Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and valor of law enforcement hero, Deputy Sheriff Jason Lopez upon the 20th anniversary of his passing. As a part of the Pinal County Sheriff's Department for six years, Lopez used his talent to valiantly serve and protect Arizonans and their communities. Deputy Sheriff Lopez emulated all the traits of a selfless public servant as he fought to ensure the safety and security we take for granted.

While on duty and serving a lawfully issued warrant, Officer Lopez was brutally murdered by a suspect who pulled out a weapon unexpectedly. The suspect then fled and took a hostage and engaged in a gunfight with pursuing officers before being arrested, convicted and jailed. Deputy Lopez faced the risk all law enforcement officers face-- the constant threat of a dangerous encounter. Deputy Lopez was only 26 when he was killed and left behind a then 3 year old and a one month old child. I continue to be deeply inspired and moved by his deep commitment to our nation and its laws. May his sacrifice in the face of danger serve as a consistent reminder of our law enforcement officers' service to this nation.

Madam Speaker, I am here to express my deepest condolences to the family of Deputy Sheriff Lopez and recognize the sacrifices made as we approach the 20th anniversary of his death. His brave sacrifice will never be forgotten by the people of Pinal County, Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, 30 days ago, I invited Mr. Biden to Yuma County in my district to view firsthand the crisis his open border policies have created.

My invitation was as urgent as it was sincere.

The crisis all along the southern border has only gotten substantially worse. Illegal alien crossings are at a

15-year high; border facilities are 1,700 percent over capacity; 5,000 illegal aliens crossing the border have prior criminal records.

Mr. Biden recently named Kamala Harris as a crisis manager for the border crisis he created.

Under her watch, the problem has gotten dramatically worse. Over 172,000 illegal-alien apprehensions have occurred, including 20,000 unaccompanied minors taken into custody in March--the highest monthly total in the history of the United States, and it is much greater.

The situation is charitably called a disaster. This needs to stop. We need order restored to the border and we need faithful execution of existing Federal laws.

To date, Mr. Biden has not responded to my invitation. Therefore, I stand on the House floor today to re-invite Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris to visit Yuma to see what my constituents are experiencing from this historical surge of illegal-alien border crossings.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of representing Yuma County, Arizona. And as many of you know, Yuma is the epicenter of the Biden-created border crisis. When Mr. Biden says he is not going to enforce our immigration laws, when he says he is not going to build a border wall, it has dire consequences.

We are seeing the tragic consequences of that right now in Yuma. Mr. Biden's decision last month to release illegal immigrants in Yuma County on a daily basis has opened up a spigot of border crossings into my great State of Arizona.

Now my worst fears are coming through: Illegal aliens are flooding into Yuma. We have now ceded operational control of the border to the cartels.

In less than 2 months, the Biden administration has destroyed much of President Trump's progress in securing the southern border. The Biden administration's open border policy, coupled with Nancy Pelosi's amnesty bills taken up this week--this very day in Congress will only exacerbate the growing humanitarian health and security crisis along the southern border.

It is shocking to me that the House Democrats' answer to the Biden- created border crisis is to take up legislation that would give amnesty, plus a path to citizenship, to more than 5 million illegal aliens. This is like pouring gasoline on a wildfire.

We should be enforcing the immigration laws we have on the books. We should not be giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Mr. Biden should never have halted final construction of the border wall. Unfortunately, Democrat's hatred for President Trump clouds their ability to work together towards commonsense reforms.

Instead, Democrats rammed their radical amnesty legislation through Congress, even with confirmed reports that suspects on the terrorist watch list have attempted to enter into our country.

What is happening in Yuma and all along the southern border is unconscionable. The crisis is only getting worse. Unfortunately, today's action on the House floor sends exactly the wrong message. We should not be incentivizing more illegal immigrants to unlawfully enter our country. Instead, we must condemn these attempts, enforce the laws on the books, and take all necessary steps to get our border under control.

God help us all if these two bills become law.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to promote the strategic partnership between the United States and the Arab Republic of Egypt. I find it of the utmost importance to advance diplomatic relations with a nation that has proven many times to be a dedicated friend to the United States and our allies.

