Paul Gosar

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, the Second Amendment is a key component of national security. And in that aspect, it allows citizens to carry. This is about possession of sidearms only. It does not apply to explosives in or around structures. I will finish up by saying that I wish everybody would support this amendment, and I look forward to its passage. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, at a national unemployment rate of 9.3 percent, this is a jobs amendment. Davis-Bacon does not protect the Federal Government nor the taxpayer. It only increases the cost to the taxpayer and the Federal Government by 22 percent. There are no studies that show that there is any difference in outcomes. As a contractor and working in contracts, we're held to the same standards. This is a temporary measure meant to help all our small companies and business contractors. It's also an investment into increasing the number of build-outs of our vital infrastructure projects. I urge my companions on the other side of the aisle to join in this and look at this fairly and increase the access to this funding, properly and fairly, to make sure that we get more people to work and get this vital infrastructure back and get America back to work. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 2354 that seeks to defund title 40, U.S.C. section 31, up to $20 million instead of the current $2,000 threshold. Right now we are in serious and prolonged economic recession. The construction industry has been hit the hardest throughout the United States. My amendment defunds the Davis-Bacon Act up to a certain amount in order to allow small business and small contractors the ability to compete on the smaller government contracts. This amendment will assist the small businesses that do not have the resources to compete for the larger contracts that compel compliance with all the requirements of Davis-Bacon. That is why this amendment defunds contract applications for smaller contracts under the $20 million threshold, but the larger projects are still subject to the Davis-Bacon Act. This is a temporary measure for the duration of the fiscal year in direct response to the recession. Now, on average, research establishes that Federal public projects that are forced to operate under this law spend 22 percent more than projects not bound by this law. By eliminating the onerous cost for small projects, there will actually be more work, up to 22 percent more work, for the same dollar and the smaller contractors will be able to compete for jobs that otherwise are out of their reach. Yet this agreement preserves the application of the act to the larger projects, so that those big projects across the U.S., where larger contracts typically get the contracts in any event, these companies can more readily comply with the provisions of the act and have deeper pockets to handle the administrative and other requirements mandated by the act. We also know that one study concluded that the Davis-Bacon Act will waste $10.9 billion in 2011. We also know that the Government Accountability Office states that this act is extremely difficult to administer, and the GAO has advocated for its repeal as far back as 1979. To a certain degree, this amendment seeks to reduce that waste, but the most important aspect of this amendment is encouraging small business participation in these government building contracts. I have stated before that we, as Members of Congress, we are stewards of the public Treasury. We have an obligation to spend taxpayer money wisely. The government does not earn money. The government does not generate wealth. We have an obligation to spend this money wisely, and we have an obligation to help the businesses of the country, and those that build our infrastructure need our help. This amendment addresses that need. The Heritage Foundation suggests that for every billion dollars, Federal construction spending supports 14,000 workers. Then the savings from the suspension of the Davis-Bacon law for 1 year would support 163,000 new construction jobs. My amendment addresses this very issue and seeks to boost employment and work for small businesses and small contractors who can compete for smaller government contracts temporarily if the Davis-Bacon requirements are defunded for 1 year. I ask that you support this amendment, support small businesses, more efficient spending of our taxpayer money, spreading our limited resources and keeping more American construction workers in a job, a livelihood, and a mission to rebuild this America together. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of our amendment that would defund a Federal regulation, a regulation that has the force of law across the United States that is, in my view, unconstitutional and simply wrong. Currently, as a result of law passed in the 111th Congress, a person licensed by a State to carry a personal sidearm for personal defense can carry that weapon in a national park or refuge. Prior to 2009, our own Federal Government trampled the Second Amendment and prohibited citizens from protecting themselves in some of the most dangerous remote lands we have. The ability to carry a firearm in case of emergency is imperative. Later we learned that when Congress changed the law, the bill language omitted the Army Corps of Engineers, creating confusion and uncertainty. The Corps owns or manages over 11.7 million acres, including 400 lakes and river projects, 90,000 camp sites, and 4,000 miles of trail. Soon after the law's passage, the Army Corps proudly declared that it would continue to ban self-defense on its lands. There is a bill pending, H.R. 1865, that seeks a long-term fix, but this amendment is a short-term fix. It defunds a Federal regulation by which the Army Corps of Engineers enforces, creates, and authorizes its ban on self-defense firearms. This bipartisan amendment to the Energy and Water appropriations bill will clarify this confusing policy. We are simply asking that the Secretary of the Army not use any fiscal year 2012 funding to enforce a regulation that prohibits firearm possession that complies with State law on Corps projects and lands. The amendment would not, however, allow firearms in Federal facilities, such as Army Corps headquarters, Corps research facilities, or lock and dam buildings. This is a commonsense amendment that upholds our Constitution and gives people who use our public lands the right to defend themselves, if needed. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR

