Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the objection.

Madam Speaker, I join the objection to counting votes of electors from my home State of Arizona, as well as Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Nevada, because election integrity is the heart of our American constitutional republic?

In a representative form of government, we must be able to trust that our elections accurately represent the will of the American voter. This is the appropriate forum anticipated and provided for by our Founders to debate whether this election complied with the Constitution that we have all sworn to protect.

Every particular of the Constitution is to be protected, including Article II, Section 1. The debate as to the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential election has been suppressed by the left and its propagandists in the media until today.

State legislatures are required to determine the manner in which electors are chosen. Arizona names its electors on the general election ballot and identifies what candidate those electors are required to vote for should that candidate obtain the majority of votes in the general election.

As part of the manner for determining electors, Arizona also establishes deadlines for voter registration. The deadline has been in place for 30 years.

This year, that voter registration deadline was October 5. Early voting commenced 2 days later. Five days before the deadline, a group filed a lawsuit demanding that Arizona election officials not enforce the deadline.

The Federal District Court decided that since other States have a deadline later than Arizona's and some even allow for registration when voting, that Arizona's new deadline would be a time he chose, not the legislature's timeline.

The appellate court effectively overturned the lower court ruling and noted that the Arizona deadline established by the State legislature was sound and appropriate and complied with the Constitution. But the appellate court merely shortened the extension, the bypassing of the deadline to 10 days.

The appellate court, without legal justification, also decided that everyone who registered after the legal deadline, but before the deadline created by judicial fiat, could still vote.

Note that the Arizona legislature was no longer in control of determining the manner of appointing Presidential electors because the court had set a new deadline, even though the appellate court found the legislature's deadline was constitutionally sound.

During that window, more than 32,000 voters registered in Maricopa County alone. Here are copies of those voter registration records. In going around the deadline set by the legislature, the court ignored the Arizona legislature's obligation and right to direct the manner of choosing Presidential electors as set forth in Article II, Section 1.

As a consequence of that judicial usurpation, more than 32,000 people were allowed to unlawfully cast ballots in Arizona's Presidential election in 2020.

The Arizona legislature seeks an independent audit of the election. The Governor refuses now to call them into a special session. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has refused to comply with legislative subpoenas. In Arizona, the people who control the evidence related to the election have done everything possible to prevent an independent audit directed by the legislature.

Arizonans have used the limited amount of records available to investigate the 2020 Presidential election. Of a limited sample of 1,000 addresses of voters, they found 539 voters did not live at the addresses on the voter rolls. Here is a stack of 1,000 declaration of affidavits supporting that.

I object to counting the votes of Arizona electors because the Federal courts went around the legislatively constructed mechanism for choosing Arizona's Presidential electors, allowing tens of thousands of voters to unlawfully cast votes. The court usurped a key component of the Arizona legislature's manner of selecting Presidential electors, thus violating Article II, Section 1. The legislature is being obstructed in its efforts. And what little evidence we have and what little information we have has produced this kind of evidence, which indicates a significant problem with the integrity of the Presidential election.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record my written comments, together with the voter registration records that reflect the 32,000 registrations permitted in contravention of State law; letters and resolutions from Arizona legislators pertaining to the count of votes from electors; along with approximately 1,000 affidavits and declarations pertaining to potential voter fraud in Arizona in the 2020 Presidential election; and the statement of Congressman Randy Weber of Texas.

December 31, 2020.

Dear Vice President Pence: As the Chairwoman of the Arizona

House Elections Committee, I write to you with upmost urgency

to communicate to you several occurrences that thwart our

ability as legislators to investigate legitimate and

concerning allegations of election fraud in the most recent

general election. On December 14, 2020, Arizona sent an

alternate slate of electors, along with a resolution from 21

current and 8 newly elected legislators asking you to refrain

from accepting the Biden electors until we could adequately

investigate these claims of fraud.