It's no secret that the Middle East is a complicated region with divisions deeply rooted in ancient conflict dating back thousands of years. Egypt has been a proven partner to the U.S. foreign policy goals in the region, with the hopes to end these conflicts and bring peace to a region that so desperately craves it. Without Egypt's partnership, the fight against terrorism and the strive for curbing proliferation would not be possible. I've always said that trust is a series of promises kept. The Arab Republic of Egypt has proven time and time again that they can be a trusted ally and friend to the people of the United States.

Egypt has been, and will continue to be, a beacon of hope for all nations across the Middle East and North Africa and a leader for prosperity, culture, and education for other nations to follow. Using this foundation to advance interfaith tolerance and freedoms, I have long been inspired by the Egyptian people, their freedoms, and their diligence to make the region and world a better place for their children. I am of the belief that the Egyptian government and the Egyptian people have played a vital role in the success of American foreign policy in the region over the recent decades.

Under the leadership of President Trump, the U.S. and Egypt became even closer allies in the fight against terrorism. I hope that the Biden administration will support the Egyptians as much as President Trump did during his time in office.

Regional peace is a goal of not only myself, but the people of the United States, Egypt, and many other nations across the globe. Therefore, it's critical that we recognize the sacrifices and efforts that Egypt has played in the regional peace agreements that have surfaced under recent years. Ever since the 1979 peace treaty with Israel, Egypt, and the United States, both nations have proven to be effective regional partners.

Madam Speaker, I'm thankful for the close friendship that the U.S. shares with Egypt. I hope that we can continue to advance this great relationship with our friends in the Middle East. I urge all my colleagues to join me in recognizing the strategic partnership between our nations and to continue to advance our shared goals going forward.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a great Republican leader and public servant, Royanne Ortiz. As a resident of Bullhead City for 10 years, Royanne graciously and selflessly used her leadership skills to benefit Arizonans. Her bold leadership was reflected in her role as District Director for Mohave County Republican Central Committee since 2017 and through the many successful Lincoln Day Dinners she oversaw in District 2.

Royanne was also well known for her fearless approach towards education policy issues. Her tenacity and passion for education reform even led her to running for the 2020 Mohave Community College Board. Her commitment to civic duty and her community was regularly reflected through her participation in meetings hosted by the Bullhead City Council, Colorado River Republican Women Club, and Colorado River Union High School District. I believe Royanne Ortiz is a great example of a Republican woman and her impact and involvement will not be forgotten by her community.

Madam Speaker, I express my deepest condolences to the family of Royanne Ortiz on her passing, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in celebrating her life and legacy as a valuable civic servant to the people of Arizona.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Arizona State House Bill 2111, the ``Second Amendment Firearm Freedom Act''. This bill takes an originalist and strong stance on Arizonans' right to bear arms. I am grateful for the work by all members of the state legislature who introduced this legislation. I would especially like to thank State Representative Leo Biasucci for his support of the Second Amendment.

This legislation purports to allow the State of Arizona to protect the Second Amendment rights of its citizens, barring them from compliance with any restrictions or infringements that the federal government enacts as federal law.

Arizonans value sovereign state authority to the highest regard. Any infringements on their constitutionally protected rights are dangerous and federal overreach. I applaud Arizona HB 2111 and its clear purpose of refusing to allow any federal overreach into the state and its citizens.

The people of Arizona are strong supporters of the Second Amendment and the Constitution's clear permission of allowing American citizens to keep and bear arms. As such, this legislation is a great movement for the citizens of the great state of Arizona. I look forward to the day that Governor Ducey signs this legislation into official Arizona law.

Madam Speaker, Arizona's state motto is ``Ditat Deus,'' meaning ``God Enriches''. I hold this phrase dear to my heart, and I know the citizens of Arizona do also. Through God's enrichment, I'm confident the governments at the local, state, and federal level will see any infringements on constitutionally-protected rights as dangerous and un- American.