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

Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask for your support of my limiting amendment that would prohibit any military expenditure that would assist any entity that has a policy calling for the destruction of the State of Israel. My amendment is specific and would prohibit this type of expenditure to any entity that has a policy calling for the destruction of the State of Israel. Most prominent, of course, is Iran. Just last month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated his nation's policy calling for the complete elimination of Israel. It is not just formally recognized states, however, we need to be concerned about. History has shown that entities we consider terrorist fringe groups sometimes, through force, manipulation and popular vote, take over the state apparatus. This happened in the Gaza Strip when Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, won a plurality of legislative seats, 44 percent, in the 2006 election. The United States and Israel classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, but the United Nations, for example, does not. The Hamas Charter of 1988, never withdrawn or amended, states that ``Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it has obliterated others before it.'' This mirrors the Iranian policy, as that ``the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation.'' In the last budget, according to the State Department, U.S. military aid to Egypt totals over $1.3 billion annually in funding referred to as Foreign Military Financing. Currently, questions exist about the Muslim Brotherhood, now a key player in Egypt and potentially in Libya with the rebel opposition, and its hostility to Jews and the State of Israel. It is quite possible that extremist groups who seek the destruction of Israel are taking over the state operations in Egypt and part of Libya. Time will tell. My amendment would ensure that we do not use our money and military assistance to help any entity that will not recognize the right of Israel to exist and to exist peacefully. That includes the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. No other nation on Earth except Israel has had to face systematic, ideological and persistent existential threats. My amendment would prohibit military aid, assistance or funding to any nation, state or entity that espouses a policy that refuses to recognize Israel's right to peacefully exist. With the prospect of not receiving our money and assistance, the new Egyptian regime may take a more respectful approach to Israel. In this sense, my amendment takes a carrots approach. I appreciate your support of my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 268. This resolution reaffirms congressional support for direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in an effort to achieve peace in this over six-decade-long struggle. While the Palestinian pursuit of a state is understandable, the attempt to bypass the peace process by going first to the United Nations is inappropriate. It is a disgrace and an offense to the U.N Charter and all acceptable norms of international law to create or recognize a state that itself will not first forsake terrorism, violence, ethnic hatred, and genocide. If a vote for Palestinian statehood comes to the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. must veto and do so until a peace agreement is achieved and maintained between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Now is not the time for either party to remove themselves from the negotiating table. Peace will not be attained with only one side seeking it. I urge my colleagues to reassert American commitment to direct negotiations by supporting H. Res. 268.