Soon after the election, I requested an Elections Committee

discovery hearing in order to use subpoena power to acquire

the voting machines and ballots in order to do a

comprehensive and forensic audit. I was told that it was not

a good idea and was denied the ability. I continued to

request the hearing with the Speaker of the House, asked

publicly, and tried every avenue to no avail. A full month

later on December 9th, the Senate President authorized a

hearing via the Judiciary committee, and that did result in

subpoenas to the Maricopa County Supervisors (who oversee the

elections process) that have yet, as of the writing of this

letter, been complied with.

Court cases have been dismissed due to not having evidence,

however our efforts to do an audit to obtain such evidence

have been suppressed. We held a hearing on 11/30/2020 with

Rudy Giuliani to at least hear testimony from citizens who

experienced irregularities, along with subject matter experts

who reported severe irregularities and probable tampering

with the machine apparatus. On 11/30/2020, a group of Arizona

citizens reported publicly that they had uncovered with great

confidence a minimum estimation of 160,000 fraudulent voters,

based on over 1000 declarations/affidavits collected. This

supports an earlier document submitted to the Attorney

General and would largely impact the outcome of the election.

We have experienced obstruction at every turn. For your

reference, I have itemized, in Exhibit A, many of the various

ways we have been stopped from investigating claims of fraud

and gross irregularities. It is my hope that you will see

that the Arizona Presidential election is still in dispute

and unresolved. We call on you to take this into

consideration as you perform your duties on January 6th, and

not accept the electors until we have resolution to these

matters.

With utmost respect,

Kelly J. Townsend,

Senator-Elect.

Exhibit A

1. Requests from the House Elections Chairwoman (myself)

and the House Federal Relations Chairman (Mark Finchem) to

hold an evidentiary hearing were repeatedly denied and have

yet to be honored. Multiple Chairmen of various committees

requested a hearing in order to investigate claims, to no

avail. We were forced to hold an unofficial hearing on

November 30th where many came forward with very concerning

evidence and claims.

2. The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was not held

until 41 days after the election on 12/14/2020, the same day

as the Electors were to cast their votes. This delay rendered

the hearing of little effect regarding having confidence in

the correct votes cast. The Chairman thus issued a subpoena

for the equipment and ballots, but the Maricopa Board of

Supervisors has countersued and refuse to comply. They will

not release any machine or ballot info, even though within

the RFP for the Dominion machines, it is stated that their

key features are their ability to conduct hand counts,

perform risk limiting audits, and publish ballot images and

adjudication records with markings on a

public website, calling it their open data initiative. Now

that they are being asked for it, they are refusing to make

it available, citing voter confidentiality. There is no voter

information contained in the machine or on a ballot, however,

so that reasoning is insufficient. Their inaction and

nonfeasance prevent us from proper discovery.

3. I, along with several others, requested the Governor to

call us in for special session to be able to deal with the

issue. It is our understanding that we cannot enforce the

subpoena for equipment and ballots unless we are in session.

His ongoing unwillingness to call us into session to address

these issues had kept us from adequate discovery. On 12/02/

2020, Governor Doug Ducey was asked by the media if he was

going to honor the Legislator's request for a special

session. He proceeded to incorrectly name Monday January 13th

as our first day back in regular session. In response, the

reporter asked, ``So you see no need for a special session to

look at any of these issues or the issue of Presidential

electors...,'' to which the Governor interrupted and said,

``I'll see the Legislature in January.''

4. The House leadership attempted to deter Representative

Bret Roberts from sending a letter to Attorney General

Brnovich and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

regarding the accurate performance of a hand count based on

the statutory requirement to do so by precinct, versus vote

center. By doing a hand count based on voting centers, it

renders it impossible to tell if there was a rogue precinct

involved in fraud. Nevertheless, Rep. Robert's efforts to

enforce statute were thwarted by House leadership.

5. One week prior to the Electors voting, on December 7th,

the House and Senate leadership closed the buildings in the

name of COVID-19, preventing any in-person hearings or work

to be performed. This greatly hindered our ability to push

for discovery regarding election integrity during the last

days before the Elector's votes were cast.

6. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors held a closed

meeting on 11/20/2020 in order to certify the election

results, where the public was not allowed to participate and

ask questions. Prior to that meeting, on 12/08/2020, Merissa

Hamilton (a data integrity expert) delivered to the Attorney

General a statistically significant listing of deceased

voters that received a ballot and those deceased who actually

returned a ballot. At the aforementioned meeting, the

Maricopa County Elections Director Ray Valenzuela stated that

the list of deceased voters casting a ballot was mere

folklore and dismissed it as a nonissue. This accusation is

still pending an investigation.

7. After submitting a public records request for the

Federal only voters who cast a ballot in the 2020 General

election, I was told by a staff member that the Elections

Director was ``vetting the list'' before he gave it to me. I

did not request a cleaned-up list of voters, but the list in

its entirety. This diminished my confidence in that list,

that I have a true representation of persons who cast a

ballot that cannot establish their identity or citizenship.

8. Arizona State House leadership prevented Legislators

from issuing press releases having to do with the election

that did not conform to their own opinion. This diminished

our ability to communicate to the public our concerns about

how the election and post procedures were being handled.

9. On 12/01/2020, I requested the Attorney General's

Elections Integrity office to investigate the claims made at

the November 30th Giuliani hearing and provided them the

link. I was told that none of the items listed at the

Giuliani hearing would be investigated by that office.

10. The Maricopa County Recorder attended more than one

DefCon conference that focused on the ability to hack voting

machines. The Legislature was never informed that the outcome

of these conferences recommended that elected officials be

notified due to unprotected ports on the machines, passwords

left unset or left in default configurations and security

features of the underlying commercial hardware were left

unused or even disabled. It was recommended that to improve

election security, paper ballots should be used, and a

rigorous post-election audit be performed. We learned about

this issue via social media, and it was obfuscated by the

Election officials.

11. Arizona Republican State Chair Kelli Ward reports the

following malfeasance and obstruction:

a. No allowed review of the digitally adjudicated ballots--

over 200,000.

b. Only 100 of the duplicated ballots reviewed--3% error

rate in favor of President Trump. Maricopa County refused to

look at the other 28,000 ballots.

c. No meaningful signature verification. County employees

doing signature verification offsite, over the internet,

without oversight, and at times at a rate of 30 signatures or

more per minute.

12. The Secretary of State took 24 days to answer a public

records request by Merissa Hamilton, asking them to deliver

the meeting minutes from their technical committee to certify

the Dominion voting equipment. Only after four requests and

the involvement of the Ombudsman did she obtain the

information. The results of that request showed that despite

the voting equipment not being able to calculate the votes

properly, which was never addressed, the machines were still

certified. The Maricopa County RFP for the Dominion equipment

did not give the public a chance to give input on the

procurement. There was never any discussion or an offer of

various options to choose from. The Board of Supervisors went

straight to a vote with no discussion and approved the

machines unanimously.

13. There are multiple/numerous examples of how on election

day observers and poll workers were prevented from overseeing

the various procedures, thereby undermining confidence that

there was no illegal activity and violating Arizona's

statutes regarding election integrity. We have had no formal

investigation into the vast majority of these accusations.

Summary

Arizona has many unresolved issues that we would like to

have investigated in order to confidently say our electors

voted for the true victor in the 2020 Presidential election.

We still have outstanding issues left unresolved and are

being stopped at nearly every turn from investigating. For

example, the Maricopa County Recorder's office started

counting early ballots 14 days before election day. During

that time, the backup server was removed each night by a

Dominion employee. This is of significant concern because the

information on those servers could have been manipulated and/

or provided to nefarious people as to how many ballots/votes

were needed to change the results of the election as time

went on.

Many in the Legislature believe that if we are able to do a

forensic audit, we could investigate these and other serious

claims brought forward to us. However, as you can see by the

list above (not exhaustive but brief for your benefit) we

have many entities who appear to be blocking our efforts to

get to the bottom of the issue. One can only ask, in a

supposedly secure and fair election, why discovery is being

quashed.