I pray for the future of this nation every day. I believe that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. This legislation is a great step forward for the people of Arizona and their rights that are protected under the Arizona Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment would require us to know what we are doing before we take the overwhelming radical step of withdrawing more than a million acres of federal lands from mineral development.

It may come as a shock but even today we know little about the geologic mineral makeup of our lands. Minerals that were very important in the past like gold and silver are not always the key to our future technologies.

Today, we are finding a whole new suite of minerals that are critically important to our future, while rare earths and lithium are the stars, important minerals like cobalt, manganese and copper are quickly becoming equally both important and challenging to find and produce.

However, this bill in front of us has no recognition of the importance of the breadth of minerals that may be included in the areas covered by this legislation. Which is why my amendment is so important today.

This amendment will require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a full mineral resource survey of the withdrawal areas prior to enacting this withdrawal. This is important because of the national security impacts of this proposed withdrawal that seeks to permanently ban oil, natural gas, geothermal, uranium and other critical minerals and rare earths on over a million acres of land in Arizona,

I will continue to make the case that the importance of the uranium alone is key for keeping these lands open, however I believe that without this amendment this bill will have a negative impact on our national security as it aims to permanently prohibit mining of rare earths and critical minerals on a massive, massive swath of land.

Earlier I mentioned the importance of lithium and there is no question that lithium is critically important to our technology and energy future. However, we don't often know where all the lithium resources are in the United States. For example, in September of last year, the USGS funded an earth MRI program in Arizona to study the lithium resources of the Big Sandy Valley in Arizona. I include in the Record the press release from USGS.

This study will help us to define and understand the lithium resources in this region. Yet it is important for us to reflect on the fact that we didn't know about these resources until recently, had we closed off this area, like this bill proposes to do to more than one million acres of Arizona, we may have never known. Yet because we have the ability to examine this area, which is not subject to a withdrawal, we are going to study and hopefully find rich resources we can produce to secure our nation's future.

Before I close Mr. Speaker, let me stress, the underlying bill represents one of the largest legislative land grabs ever considered by Congress. This effort to permanently lock away the highest grade and largest deposit of uranium in the country will further increase our reliance on foreign adversaries like Russia, China, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Instead of rushing headlong into the endeavor of permanently making this million acre area off limits, we should know what the true impacts of this legislation will be on the long-term national security of our country.

This amendment would not kill this legislation, instead it would ensure that the proposed withdrawal can only go ahead once we clearly access the region, clearly understand the picture of what we are withdrawing and what other resources may be impacted by this action.

I say to my colleagues, lets slow down this process so we know what we are doing, what we are impacting and the real impacts of making such a large and bountiful parcel of land off limits could have on our mineral security.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Earth MRI Funds Critical Minerals Projects in Arizona

[Sept. 28, 2020]

A total of $133,016 will fund new research and preserve important data

across the Grand Canyon State

Flagstaff, Ariz.--The U.S. Geological Survey and the

Association of American State Geologists are pleased to

announce $133,016 in funding for critical minerals projects

in Arizona. These funds are for the fiscal year 2020 under

the USGS Mineral Resources Program's Earth Mapping Resources

Initiative, or Earth MRI.

The funds include grants to the Arizona Geological Survey

for geologic mapping and geochemical analyses for an area of

the Big Sandy Valley with a focus on lithium and to preserve

and publicly available information on critical mineral

resources.

``These new projects in Arizona represent the next step in

our ambitious effort to improve our knowledge of the geologic

framework in the United States and to identify areas that may

have the potential to contain undiscovered critical mineral

resources,'' said Jim Reilly, director of the USGS. ``The

identification and prioritization of prospective areas were

done through our strong partnership with the state geological

surveys in a series of workshops in Fall 2019.''

``This program will revitalize and update the science and

geologic research and data compilation that is needed in many

states for the United States to identify new geologic

associations,'' said John Yellich, director of the Michigan

Geological Survey and president of AASG.

``The Earth MRI effort is an outgrowth of the strong

partnership between the AASG members and the USGS,'' said

Warren Day, Earth MRI lead scientist for the USGS. ``The USGS

is grateful for the scientific input and support from the

state geological surveys, resulting in a robust body of

information useful for many applications beyond mineral

resources.''