Mr. GOSAR

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

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment that would cut $100 million from the billion-dollar Food for Peace program and redirect it to the rural American communities, specifically to the Rural Business Development Loan Program. This $100 million will provide resources to rural business development loan programs. Small rural businesses and Indian tribes and community organizations can use these loans to jump-start businesses in our devastated rural comments. I'll give you one example: the Bennett Freeze. In the 111th Congress, we lifted the ban on this part of the Navajo Nation last year. This ban prohibited any type of improvement to homes, businesses and livelihoods. As a result of the Bennett Freeze, this area is worse than in many Third World nations. What we are trying to do is address this need, and we are trying to provide some resources to this group of folks. We need to address the high unemployment by empowering our rural communities. Please vote in favor of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I am offering an amendment that reduces the funding for the billion dollar Food for Peace program. Regardless of its perceived merits, our country is deep in debt, and we have problems here in America, particularly rural America, that need to be addressed. The Food for Peace program has been rightly criticized as a waste of money and ineffective in achieving its stated goals. But the reason for my amendments are more direct: the current budget funding for this program is over $1 billion. We stand today with a $14.3 trillion deficit, and at the same time, we have unmet needs in our own backyards. My first amendment cuts $200 million from this program and my second amendment sets aside $100 million into the spending reduction account. Then, of the $200 million cut in my first amendment, $100 million each is directed into Rural Development, Title III, here in the United States. The reason for these amendments is straightforward. Parts of rural America rival parts of some Third World countries where we send tens of millions of dollars. We need to focus on our own people and our own communities before we spend taxpayer money in foreign lands. One example here in the United States is the area known as the former Bennett Freeze area, an area consisting of 1.5 million acres of Navajo Nation reservation land, where the housing units have been described as ``little more than hovels'' and ``80 percent of the homes have no electricity'' and there are few paved road or communication structures. How do we justify spending $1 billion in foreign countries when we have so many unmet needs in the United States? The Rural Development loan program would receive additional funding under this amendment, a program that gets high marks for its success; so, too, would the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program. With millions of people losing homes, they are moving into multiunit housing. This program will help Americans. It is easy to understand the emotional appeal programs like Food for Peace may have, a program that would be reduced by this amendment. But ultimately, we are using taxpayer money for charity. Improving literacy, reducing hunger, and educating girls in foreign countries are issues that are, in fact, charitable and emotionally appealing, but we have our own literacy, hunger, and gender issues in our country. But at a time when we have a $14.3 trillion public debt, massive unemployment, and rural rates of poverty, illiteracy, and school underperformance, we should focus our money here at home. We owe it to our constituents, the taxpayers, to help them. Certainly one can see that this program has laudable aspirations, but laudable aspirations will not help the U.S. economy or the U.S. taxpayer. The problems in rural America are staggering. On June 9, 2011, President Obama issued an Executive order to create a commission to study problems in rural America. In the Executive order, the President stated: ``Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.'' I agree. But instead of just forming a committee to study the problems, problems that are well-known and need no further study, my amendment would do something about it and direct money to the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Account Program for a rural housing voucher program and the Rural Business Program Account, which provides loan guarantees and grants for ``rural businesses development programs,'' including business grants to Indian tribes and rural economic partnership zones for farm and rural development. Again, instead of just studying the problems of high unemployment, lagging schools, lagging infrastructure and opportunities, let's do something about it. The rural American poverty rate has exceeded the national rate since 2001 by 3 percentage points. The child poverty rate in rural America is 5 percentage points higher than urban-metro areas. Why can't we invest millions in our rural communities instead? Why should we tolerate poverty, unemployment, and a lack of infrastructure in our rural communities while we send millions and billions of dollars to build up other countries? In good faith, knowing how hard so many people in my district work and knowing how little they have to show for it at the end of the day, I can't agree to send their money overseas to help others while they suffer in our backyards. Knowing that infrastructure is lacking, this amendment helps start the process of directing our money to the unmet needs here in the United States. I ask my colleagues to closely consider these amendments. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. GOSAR. I rise in support of the amendment proposed by Mr. Gibson and Mr. Owens because I think it is exactly what the American people want us to do here in Washington. The people expect us to be responsible with their tax money. The people have made it clear, more than clear, that the Federal Government is too big. Our job is to look for waste, inefficiencies, and bloat. The Gibson-Owens amendment has found such bloat and seeks to remedy it. There is no doubt that the USDA does good work and that the agency should have suitable workspace to conduct its work. Indeed, as Mr. Gibson has pointed out, the USDA has 3 million square feet of prime office space on The National Mall in a beautiful building that contributes to the architectural beauty of the Nation's Capital. To learn that the USDA also has a campus in Maryland that occupies 45 acres of land is, itself, concerning. With all that office space currently available to the USDA in the Washington area and an additional $151 million to rent office space elsewhere, why does the USDA want to rent more office space in D.C.? The people of this country will not begrudge an architecturally distinguished office for the Nation's Capital, but a luxurious high- rent office in addition is too much.