Conclusion

It is asked that all of these issues be considered when

contemplating the eleven Arizona electoral votes. Our

election is still in dispute, and we have obfuscation and

attempts at running out the clock to prevent discovery of the

facts. We believe it is impossible to conclusively declare a

winner in Arizona and pray that you would refrain from

counting the electoral votes from our state, and consider the

alternate slate should we be able to establish validity to

the various claims of election fraud on such a scale that

would change the outcome.

Thank you, kindly, for your attention to these matters.

Mr. Speaker, two amendments I offered to the NDAA were adopted.

The first addresses shared responsibility for the world's security. The United States is the most powerful nation on the planet and so must remain, but our allies must pull their weight on global security efforts. It is not just Americans who benefit from peace, after all.

For instance, is it fair for economic powerhouse Germany to spend only 1.35 percent of its overall GDP toward NATO defense in the coming years? I don't think so. We should at least examine the contributions of Germany and all of our other allies.

My amendment simply requires the Department of Defense to report the annual defense spending of each of our NATO and non-NATO allies.

My second amendment affirms the critical importance of the U.S.- Israel relationship. Since its founding over 50 years ago, Israel has been an important strategic partner. Given the significant challenges our Nation currently faces in the Middle East, the U.S.-Israel relationship remains vital.

I thank Armed Services Committee Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Thornberry for working with me on these amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say at the outset that the condescending tone towards our side by the previous speaker is really uncalled for, and, quite frankly, it is unparliamentary in and of itself.

When he talks about political points being unconscionable, that may be an understatement.

Let me just tell you something. When I was down at the border recently, the DEA informed me of a little girl who was forced to take care of two young children. She is the age of 11. She had been trafficked. She had been trafficked by cartels right into Charleston, South Carolina.

Right there, at that position, many people--40 or more people--had used that location in Charleston as a sponsor to be released under the catch-and-release problem that we have, because we are overcrowded at the border. We have no place to keep them.

This bill doesn't fix that. This bill doesn't fix that. If you wanted to take care of a humanitarian issue, you would give ICE some money for beds.

And that little girl, age 11, is taking care of two young boys--until what? Until that cartel affiliate in Charleston, South Carolina, could send those three children back to be used on the border for a faux family unit to come back in.

That is what is unconscionable, the fact that we are not funding ICE when ICE has a 10,000-bed shortage, when CBP has a 15,000-bed shortage.

You want to talk about lack of humanitarian care: This bill doesn't take care of that because the bill from my colleagues across the aisle does not address giving ICE and CBP what they need to hold on to people, so you can keep families together.

That is the reality of the situation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

So, that program that my colleagues across the aisle are putting together in this bill enshrines catch-and-release. It also facilitates human trafficking--it does--just like we saw with the little girl who was sent to Charleston, South Carolina, and was going to be sent back and used by cartels as a fake family unit.

That is what is unconscionable here, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor an accomplished student from Chandler, Arizona. Devrath Iyer was selected as one of fifty-two students to attend the annual Research Science Institute (RSI) sponsored by the Center for Excellence in Education in collaboration with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Each summer, RSI gathers a small group of talented students to participate in an intensive on-and off-campus science and engineering summer program.

I have no doubt that Devrath and the other young leaders selected to participate in this program will excel in service to their schools and communities. Devrath's dedication to educational excellence and hard work is an example for all of us to emulate. I am honored to have such talent and motivation in my district.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment that prevents funds from being used to finalize, implement, or enforce the draft guidance issued by the Food and Drug Administration in December of 2017, titled, ``Drug Products Labeled as Homeopathic Guidance for FDA Staff and Industry.''

The 2017 draft guidance actually upends three decades of settled enforcement practice in homeopathy without a compelling reason or with no directive from Congress. My amendment would prevent that overreach and maintain the safe and effective guidance that has been in place since 1987.

For decades, homeopathy has thrived as the fastest growing alternative to pharmaceuticals, and FDA estimates more than 3 million Americans use it. The products can be a natural alternative to addictive opioids in the management of pain and other conditions.

The current guidance provides a precise definition of a homeopathic product and clear manufacturing standards. Violations of these standards are already subject to FDA enforcement. The

proposed change in guidance goes too far by restricting access to safe homeopathic medicines, while also being less effective at regulating the safety and quality of homeopathic products.