The geologic mapping efforts, which are managed through the

National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, will refine

our scientific understanding of the geologic framework of

areas of interest. In addition to helping identify mineral

potential, these maps also support decisions about use of

land, water, energy and minerals and help to mitigate the

impact of geologic hazards on communities.

In 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13817, a

Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of

Critical Minerals. This executive order called on agencies

across the federal government to develop a strategy to reduce

the nation's susceptibility to critical mineral supply

disruptions.

In May of 2018, DOI released a list of 35 minerals deemed

critical to the U.S. economy and security, based on a

methodology by the USGS. This list forms the foundation of

the full federal strategy.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment is very simple, it only asks Congress to do one thing, respect the will of the local people in the management of our lands.

This amendment would remove from the bill the lands included in my Congressional district from the massive mineral withdrawal included in the bill. My local constituents and counties support this amendment and I encourage my colleagues to respect our wishes. Under general leave, I include in the Record a letter from Mohave County opposing this legislation.

Mohave County Arizona, which is the primary area which this amendment would help protect, is currently facing nearly 10 percent unemployment and has a per capita income of less than thirty-five thousand dollars a year. These economic conditions should be proof enough that we need to be promoting economic development in these regions, not simply closing off an important path to economic security for the people of Mohave County.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will argue that these lands belong to all the American people, which is true, but we must respect the local concerns.

When I highlight that offshore oil drilling in California would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, stop us from subsidizing Russia and Saudi Arabia, my colleagues from California scream out ``respect our wishes, we don't want drilling''.

So I call on them here today, join me in supporting my constituents who are crying out for the chance, just the chance to keep the potential of high paying jobs open and support this amendment.

It may come as a shock but even today we know little about the geologic mineral makeup of our lands. Minerals that were very important in the past like gold and silver are not always the key to our future technologies.

Today, we are finding a whole new suite of minerals that are critically important to our future, while rare earths and lithium are the stars, important minerals like cobalt, manganese and copper are quickly becoming equally both important and challenging to find and produce.

This area in Mohave County has tremendous potential and keeping that potential open and available to the people of the county is critical to ensuring a rich economic future.

This amendment only removes the area within my district, it will allow other members to do with their regions as they will.

This amendment would not kill this legislation, instead it would ensure that the people I represent in Arizona have their wishes respected and the land managed in a manner consistent with the will of the local communities.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mohave County

Board of Supervisors,

February 24, 2021.

Hon. Paul Gosar,

U.S. Congress,

Washington, DC.

Congressman Gosar: The Mohave County Board of Supervisors

is writing to offer our support for your amendment to H.R.

803--Colorado Wilderness Act of 2021. As you know, the

passage of this legislation will have a grave effect on

Mohave County, Arizona, and our neighboring counties in Utah.

Uranium mining in the past has been the forefront of our

economic growth in Mohave County and if allowed to continue

will bring in nearly $29 billion to our local economy over a

42 year period. The passage of H.R. 803 would make permanent

a July 2012 moratorium on uranium mining in our area. The

language of your amendment would help alleviate the permanent

economic loss we would sustain under the passage of H.R. 803.

We strongly support the passing of this amendment as

presented in the Rules Committee and the House or

Representatives. Without this amendment, the financial

stability of our economy in Mohave County would drastically

suffer.

In 2012, the Secretary of the Interior imposed a 20 year

ban on over 1 million acres of land in the Arizona Strip Area

for the purpose of Uranium mining. This ban included both

public lands and National Forest System lands. This ban took

away much needed growth and jobs from our area. Secretary

Salazar at the time issued this withdrawal without complying

with the law requiring coordination with local governments.

The Federal Land Policy Management Act, USC Section 171

requires that the Secretary and his designees ``coordinate''

with local government as to development and implementation of

any plan or management action. Coordination is defined in the

Act as requiring prior notice of proposed plans and actions

to the local government officials (``prior'' meaning prior to

public announcements, and early enough to provide

``meaningful'' participation by the local officials in the

``development'' of the plan or action.). The congressional

mandate of coordination also requires the Secretary to use

all practicable means to reach consistency between the

federal plan/management action and local policy, plan or law.

