Paul Gosar

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. But I'm pointing back to the same purpose that I've actually seen trust exhibited here where they've actually hired people. I've seen the native people being hired. I've seen the local people being hired here, and that's a part of trust that we've got to get back to in this country.

Mr. GOSAR. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOSAR. I have been in the one in Arizona.

Mr. GOSAR. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman from Utah, and I appreciate the House spending time to consider this important jobs bill legislation this week. The need for this land exchange legislation and ensuing copper mine was one of the very first initiatives brought to my attention by the people of my district. Those folks are excited about the economic development and sustainable growth that this project will bring. They are anxious for these high-priority conservation lands to be placed in Federal stewardship. And they are sick of waiting for Congress to act. H.R. 1904 may be new legislation, but this initiative is not. Over the past 6 years, this land exchange has been subject to intensive review, public consideration, and modification. It has been introduced in four separate Congresses, twice by Democrats, twice by Republicans. This proposal truly has bipartisan support on the ground in our State and across the country. The mayor of the town of Superior, an elected Democrat, testified in support of H.R. 1904. Democrat and Republican county supervisors in each affected economy endorse my bill. The governor supports my bill. This legislation is a win-win. H.R. 1904 specifically facilitates a land exchange that will bring into Federal stewardship 5,500 acres of high-priority conservation lands in exchange for 2,600 acres of national forest system lands containing the third-largest undeveloped copper resource in the world. It is the richest copper ore body in North America ever discovered. The United States currently imports over 30 percent of the country's copper demand. This project could produce enough copper to equal 25 percent of our demand, contributing significantly to U.S. energy and mineral independence. Let me be clear. This is not going to be a new mine. The majority of the infrastructure is already in place. We are simply opening up the resource to the country's vital needs. Today, more than 500 employees and contractors are at work in Arizona on this project as they prepare for us to take action on this bill. Upon passage, the private company will be able to employ 3,000 workers during the 6-year construction period. And ultimately, the project will support over 3,700 jobs, providing for $220 million in annual wages over the life of the project. These are good-paying jobs. This is good old Superior right here who needs this. The total economic impact of the project is estimated to be over $61.4 billion, over $1 billion per year, and another $19 billion in Federal, State, county, and local tax revenues. Fourteen billion dollars in Federal tax revenue--in these tough fiscal times, I think we can all agree that the Treasury could use that. This bill is not only a jobs bill, it's a conservation bill. In exchange for opening up the third-largest undeveloped copper resource in the world, the Federal Government acquires 5,500 acres of high- priority conservation lands containing endangered species, sensitive ecosystems, recreational sites, and historical landmarks. Many of these lands being conveyed are landlocked by Federal lands, and the consolidation of the Federal lands will also contribute to better, more economically efficient Federal land management. Today, The Arizona Republic, the largest newspaper in the State, issued an editorial in support of H.R. 1904. In that article, the editorial board highlights the big benefits of my legislation: jobs, tax revenue, and conservation. In the article they state, ``The bill, with its combination of benefits, has every reason to get bipartisan support.'' They continue, ``In today's economy, it's hard to imagine that Members of Congress would fail to give this bill a resounding approval in the House.'' Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the full editorial for the Record. My legislation strikes the right balance between resource utilization and conservation. We can preserve lands that advance the important public objectives of protecting wildlife habitat, cultural, and historical resources, while enabling an economic development project to go forward that will generate economic and employment opportunities for the State and local residents. Pass the rule and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1904. [From the Arizona Republic, Oct. 25, 2011] A Bill To Launch 1,000-Plus Jobs Congress has a rare opportunity to create jobs, preserve a ribbon of river in the desert, raise tax revenue and boost production of a strategic mineral. Without spending a dime. All it takes is a ``yes'' vote on a land exchange that would allow the Resolution Copper project to go forward. The proposed mine, near Superior, is at the site of the third largest undeveloped copper resource in the world. The projected annual production volume is huge: enough to meet more than 25 percent of the current U.S. demand for copper over the next 40 years. Resolution Copper, jointly owned by Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton, plans to put $6 billion into building and running the mine. Now that's economic stimulus. But the project requires swapping private and federal property. A bill to approve it is scheduled to go to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives this week. The Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2011 is sponsored by Rep. Paul Gosar, a Flagstaff Republican. This is the third version of the swap, which was proposed by his predecessors, Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick and Republican Rick Renzi. The bill, with its combination of benefits, has every reason to get bipartisan support. Democratic Rep. Ed Pastor grew up in a mining town and knows the importance of this industry to rural Arizona. Rep. Raul Grijalva has stood in the way of the land exchange over the years. It's time for him to step aside. The concerns he raised have been answered. The one remaining issue is the opposition of the San Carlos Apaches, and Resolution Copper has committed itself to extensive consultation with tribes. Here's what a ``yes'' vote brings: Jobs: 3,000 during construction and 1,400 when the mine is at full production. Taxes: $19 billion in federal, state and local revenues. Conservation: Nearly 7 miles of the lower San Pedro River, named one of the ``Last Great Places on Earth'' by the Nature Conservancy, transferred from private into public ownership. Ripple effect: An additional 2,300 jobs in the Superior area generated by mining needs and worker spending. In today's economy, it's hard to imagine that members of Congress would fail to give this bill a resounding approval in the House. With the able help of Arizona Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain, it should get a ``yes'' in the Senate, as well.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Lujan's amendment is immaterial because it's already been done and it's already been held up by the----