The new guidance replaces clear definitions with a vague, risk-based approach. By its own admission, the FDA failed to consult with consumers and those in the homeopathic community before they drafted this guidance. The result is a poorly worded document that does not do what it purports to do.

Instead, this guidance covers all products labeled as homeopathic rather than distinguishing between those falsely labeled as homeopathic and those that are actually homeopathic medicines which have already been proven to be safe and effective. As written, the guidance threatens to limit access to safe and effective homeopathic medicines by subjecting them to new enforcement actions inconsistent with past practice and existing law.

The draft guidance purports to address improperly manufactured homeopathic products, and I support that, but the draft guidance drops the explicit manufacturing guidelines already contained in the existing guidance. Under the draft guidance, Americans would have fewer assurances that their homeopathic medicines are pure and properly manufactured.

The problems that FDA cites as reasons for introducing the draft guidance, falsely labeled products and improperly manufactured products, are actually better addressed under the current guidance, and the FDA has been effectively addressing these issues for the last 30 years.

This draft guidance is an unnecessary regulatory overreach, and I urge all Members to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for his comments and Ranking Member Fortenberry's assurances that we can get together with the FDA and see what we can do to resolve this very difficult issue. I look forward to working with him on this issue going forward.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time and withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, if I heard right, the previous two amendments were criticized for being overly broad and indiscriminate in the ways that they attacked spending in this particular underlying legislation. Well, I am laser focused. I am laser focused with my amendment.

My amendment would restrict funds from going to the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS. That program is supposed to be developing impartial science-based toxicity assessments on chemicals for uniform use within EPA, and if that is what they were doing, I would not be standing before you today. But as I came to know all too well as I worked with former Chairman Lamar Smith and while serving as chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology's Subcommittee on Environment in the last Congress, the reality is different.

Over the past decade, IRIS has been repeatedly criticized by the National Academy of Sciences and the Government Accountability Office for its lack of transparency and improper use of scientific methods, which have led to some significantly flawed risk assessments over the years. In fact, GAO first added IRIS to its list of government programs that are highly vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in 2009. In the decades since, IRIS has made very few steps towards significant improvement.

I strongly believe that instead of allowing a flawed and poorly managed agency like IRIS to continue to operate, we should return chemical assessments to the relevant program offices within the EPA itself.

In the last Congress, I introduced legislation to achieve the reforms I have outlined. That bill was reported out of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee last fall. I have reintroduced that bill again in this session, but it is laying in the Science Committee without further action.

I believe that until there is a root-and-branch reform of the chemical assessments process at the EPA, we simply cannot allow IRIS to spread misinformation to the public as it is doing now

I urge all Members to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify for those in the Chamber who may not be aware, IRIS is an information-collecting entity, not a regulator. If IRIS were eliminated, EPA would still maintain an office of research and development, which would perform chemical assessments in coordination with a specialized program office within the Agency. What will compromise public safety is a poorly run government office spreading misinformation.

I also want to point out that both the nonpartisan NAS and GAO have repeatedly criticized IRIS over the past 10 years. Even the few NAS and GAO recognitions of improvements to IRIS over the years have been strongly tempered by caveats that far more work needs to be done.

For instance, the 2018 NAS report, which has been cited, suggests that IRIS still has not produced a basic handbook to guide its operations, even though that recommendation was made more than 4 years ago. This agency has been in existence since 1986 without a handbook, a basic handbook.

Just to add a little bit more color to this debate, here is an example of how absurd IRIS risk assessments can be. It sets the risk value of the chemical ethylene oxide, which is often used to sterilize medical equipment, at 100 parts quadrillion. That is a 1 with 15 zeros behind it. That value is 19,000 times less than the naturally occurring level of ethylene oxide in the human body. For perspective, OSHA sets the risk level for ethylene oxide at one point per million, which is a vastly higher threshold than IRIS itself.

I can speak similarly about flawed IRIS risk assessments related to formaldehyde or acetone, a substance found naturally in breast milk.