All of which Secretary Salazar did not do.

Making this ban permanent based on misinformation will have

lasting effects on Mohave County. We respect and take a

responsibility for protecting the Grand Canyon, but saying

that the Grand Canyon will suffer because of mining is

inaccurate. Secretary Salazar's reasoning behind the

withdrawal was out of concern that it could damage the

region's drinking water and the park's water quality. Bureau

of Land Management officials contradicted those claims by

explaining that their Arizona Strip field office had no

evidence of contamination of water, and had no evidence of

problems with the safe operation of the uranium mines in

operation on the lands.

Uranium mining is important and useful for many reasons.

The lands in the ``Strip'' contain the nation's high grade

uranium deposits and enough uranium to provide power

generation for the state of California for over 20 years.

Uranium is useful in many ways. It is used by our military

for national security and defense. Uranium metal is very

dense and heavy. When it is depleted (DU), uranium is used by

the military as shielding to protect Army tanks, and also in

parts of bullets and missiles. The military also uses

enriched uranium to power nuclear propelled Navy ships and

submarines, and in nuclear weapons. A permanent withdrawal of

uranium mining from the ``Strip'' harms the American people

by removing between 326-375 million lbs (the equivalent

electricity generating capacity for the entire state of

California's 40 million people for 22.4 years) of uranium.

From a national security standpoint, domestic utilities now

import 90 percent of the uranium used to operate America's

104 nuclear reactors. Thirty years ago, these reactors used

U.S. mined uranium for 100 percent of electricity production,

The nation cannot be pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear fuel. In

sum, these deposits represent the last available use of our

public lands for economic growth in our region.

The opponents of uranium mining have chosen to ignore the

fact that mining with environmentally sound reclamation was

conducted from the early 1980s until the price of uranium

collapsed in 1993. No mining at all occurred from 1993 until

2010, and the Denison mine which is now operating, is

following and often exceeding all environmental and safety

laws.

Arizona needs to go back to the roots that led to Arizona

being developed, and that is mining. The strict federal and

state environmental laws already on the books will protect

the public from environmental damage to the Grand Canyon

watershed. The mining of uranium however does not affect

ground water nor destroy the natural resources of the land.

It does not require open pit mining. Upon completion of

mining one Breccia Pipe (4 years) the land is placed back

into its native state.

We want to thank you for putting forward this amendment.

Nuclear energy can be the future of clean energy. We have the

resources in this Country to ensure that happens and we have

the technology and means to ensure mining that energy is both

environmentally safe and protects our natural resources. We

stand in support of the amendment.

Sincerely,

Buster Johnson,

Chairman, Mohave County

Board of Supervisors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my dismay that members of Congress are making unfounded claims of treason and sedition against their colleagues without evidence to back their outlandish claims. By this, I mean the numerous members alleging that members aided in ``reconnaissance'' tours for those individuals who would storm the Capitol during the Electoral College certification.

These accusations leveled by several members make these bold statements without offering a shred of evidence. In fact, over 30 members put their names on a letter which made these allegations without even an indication to whom they were referring to. In the absence of fact, these accusations have allowed conspiracy to permeate the narrative from the deepest enclaves of the Internet. Leftist media sources, from major 24 hour broadcast companies to biogs, have picked up on these hollow accusations, and the effects have been damaging.

Since evidence and due process have been replaced with speculation, members of Congress are being deemed guilty of these crimes, including myself. In fact, there is now a narrative running that since I supported the objection to the certification of the count, I must be one of the members guilty of this treason. Multiple media sources have reported as ``fact'' that me and other objectors conducted tours of the Capitol to do some type of ``reconnaissance''. This is patently and unequivocally false. They offered no proof of this scurrilous and defamatory falsehood. I asked Capitol Police to pull and preserve all video footage from House security cameras which can establish with finality who, if anyone, gave even one tour during the days leading to the unrest. I can say this: my office has not given a tour since February 2020. The continuing publication of this defamation by members of Congress and media is unprofessional, unethical, and actionable.