Mr. GOSAR. Well, I would like to disagree. And that is, as I serve a vast part of Arizona, 60 percent of Arizona, in which I serve a large number of Native American tribes which are fighting to try to get economic development and trying to get broadband service, this is exactly the kind of funding that we want to direct you to the appropriate place. The Native Americans are exactly the place that this could go. This is the economic development that they need, and they're currently in the process of trying to get that. They're trying to build that infrastructure, and this is exactly where that fund can be.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. I rise in support of my amendment that would exempt all construction projects authorized under this act from the inflationary and unwise Davis-Bacon Act. As Members of Congress, we are stewards of the public treasury. We have an obligation to spend taxpayer money wisely. The government does not earn money. The government does not generate wealth. The government takes money from those who work hard for a living. In order to justify that act, we have an obligation at a minimum to spend this money wisely. The Davis-Bacon Act adds unnecessary costs. Research shows that the Davis-Bacon Act imposes costs that average 22 percent above market wages. This is unacceptable. Every dollar wasted is a dollar we can't use on other projects. In most cities, the Davis-Bacon Act imposes wages that bear no resemblance to prevailing market wages. In some cities, the rates are more than double the market wages. I ask for everyone's support in stopping this wasteful use in taxpayer money. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, the people in my district are hurting. Rising gas prices are cutting deep into family budgets. Food prices are skyrocketing. Communities that are home to destination locations like the Grand Canyon are bracing themselves for fewer summer visitors because families simply cannot afford to travel. Main Street America can no longer afford inaction from the President and his administration, and that is why I stand here today in support of H.R. 1229. The bill not only will put thousands of Americans back to work, it would increase our production of oil here at home and lower the cost of gas. It is time we put our country back to work and use our resources here at home instead of abroad, and it is time the government makes a serious commitment towards energy independence and an all-of-the-above approach that America wants.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of our country's wounded warriors. Corporal Colbey Yazzie, a resident of Kayenta, Arizona and a 2007 graduate of Monument Valley High School, volunteered to serve our nation and joined the elite ranks of the United States Marine Corps just after high school graduation. We have spoken to Corporal Yazzie's father, Henry, who we know could not be more proud of his son. Corporal Yazzie is also a member of the Navajo Nation, a tribe that has provided our country with brave warriors year after year for decades. For this sacrifice, I stand here and pay our respects as a nation and I ask for a moment of prayer. Today I want to specifically honor Corporal Colbey Yazzie. Corporal Colbey Yazzie was deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. He was assigned to the Marine Corps Combat Engineers. Corporal Yazzie was seriously wounded while supporting combat operations while engaged in a dismounted marine force patrol in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. He detonated a push plate improvised explosive device while on this combat patrol, and the resulting explosion severed his right leg above the knee. Just shortly before Corporal Colbey Yazzie was injured, author Bing West travelled with Corporal Yazzie's unit, and described the high level of professionalism, determination and bravery these Marines demonstrated day in and day out. I truly wished everyone in America understood the sacrifice, bravery and diligence our Marines embody. The article is called ``With the Warriors: Patrol Base Fires, Sangin District, Helmand Province, Afghanistan'' and was published in the March 7th edition of the National Review. Let me excerpt some of what Mr. West wrote about Corporal Yazzie and his unit, again, shortly before Corporal Yazzie was injured: The view from this platoon outpost in southern Afghanistan is unobstructed, both visually and strategically. On all sides stretch flat, bare, winter farmlands dotted with walled compounds. The strategy is aggressive patrolling to kill and drive out the Taliban, who have acted as the rural government here for 15 years. . . . The patrol base, named Fires because of the intensity of the daily fighting, was at the northern edge of the Marine advance. When I arrived in mid-January, Lt. Vic Garcia, the seasoned platoon commander, handed me two tourniquets. ``If someone goes down near you on patrol,'' he said, ``wrap him real tight and watch where you step.'' Garcia explained that the Taliban roam in small gangs among the farm compounds, sow mines, and attack from the flanks. When we set out on a combat patrol, the 15 Marines walked in single file across brown, furrowed farmlands suggestive of New England in early spring. Lance Cpl. Colbey Yazzie, a full-blooded Navajo Indian, swept a narrow path with his metal detector, while his Irish-American partner, Lance Cpl. Kyle Doyle, watched out for snipers. Near a footbridge across an irrigation canal, Yaz clenched his fist to halt the platoon, then knelt down and scratched at the dirt. He took out wire cutters, snipped a few wires, and held up two small boards wrapped in tape. Glued to the underside of each board was a sliver of metal. When a foot pressed down on the boards, the metal plates came together, completing an electrical circuit connecting a flashlight battery to a plastic jug filled with explosives. Yaz attached a small charge to the IED (improvised explosive device) and blew it up, and the patrol continued. In 100 days of patrolling four kilometers north of the Sangin district center, Kilo Company of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment had found 115 IEDs. Another 14 had exploded. Of the 136 Marines in Kilo, nine had been killed and 35 severely wounded. Of four platoon commanders, one had been killed and another had lost a leg to a mine. . . . After discovering the first IED, we walked north at a steady, careful pace. Not one farmer was out tilling the lands sown with mines. Yaz again clenched his fist, knelt down, disarmed and blew up an IED. The patrol continued for a while, then halted suspiciously at the edge of a large field. On the far side were two long compound walls, dotted with ``murder holes''--small peepholes for the Taliban rifle barrels. The Marines peered at the wall through the telescopic sights on their rifles. Suddenly, the squad leader, Sgt. Philip McCulloch, fired a single shot. The Marines' counter is equally simple. One element peels off to flank the enemy, while another keeps aimed fire on the enemy position. If the Taliban remains too long in a fixed location, indirect fire (fire without a line of sight to the target, as from artillery) is called in. Every Marine has a telescopic rifle, and most of the fleeting targets are about 400 meters distant. Yaz was leading the patrol back by a different route across a furrowed field when he stopped a third time. Again he uncovered a pressure-plate IED. ``That's crazy,'' McCulloch said. ``An IED in the middle of nowhere.'' That IED was sure to blow the legs off a passing farmer--or a Marine. Yaz pointed to three small rocks several feet away, a tipoff for a passing Taliban gang that there was a mine in the vicinity. A few minutes later, we walked past a crumbled wall, startling two dark brown coyotes. Again Yaz stopped, knelt. and disarmed a pressure plate. Four mines in the path of one patrol, and he had found them all. Bing West, ``With the Warriors'' (emphasis added). What Mr. West has described here is an amazing act of bravery and professionalism by Corporal Yazzie and his fellow Marines. In just one patrol, on one afternoon, Corporal Yazzie located and disarmed four IEDs. Four hidden bombs designed to kill or maim indiscriminately, whether it is a child, a farmer, or a Marine. By doing his job, Corporal Yazzie can be credited with saving lives and limbs that day, and likely on many other days. But Corporal Yazzie's service was not free. There is a high cost that has been paid, and continues to be paid. On March 26, 2011, in an effort to save lives, Corporal Yazzie detonated an IED and sacrificed his right leg. Corporal Yazzie, we honor your service. To the others in your unit, and the rest of the Marine Corps, please know, we honor your service and sacrifice as well. You are not forgotten. You are appreciated more than you know.