To sum up, absurdly assessed risk either creates unwarranted public panic or cynical disregard. Neither outcome creates a safer society.

Even worse, if IRIS is overly focused on evaluating the safety of low-risk or, in some cases, effectively no-risk chemicals, then it is likely to be distracted from assessing truly dangerous substances.

Again, I invite my colleagues to support this very important laser- focused amendment. We are not overly broad here. We are focusing on one program that has been completely--not repudiated, but certainly been highly criticized by the National Academy of Science and the GAO.

I urge my fellow Members to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot I could say, but I want to point out a couple of things.

Right now, the Border Patrol has detention facilities that are designed to hold 4,000 people but are holding 19,000 people. ICE has facilities to hold 45,000 people, but it is holding 52,000 people.

We are releasing people regularly into communities and throughout this country. Mr. Speaker, ICE alone has released over 200,000 family units into the country this year.

In Yuma, Arizona, a facility designed for 250 people is currently housing 1,100 people.

It is going to be 110 degrees tomorrow. Most of those people are being held outside under awnings with a large swamp cooler to cool them. That will work okay. It will be livable. It will be uncomfortable, but livable. But in about 3 or 4 weeks, when it is 115, 120 degrees and the humidity is out of this world, those swamp coolers will not work.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking and going to make a motion to adjourn because our colleagues refuse to bring a supplement that would pay for humanitarian and detention facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Mr. Speaker, due to the humanitarian crisis and border crisis, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 3056, an emergency supplemental to provide critically needed funding for the humanitarian crisis at the border, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I oppose this resolution.

The subpoena for Attorney General Barr is unenforceable on its face. It demands the full and unredacted Mueller report, including grand jury material that the Attorney General cannot lawfully disclose, and the Democrats know this.

In a hearing last month, Chairman Nadler admitted that Attorney General Barr could not lawfully release grand jury material. He therefore admitted that the Attorney General could not lawfully comply with the subpoena.

Instead, the chairman suggested that the subpoena is a starting point in negotiations. Rarely have I heard that term used with regard to a subpoena. In fact, I never heard it before that time.

In the Judiciary Committee's hearing on executive privilege last month, one of the majority's own witnesses testified that ``one of the categories of information presently sought by the committee appears so broad as to put the executive branch officials to a nearly impossible task. . . . The committee cannot in good faith expect compliance; accordingly, the burden is on the committee to substantially narrow this aspect of its request.''

My friends talk about the rule of law, but the Democrats have admitted in a hearing in the Judiciary Committee that the subpoena was overly broad and that objects of the subpoena that are prohibited from disclosure, such as 6(e) material, were not subject to the subpoena. But they didn't fix their subpoena. They didn't issue a new subpoena. They didn't amend the subpoena. They just attempted to amend their contempt citation.

The defendant's confusion over what is subject to a subpoena is adequate evidence that the subpoena itself is legally deficient as being confusing and overly broad. A court will not be able to read the collective minds of our Democratic colleagues and will not expect such clairvoyance from the Attorney General nor from the former White House Counsel.

The administration is currently negotiating in good faith. We see that an agreement was reached just yesterday. The same Democrat, when discussing the assertion of executive privilege by the administration, stated, ``These developments do not, however, relieve the committee of its obligation to continue to negotiate.''

Mr. Speaker, just as the subpoena is overly broad and, quite frankly, unprecedented, as well as legally deficient, this resolution is also overly broad and unique in the annals of American history.

When the chairwoman from California referred to the President of the United States as a dictator, her language was rancorous and unparliamentary, but it seems to have been filled with projection, as this resolution provides unique authorities.

Madam Speaker, I want to give context to this before I talk specifically about the idea of a closed rule here, which I oppose so much.

First of all, there are about 690,000 in the DACA population, but there is an estimate that there is another 1 to 1.2 million, though no one really knows what that number is, who might have applied but chose not to apply under the Obama-era DACA regulations.

We also have a significant population, post-2012, who have been brought here. We had a surge in 2013 and a surge in 2014 of unaccompanied minors. We have again seen a surge in the last few months even. We don't know what the population looks like for this.