Mr. GOSAR. It's already been supported by documentation already presented. It's duplicative.

Mr. GOSAR. We've spent an exorbitant amount of time trying to discuss this with our Native Americans. We actually have law that we've gone through the area in exchange that shows no actual artifacts at all. So the thing about it is that we want to make sure that that has occurred. And for the better part, since the 109th Congress, we've actually dialogued with the Native Americans, and what we have seen is an over-and-over exchange. So what has transpired is actually----

Mr. GOSAR. I have been in this copper mine. I have been in the shaft.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize Barbara Mikkelsen, a very special woman and a hometown hero doing extraordinary work for our military veterans in Prescott, Arizona. Barbara joined U.S.VETS in 2004 and has led their effort to provide affordable housing, quality health care, and job training to the homeless veterans of the Quad Cities of northern Arizona. Nationally, U.S.VETS feeds, clothes, shelters, and helps get back to work over 2,000 veterans every year. As the Prescott site director for U.S.VETS, the largest service provider for homeless veterans in the United States, Barbara was awarded the 2011 national award for Site Director of the Year. Additionally, the Arizona Department of Veterans Services recognized Barb with an award of recognition and appreciation. Barb has proven herself a dedicated and inspiring advocate. I applaud her for going above and beyond the call of duty. I congratulate her and am proud of the wonderful service to our military men and women in Arizona's First Congressional District. I challenge others to follow her exemplary leadership and give back to their community in this time of great national need.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my legislation, H.R. 489, a bill that will permanently end the bureaucratic wrangling that has occurred between the Departments of Interior and Agriculture-- a jurisdictional dispute that compromises the routine maintenance of critical water infrastructure in the State of Arizona, the C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir. The Federal Government employs over 2.1 million civilian employees. There are hundreds of agencies, and within each agency there are divisions, departments, and subgroups. Sometimes, especially with respect to land management, more than one agency has jurisdiction; and when that occurs, bureaucratic disputes arise and government no longer serves the people. This is the exact circumstance that has necessitated my legislation. The C.C. Cragin project consists of a number of facilities, including a dam and reservoir, diversion tunnel and pump shaft, pumping plant, priming reservoir, pipeline, electrical transmission line, and a generating plant. The majority of the project is located on Federal lands in the Coconino and Tonto National Forests. This critical water infrastructure project is an important aspect of the Salt River Project's Federal Reclamation Project. It is integral to providing a water supply for Phoenix and is instrumental in making 3,500 acre-feet of water a year available to Gila County. The town of Payson and the neighboring communities rely on the pipeline to supply municipal drinking water to my constituents. In 2004, at the request of the Salt River Project--or SRP as it is commonly referred to--and with the support of the Bureau of Reclamation and the former owner of the project, the Arizona Water Settlements Act authorized the title transfer of the C.C. Cragin project from SRP to the Bureau of Reclamation. Under this language, the Federal Government would own the project, but SRP would still operate and maintain it. Once a transfer was implemented, it became clear that there was a disagreement between the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Reclamation over who had the responsibility for approving requested operation maintenance and repairs. Specifically, the Bureau of Reclamation argued that it should approve SRP's work plans, environmental compliance, and other regulatory permitting requirements. The U.S. Forest Service asserted that the reclamation was required to obtain a special use permit to operate, maintain, and repair the water project. While the SRP project was able to overcome the issues with the Forest Service to complete repairs, it was with the Bureau of Reclamation's approval and occasionally over Forest Service objections. Concurrently, the added permit requirement delayed much needed repairs, wasting precious Arizona water resources, increased repair costs, and placed the economic development of the town of Payson at risk. Looking forward, this is a long-lived asset that will be relied upon to provide reliable municipal water supply to Gila County and the valley. Just a few weeks ago, a $34 million, 15-mile pipeline expansion project, which will double Payson's long-term, sustainable water supply, was finally approved by the Forest Service after a year-long delay. If Congress allows the jurisdictional dispute to continue, future operations and maintenance activities related to the C.C. Cragin project could face costly delays and could possibly interrupt water delivery to these Arizona communities. This simply is not a tenable situation. I am pleased the House is taking up legislation that will permanently resolve this ridiculous jurisdictional battle. My legislation reflects a compromise reached by the relevant parties. It grants the Department