 7, 2013, that the evidence supported the claim but that Tohono O'odham's sovereign immunity nevertheless barred its review of those allegations. Although Congress, through IGRA, waived tribal sovereign immunity for claims arising from executed compacts, the court determined Congress had not done so with regard to actions that preceded a compact's execution such as those that gave rise to the fraud, misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel claims in State of Arizona v. Tohono O'odham. The legal conclusion is dubious as it promotes fraud and sharp dealings long since rejected in modern commerce and illegal in many contexts. H.R 308, the Keep the Promise Act, is narrowly crafted to address those claims that are shielded by Tohono O'odham's assertion of sovereign immunity. I believe it is important for the truth to be known. The tribe acted immorally and covertly against its fellow tribes, the State and the general public. This incident and breach of trust has proven that TO cannot be trusted in the future relative to business dealings, tribal matters and commercial relations. I urge Congress to resolve this issue and reaffirm its authority by providing proper oversight of commerce amongst tribes. An identical bill, H.R. 1410, passed overwhelmingly out of the Natural Resources passed the House last Congress by voice vote on September 17, 2013. This legislation has already passed the full Natural Resources Committee by unanimous consent in the 114th Congress. I urge immediate adoption of this commonsense legislation once again by the House of Representatives.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. The Center for Immigration Studies agrees the Gallego language is unnecessary and is simply meant to undercut the ongoing litigation about the legality and unconstitutionality of DACA. If the Brooks amendment is not accepted and this language is left in the NDAA, it potentially jeopardizes passage of critical legislation. My colleagues, I have fought the President on his executive actions and will fight here again. It is our purview. Once again, I said, the House has moved three times to demonstrate that DACA is illegitimate. This should be the fourth time. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Brooks amendment, stripping the Gallego language.

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Mo Brooks. The Brooks amendment is simple. It keeps the immigration debate out of the national security debate. That is it. My colleague, Mr. Gallego, inserted language during the markup to require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review under section 504 of title 10, United States Code, relating to whether or not those who have received amnesty under President Obama's DACA initiative should be able to enlist in the services, but that very statute already provides the Secretary of Defense the authority he or she needs to make such a determination if there is a readiness crisis. It is already there. Specifically, paragraph (b)(2) entitles him to ``authorize the enlistment of a person . . . if the Secretary determines that such enlistment is vital to the national interest.'' Now, while the Gallego language may appear to be simple, a sense of Congress to some, in function it will be cited by the lawyers arguing on behalf of the President's executive overreach. Those lawyers will say, you see, even the House of Representatives has passed language that recognizes DACA.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the serious issue facing my home State of Arizona. For several years, I have been actively involved in a troubling off- reservation gaming issue in my home State of Arizona involving the Tohono O'odham Nation. The tribe has been attempting to move from their ancestral lands in Tucson into another tribe's former reservation in the Phoenix metropolitan area for the sole purpose of building a Las Vegas-style casino. Tohono's dismissal of their promise of a voter-approved compact and their dismissal of a promise to build no additional casinos in Phoenix is not something that Congress can ignore when the result will be so harmful to what has been a national model. Furthermore, Tohono has falsely been claiming a victory in court. This sentiment is factually wrong. The Tohono won nothing based on the merits. Rather, the case was dismissed on the draconian doctrine of sovereign immunity, which we, Congress, have jurisdiction and oversight of, rather than the courts. I urge immediate adoption of this commonsense legislation that has passed this same body last Congress and has already passed committee by unanimous consent.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to save taxpayer money, help the Department of Energy avoid duplicative programs, and ensure the agency's limited resources are focused on programs directly related to its mission to ensure energy security for the United States. This simple amendment would prohibit the use of funds to be used for the proposed Climate Model Development and Validation program within the Department of Energy. This exact same amendment passed this body by a voice vote last year, and this year, I am also proud again to offer this commonsense policy. The duplicative and wasteful nature of this new program has been recognized by several outside spending watchdog groups. This amendment proposal has been supported in the past by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, The American Conservative Union, Eagle Forum, and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance. Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives already declined to fund the proposed climate model program in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. In previous years, the committee has proactively included language in the committee report to prohibit funding for this new program. However, such language does not exist in this year's report, making this amendment even more necessary. Mr. Chairman, I feel strongly that the House of Representatives must continue its firm position that we should not be wasting precious taxpayer resources on new programs that compete with the private sector and are funded by private investment. If funded, this program would be yet another new addition to the President's ever-growing list of duplicative global programs that have been instituted and funded all over the Federal Government in recent years. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimates this administration has already squandered $77 billion from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2013 studying and trying to develop global climate change regulations. While research and modeling of the Earth's climate and how and why Earth's climate is changing can be of value, it is not central to the Department's mission and is already being done by dozens of government, academic, business, and nonprofit organizations across the globe. Considering the extensive work that is being done to research, model, and forecast climate change trends by other areas in the government, in the private sector, and internationally, funding for this specific piece of President Obama's climate agenda is not only redundant, but is also inefficient. I thank the chairman, ranking member, and committee for their work on this bill. This amendment is about effective use of taxpayer money, and I ask my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment that passed this same body just last year. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will help prevent future floods, as well as protect valuable water storage and hydropower systems throughout the country. Specifically, the Gosar-Newhouse amendment will prevent any funds in this bill from being used to remove any federally owned or operated dams. In recent years, extremist environmental groups have increased efforts to dismantle and remove Federal dams. These efforts defy common sense, particularly at a time of major water challenges across the West and with an increasing need for clean, renewable hydropower. The gentleman from Washington has seen these attempts firsthand, and I am grateful for Congressman Newhouse's leadership in coleading this amendment. Electricity generated from the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation operated dams is utilized by millions of Americans every day and represents the largest source of renewable energy in this country. These dams are multiuse facilities that provide navigation, hydropower, and important recreational benefits. Fringe efforts to remove these dams are not only misguided, but extremely dangerous. Many of these dams are essential components for flood controls, strategic water storage, and life-sustaining irrigation for millions of acres of American agriculture. Tens of millions of Americans rely on these dams to supply their drinking water and to support their livelihoods. The vital water, energy, economic, and ecological benefits provided by these federally owned and operated dams must be protected. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Corps of Engineers infrastructure and to support this amendment. The Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation have both indicated they have no plans to remove any dams in fiscal year 2016, and both agencies don't have any issues with this amendment. Both committees of jurisdiction have also signed off on and support the amendment. Any emergency removals will be made by a different authorization or appropriation. With one of the worst droughts in 100 years currently transpiring in the West, there is no logical reason to oppose the commonsense Gosar- Newhouse amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my friend.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that we have numerous universities already doing this duplicative study, like the University of Michigan, like the University of Colorado Boulder, like Harvard University, the University of Arizona, the University of Chicago, the University of California--Berkeley--hardly squandering research. This is a duplicative problem and program, and that is exactly what we are doing. I want to find out exactly this climate model change that we have been seeing over and over with time, but it is best to be done by those universities and those who are already there. We have also got a dire emergency in regards to the finances that we find this country in. Duplicative services from the Department of Energy should be on their mission statement, and that is dependable energy for this country. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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