Another way to put this into context is this way: We have a million people who have absconded from their court dates. That means they haven't shown up. They got an order to appear, and they are not showing up. We have another million with active removal orders.

That is 2 million people who are roaming the country. We don't know who they are, where they are.

We brought in 1.2 million legal immigrants last year. That is a good thing.

We are going to catch more than 1.2. We will apprehend more than 1.2 million illegal aliens coming across our border this year. These are numbers that are almost unfathomable.

That population I just mentioned would be the second largest city in the United States after New York City, more than Los Angeles itself.

When we say that we are going to apprehend 1.2 million this year, when one talks to Border Patrol agents, people who conduct censuses on these things, they will say that we have no idea any longer what the getaway number is. A year ago, they thought they were catching 1 in 2. Four months ago, they thought they were catching 1 in 3. Today, they will say that they have absolutely no idea.

Last week, in El Paso alone, one group of over 1,000 people were apprehended.

A group of 1,000 was apprehended, and 2,200 came in through El Paso, in 1 day alone, who were apprehended. We are averaging about 4,500 apprehensions a day in this country.

What happened when this bill came to markup? Why is it, in my opinion, a real problem that we have a closed rule here? The Republicans offered a number of amendments. We pointed out issues that we thought were of concern. We offered amendments to address those issues, such as allowing repeat criminals and gang members to obtain green cards. We offered amendments that would allow application information regarding illegal status to be used for deportation. We attempted to prevent fraudulent applications from being filed.

But none of these and a whole host of other amendments offered by Republicans were accepted, even some that were just absolutely rational, such as those with DUIs that resulted in an accident where someone was seriously injured or even killed. They were not prevented from obtaining this path of legalization.

Here we are today, and now they are saying no amendments can be offered from either side of the aisle. I have essentially opposed every closed rule since I came to Congress. I think it actually undermines this process where we represent districts and come to try to offer amendments. I have offered many amendments and had them all shut down, quite frankly, whether by vote or in the Rules Committee.

But the reality is, I represent a district, and when the majority closes a rule like this, it is preventing me from representing a border State that has a great deal of difficulties because of the rampant border crossings of illegal aliens.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

I can't help but to be struck here as I reflect on the markup that we had, as we have listened to the Rules debate earlier, plus this debate.

I can't help but be struck by the very notion of this is kind of what happens whenever you start moving the goalposts on what a law should be.

So under the Obama Administration, deferred action was provided for children who were brought into the country by a certain date and time, through no fault of their own, and that number was about 800,000 people applied for that.

Now, the estimate is somewhere in the neighborhood of an additional 1 million who might have qualified who didn't file the requisite application. And now, this particular bill, as several of my colleagues across the aisle have said, will apply to anywhere from 2.2 to 2.7 million people.

You can see the number starts creeping as we go forward here, as we change laws, and we acknowledge certain ideas about what the law should be.

So this actually is not about DACA. We left DACA a long time ago. And, quite frankly, there is no age limit here. So even an alien who entered the U.S. illegally 30 or 40 years ago, could be granted a green card under this bill. So we see that it has other problems as well.

So then we start talking about gang members, and we say, Oh, yeah, no, no, this is really tough on gang members.

But in fact, the denial provision is written so narrowly that it will almost never exclude gang members. In fact, it actually prohibits the use of gang databases to establish gang participation in order to deny green cards to gang members.

You got that? You can't use gang databases.

And moreover, only the Secretary of Homeland Security--and he or she cannot delegate that authority to other officials--can provisionally deny an applicant.

And what makes this particularly intriguing is if there is a denial, we are charging a fee, so that free attorneys can be hired on to represent these gang members who are provisionally denied. So they can challenge the Secretary's determination, and that is done by a de novo review.

So this is a real problem. It is too narrowly crafted in this area. And there are some other areas--and some of my colleagues have talked about it--but ultimately, we get to the heart of this, and it is just this: There is a border crisis. This bill does nothing to stop that border crisis. It will do nothing to slow the number of people who are entering this country illegally. In fact, it will do just the opposite, because it provides an incentive.