of the Interior exclusive jurisdiction to manage the C.C. Cragin project and grants the Department of Agriculture administrative jurisdiction over land management activities that do not conflict or adversely affect the operation, maintenance, replacement, or repair of the project. It is important to note that H.R. 489 will still require compliance with all requirements under Federal law, including the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. In addition, the implementation of this legislation has no cost to the taxpayer. Having a single agency overseeing the project remains important--if not more important now that the project is operational. The United States Bureau of Reclamation has the expertise to conduct oversight on water supply projects and does so on many of the projects that are within national forests. This commonsense legislation meets the needs of SRP and Reclamation to ensure the infrastructure can be maintained while accommodating the Forest Service, ensuring they continue to manage the lands underlying the utility corridor with respect to recreation, wildfire, law enforcement, and other activities consistent with its authorities, responsibilities, and expertise. It is important to note that when the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing on my bill on May 12, all parties--including the Bureau of Reclamation and the Forest Service--agreed that H.R. 489 is vital to the long-term management of the C.C. Cragin dam and reservoir project and would bring about necessary economic certainty for the town of Payson and other impacted communities. It is not often that Congress gets the opportunity to take up noncontroversial legislation like H.R. 489. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 470, the Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011. Hoover power is a vital power resource for the consumers in the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada, as well as over 29 million people who rely on this clean renewable source of energy. Hydroelectric power from the Hoover Dam was first allocated by Congress in 1928 and has been allocated by Congress ever since. The current power contracts expire in 2017. It is important this body pass a new allocation now to ensure the continued availability and reliability of Hoover power to the citizens of my State and those of California and Nevada. The version of this legislation that this body is considering today reflects years of thorough negotiation. It includes provisions that address issues that were raised in the 111th Congress by the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona and the Western Area Power Administration. Because of that, the bill has garnered strong bipartisan support within the Arizona House delegation and at the grassroots level. I would like to address the concerns expressed by the Arizona Statewide Cooperatives Association. I personally met with the representatives of the association in an attempt to address their concerns. In those meetings, it became clear the only way to address their concerns would be to overturn existing Arizona State law. I encouraged them to take their charge to the State level and committed to help facilitate the initial meeting if they so desired. However, I have consistently maintained that it would be inappropriate for Congress to incorporate language that would preempt Arizona State law in this legislation. I would also like to point out that the Arizona co-ops have an opportunity under this legislation to receive Hoover power going forward. H.R. 470 creates a pool of 103 megawatts that will be allocated to eligible entities, including rural electric cooperatives and federally recognized Native American tribes. In addition, the Salt River Project has committed, in writing, to backstop up to three megawatts of power for the Arizona co-ops should they not receive an allocation through this specific provision. Let me remind my colleagues that 22 percent of the population in my district is tribal. This would be a wonderful means of having a vested interest and would also diversify the portfolios of the tribes in the energy sector. Again, I rise in support of my friend Dr. Heck's legislation, H.R. 470, and encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the memory of the late Sergeant Darrell Curley of the Navajo Police Department who, after 26 years of dedicated service, lost his life in the line of duty on June 25, 2011. Sergeant Curley was killed in the line of fire responding to a call in his community, Kaibeto, where he lived with his wife, Pauline, and three children, Arielle, Bronte, and Derrick. Sergeant Curley was a dependable public servant and an outstanding family man whose smile is remembered warmly by those who knew him. He also was recently appointed to a position of leadership within his faith community, as second counselor in the Bishopric of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Kaibeto. Sergeant Curley was a kind man who was always willing to do for others, dedicating his life to improving the safety and security of the people of the Navajo Reservation, where he was raised and lived his life. It is outstanding individuals like Sergeant Curley that have the experience and courage to serve and protect our communities, as well as put their lives in danger for the safety of others. My thoughts and prayers are with Sergeant Curley's family, the Navajo Nation, and the broader northern Arizona law enforcement community for such an outstanding individual.