Mr. GOSAR

Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our children are being let down. Our education system is no longer the world's best. In the District of Columbia, they are facing an education crisis like none other in our country. According to some experts, the D.C. public schools spend over $20,000 per year on each and every student. Despite this, D.C. students perform the worst when compared to all 50 States. One study found that only 13 percent of eighth-graders in the D.C. public schools were proficient in reading. This must change. You may be wondering, Why is Congress focusing on just the D.C. schools today? That is because the D.C. public schools are unique, in that under the Constitution, Congress has the sole responsibility to govern over the District of Columbia. With that in mind, it is our responsibility to ensure that we no longer allow these students to slip through the cracks. That is why I'm urging my colleagues to support H.R. 471, the SOAR Act. This bill allows low-income D.C. students a scholarship to attend a school of their parents' choice. Seventy-four percent of parents in D.C. support this plan because that has achieved real results. While I believe education is best decided on the local level, Congress is constitutionally obligated to fund D.C. students and their education. That is why we must give parents the choice as to where their children will attend school. We can't afford to continue to ignore these students. They deserve a chance to attend better schools that achieve greater results. Today, we have a golden opportunity to make D.C. public schools better. Today, we have an opportunity to help students in the lowest- achieving school district in the country. Today, we can give D.C. students an opportunity to succeed and pursue their dreams. Join me in supporting H.R. 471.