People respond to incentives. I respond to incentives. You respond to incentives.

We also respond to deterrence. We remove deterrence here. Instead, we buttressed incentives.

And so we will have a year where we are going to apprehend about 1.2 million people, at the low end. We know that a year ago we were getting about half; we were apprehending about half the people.

And we know about 4 months ago, we were getting only about a third of the people. Now, we have no idea what the getaways are.

You can talk to border patrol agents, ICE agents--whoever you want to talk to down at the border--and they will tell you, ``we have no idea the numbers coming in because we are overwhelmed.''

When I was down in Yuma, the Yuma facility is designed for 250 people. A month and a half ago, it held 750 people in inhumane conditions.

No question. Inhumane conditions.

Today, that number is over 1,000, going through that same facility. That is inhumane.

And so we are just releasing them. We are releasing them, and we are saying, Come back in a couple of years.

And you know what? We have got a million people who have absconded from their court dates. We have got another million people with active removal orders.

You think this is going to serve this problem long-term? I am sad to tell you, it won't.

You are going to see more people come because you have got the incentives in place. And they are not just coming from Mexico or the Northern Triangle. They are coming from Venezuela; they are coming from Cuba; they are coming from Africa; they are coming from China.

They are coming from all over the world today. And they are coming because they know that we have no place for them. They will be released into the interior, and we will continue to be overwhelmed.

This bill will contribute to that problem.

Madam Speaker, today highlights another success story from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Arizona Public Service, the largest electric utility in Arizona, recently announced that it will again be lowering electricity rates to customers. Arizonans can now expect to save more than $100 a year on their electricity bill thanks to the Republican-led tax reform package signed by President Trump.

These savings are not crumbs. They are real, and they will benefit millions of people across our State. APS services about 2.7 million people and operates the Palo Verde Generating Station, which is the largest source of clean-air energy in the United States. The Palo Verde nuclear power plant has 2,500 full-time employees and generates an economic impact of more than $2 billion to our State.

Madam Speaker, the 100-degree temperature days are upon us, and I know firsthand how expensive summertime bills can be. This announcement by APS is yet another example of Arizonans winning because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the accomplishments of five students from the Noah Webster Charter School in Mesa, Arizona. Madisin Bauer, Brody Kelly, Lucus Martin, Kelly Conboy, and Logan Carter were elected by their peers to lead the Wildcat's student government in the 2019-2020 school year. To qualify for the election, each student was recognized by their teachers for outstanding leadership skills and exceptional moral character.

Over the next year, I have no doubt that these young leaders will excel in service to their school and one another. I look forward to hearing about their experiences as they plan town hall-style meetings, run pep assemblies, and organize community projects.

These students' willingness to serve gives me hope for our future. Our country needs people of all ages with hearts of servants to represent and lead Americans who need a voice. I am honored to have such talent and leadership in my district.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced the Abortion Is Not Health Care Act. This bill amends the Internal Revenue Service's treatment of out-of-pocket abortion costs as a medical expense.

This bill was drafted after receiving feedback from my constituents that they no longer wanted their tax dollars to support the abortion industry.

It is unfathomable to me that my Democratic colleagues in Congress continue to not only condone the practice of abortion but allow taxpayer dollars to subsidize this abhorrent practice.

For years, the pro-abortion movement has marketed abortion as a form of reproductive healthcare, but it is time for us to be honest with ourselves. Healthcare is primarily a restorative function, one that helps our bodies and minds to heal from disease or ailment.

Under no circumstances should healthcare include the intentional taking of life.

The Abortion Is Not Health Care Act is a small step towards ending the Federal Government's treatment of abortion as a healing medical practice.

I am happy that several of my colleagues and many pro-life groups, including March for Life, Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, Center for Arizona Policy, Arizona Right to Life, and others have endorsed this bill.

As Members of Congress, we have a duty to protect life.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to uphold the call for human dignity at all stages of life, including while still in the womb, and support the Abortion is Not Health Care Act.