Mr. GOSAR

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

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOSAR. I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2584, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2012. This summer, over a million acres of Forest Service lands, as well as another 600,000 acres of Federal, State, and private lands, burned throughout the American Southwest. Those fires are costing millions of taxpayer dollars and immediate fire response, and will cost many millions more in restoration and rehabilitation in the months and years ahead. These fires reinforce the urgent need for landscape-scale restoration. My amendment ensures this body fully funds proactive, large-scale treatments to our national forests that will reduce wildfire risk, ultimately saving the Federal Government from having to use an astronomical amount of money for fire suppression and expensive post- fire rehab. Specifically, my amendment increases the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program by $10 million, fully funding it at the U.S. Forest Service budget request. Authorized in fiscal year 2009, CFLRP was designed to encourage collaborative, science-based, large- scale thinning and ecosystem restoration. The program recognizes that future forest management will be most effective if it is planned and implemented in a collaborative framework through private-public partnerships at the landscape level. As an offset, the amendment decreases a related funding account, the Wildland Fire Management-Hazardous Fuel account, by $16.6 million. The Hazardous Fuel account is funded at $334 million in the underlying bill, $80 million above the President's budget request. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed my amendment does not increase 2012 outlays. While forest treatments focused solely on hazardous fuel reduction around communities may be appropriate in many cases, they do not achieve the enduring fire protection and ecosystem restoration that are urgently required. There are roughly 80 million acres of forest across the West that are overgrown and ripe for catastrophic wildfire, according to the Landfire multi-agency database. We simply cannot afford the status quo, using taxpayer dollars for 100 percent of the large-scale restoration work necessary to prevent unnatural fires like the Wallow fire in Arizona and New Mexico. If we are going to save what is left of our forests, we must change our priorities and aggressively treat our forests at the pace and scale these fires are occurring. Congress must fully fund proactive collaborative large-scale forest restoration treatments if it truly wants to reverse the degradation of our forests while simultaneously reducing the risk of catastrophic fires. The private-public partnerships facilitated through the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program empowers private industry to do important science-based ecological restoration work while minimizing the cost to the American taxpayer. In 2010, 10 landscape-scale restoration projects were selected for the CFLR program. These programs are located in nine States: Montana, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington. In the case of the Arizona project, the Four Forest Restoration Initiative, known as 4FRI, calls for the Forest Service to contract with economically viable, appropriately scaled industries capable of restoring tens of thousands of acres per year. Once a contract is awarded, it is estimated that the 2.4 million-acre project will be completed at little or no cost to the Federal Government. Because of this promise, the project has garnered bipartisan support in the Arizona House congressional delegation as well as the support of Senators McCain and Kyl, Governor Jan Brewer, leaders in the State legislature, the affected counties and cities, and an unprecedented range of environmental groups, such as the Center for Biological Diversity and industry partners. Full funding for the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program ensures that the 10 existing projects, which are urgently needed, will continue to move expeditiously while allowing the CFLRP to expand into more of the estimated 80 million acres of overgrown and wildfire-prone Forest Service lands across the country that need to be properly treated. When the Federal Government partners with local government, stakeholder groups, and private industry, together we can create much needed jobs and a safer environment for our citizens. Landscape-scale, fiscally responsible forest restoration treatments are the only way the country is going to make real progress towards proper forest health. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Gosar Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration program amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR

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

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

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment. As currently written, the Department of Interior appropriations bill states that education ``funds made available under this Act may not be used to establish a charter school at a Bureau-funded school.'' My amendment would allow money appropriated under this bill to be used for charter schools. Now, the bill grandfathers in charter schools funded prior to 1999, but bars no new charter schools. The committee report is silent on this. As of the 2005 census, children made up 1.4 million of the total of American Indian and Alaskan Native populations. They, and their parents, deserve educational choices. Charter schools are semi- independent schools usually within a State's public education system that are designed and operated by educators, parents, community leaders, educational entrepreneurs, and others. As of 2006, a total of 40 States and the District of Columbia have passed charter school laws allowing this type of school to be part of their system. I see no reason to deny this opportunity to American Indians. I believe administrators of such schools may worry about administrative issues in terms of accounting for students who transfer between a charter school and a noncharter school and the moneys that are appropriated. This is sometimes referred to as the ``ownership'' of the student. But such administrative concerns should not be a basis to completely abandon this option. Competent administrators at the BIA, the tribes, and the State educational associations can work out the transitional issues. Further, to the extent someone does not like charter schools, so be it. Don't send your child to one. But we in Congress should not be picking winners and losers. Charter schools should be an available choice to those tribes that want them. If a tribe chooses not to offer a charter school approach, that is its decision. But another tribe may do so on its own. There's no reason in this appropriation bill to foreclose this option. We should not impose our personal likes and dislikes on others. It is my further belief that allowing the tribes the maximum ability to choose the best educational program is consistent with self- determination. Having the right to decide local school decisions is a part of self-determination, and I don't see why we in Congress should deny that right. A key part of self-determination is choosing the manner in which the tribes educate their children. As far back as 1970, President Nixon addressed this issue that was then emerging, and stated: ``It is long past time that the Indian policies of the Federal Government begin to recognize and build upon the capacities and insights of the Indian people. Both as a matter of justice and as a matter enlightened social policy, we must begin to act on the basis of what the Indians themselves have long been telling us. The time has come to break decisively with the past and create the conditions for a new era in which the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions.'' Indeed, that is what Congress did when it passed the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975. Allowing the tribes to choose a charter school option makes sense from a self-determination perspective. Finally, according to the Center for Education Reform, there are over 5,000 charter schools nationwide. There are examples of charter schools with spectacular successes and results. I'm sure there are some charter schools that have failed in their mission. The point here, however, is about choice and allowing the tribes to decide what educational opportunities they want to create. It is well-known that charter schools are schools of choice. Unlike traditional public schools, students may choose to attend charter schools, and if those students determine that the school is not serving their needs, they may choose to leave. It is true that many charter schools typically have longer schooldays, longer school years and higher academic and behavioral expectations for their students. For those concerned about the current public educational system, these trends should be encouraged, but let's allow the tribes to make that choice. It is Congress' duty to describe and allow such choices as part of its oversight and application of our treaties with which American Indian tribal relations are governed. I ask for support of this amendment and support for Indian self-determination and school choice. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. As someone who has practiced chair-side dentistry for 25 years, I know firsthand the profound value of oral health, particularly for children. Oral health care access early in life is shown to be a critical aspect of primary preventative care. This is especially true in the Native American community, which I am proud to serve as a Representative of Arizona, which has 21 federally recognized tribes. For this reason, my amendment would transfer $4,367,000 from the Office of the Department of the Interior Solicitor General to the Indian Health Service. The committee report recommends $4,367,000 less than the President's request for dental health within IHS, and while the bill does not name dental health specifically, I would like to make it clear on this floor tonight that this reallocation of funds is explicitly intended to fund dental health programs within IHS at the level recommended by the administration. The United States Government took on long ago a number of treaty obligations to our Native people, and health care was among them. In particular, I cannot state strongly enough how imperative it is that the Indian tribes have this effort in the area of oral health fully funded. Believe it or not, the incidence of early childhood caries, or commonly understood tooth decay, occurs among the Native American and Native Alaskan populations at 300 percent the rate of the United States average. This is unacceptable; and, again, as someone who has practiced dentistry as long as I have, I can tell you that this epidemic will have dire consequences for these children throughout their lives. Worse still, the severity of decay is substantially higher in these children compared to the population as a whole. Preschool Native children average more than five decayed teeth compared to one decayed tooth among U.S. preschool children of all races. In many Native communities, between 25 and 50 percent of preschool children have such extensive tooth decay that they require full mouth restoration under general anesthesia, compared to less than 1 percent for non-Native children. We have an obligation to improve this sad state of affairs, and so I offer this amendment and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it for the sake of these Native children to whom we have an obligation. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment submitted with my colleague from New York to reduce the spending at the Botanic Garden. We're in the middle of a spending crisis that may lead to a sovereign debt crisis. In my view, there are very few programs funded by the Federal Government that can be exempt from fiscal responsibility and scrutiny. This is an unprecedented fiscal crisis. I applaud the Appropriations Committee's leadership and commitment to making significant spending reductions in this bill, including reducing personal office expenses and committee budgets. There are many wonderful museums and points of interest here in Washington, D.C., and the Botanic Garden is among the best. My amendment, which would reduce its funding appropriations and take away its proposed increase, is not based on any act or omission by the Botanic Garden. They run a great program here. But let me be clear: as an avid outdoorsman and a gardener myself, I personally derive much benefit from the Botanic Garden right here on Capitol Hill. I have visited these beautiful places many times and always learn and see something new. Our amendment is not intended to make the statement that the Botanic Garden is not a good and worthy program. It is. But it is not constitutionally mandated. It is not essential to providing key services to Americans. It does not generate jobs. It does contribute to the knowledge and understanding of the world, and that has great value. Our country is in the midst of an epic fiscal crisis that threatens the livelihood and well-being of every single American, and even good and worthy programs such as the United States Botanic Garden cannot be spared from every effort to scale down our Federal budget significantly. This proposed amendment is a fair cut, indeed, in light of our fiscal crisis, a modest cut and consistent with the committee's recommendations for other programs within this bill. I am confident that even with this reduced budget, the Botanic Garden will be able to offer an educational experience to all of us and to our constituents when they come to visit Capitol Hill. It is for those constituents that we offer this amendment and ask you for your support.

Mr. GOSAR

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