The increase in violent, threatening messages received in our offices because of the irresponsible political messaging from my colleagues in coordination with their media pals is sickening and indicative of our larger societal issues, such as a media which tells their viewers what they know to be true, not what the facts are. So, let me set the record straight. I have not given a tour of the Capitol since 2017, and my staff has not given a tour since they closed to the public early in 2020 as a COVID-19 response. Further, at no time did anyone with Stop the Steal talk to me about violence, and my efforts to speak to the American people and fight for my constituents were guided by the First Amendment and the Electoral Count Act of 1878.

Madam Speaker, the purpose of this body is to serve as the voice of the American people, a voice which speaks with honesty to conduct the business of this country and contribute to the overall good. Yet, the passions of humanity can undermine these principles, and these unfounded accusations are a menace to the traditions of this body. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I condemn my colleagues irresponsible actions and their use of their official powers to fuel a media spectacle for their own political benefit. Their willingness to set these mistruths into the public and not interject when the truth is deviated from and innocent people are blamed is defamation, conspiratorial, and faulty justice. Much like McCarthyism or the witch hunt conducted these last four years, history will not look kindly on this abuse of Congressional power, and therefore I implore my colleagues to either set the record straight with evidence or retract these claims immediately to resecure their position in history.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Res. 21 and its invocation for Vice President Mike Pence to activate Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.

The Resolution appears to be ill-conceived, vindictive and disassociated from any factual basis. There is no medical, scientific or other evidence that the President is operating under an infirmity that prevents the faithful execution of our laws. Indeed, no one even so much as asked for such evidence. No independent medical exam was sought. No interviews of cabinet members or testimony was proffered where one or more cabinet members could have presumably attested to some medical or physical infirmity warranting immediate intervention.

While it is true the President has his detractors, almost all of whom support this ill-advised resolution, attacking one's political opponents by invoking the most dramatic and emergency based provisions in the Constitution is reckless and poses serious harm to the Republic. Unfortunately, as it has been brought to the floor, the political bar has been lowered. I voted no as there is no merit to it and it is plainly a vengeful attack at the outgoing President who has been vilified by leftist

media and others. I remain concerned that this provision will be brought up against the next president, and the next, and the next, for mere political opportunism.

Indeed, in light of the incoming president's age and existing infirmities, I fear a movement to remove him without just cause using this provision. I am told that Mr. Biden won the presidency in the greatest popular vote on record in the history of the United States. To me that means the American people knew what they were voting on, embraced him as their choice, and that choice should not be easily disturbed, if ever. More concisely, the American people were well aware of Mr. Biden's age and health issues and that cannot be used as a pretext to remove him before the natural expiration of his term. This historic victory, greater than the then-historic victory of Obama, cannot be tarnished by congressional machinations to remove the next president. I will not countenance such villainy, nor will the Republic.

Invocation of the 25th Amendment should be used in the rarest and most exceptional circumstances. That does not exist relative to President Trump, and none was even whispered. And it does not, and will not, exist for President Biden. I go on record now to register my objection to such loose talk, including the formation of a commission to ``investigate'' the 25th Amendment. This is dangerous. It is breezy talk, a bit too comfortable about removing elected officials to replace them. That is the sole prerogative of the people every four years.

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment addresses an incapacitated President unable to make the decision to relinquish their duties. As the current president is not incapacitated, the current effort falls far short. Laughingly short. Improbably short. Ridiculously short.

I restate my call for civility. I call for unity. I ask the leftists here, the socialists who want to deconstruct this great Nation, to stop the nonsense and join with me in building our country, not tearing it down. I condemn the violence we saw all over the United States from May to the present, from Portland to Washington, D.C., led by domestic terrorist organizations like Black Lives Matter and the pro-fascist, protocommunist Antifa. I call out the rioters at the Capitol last week and condemn their violation of our House proceedings, indeed directly stopping me from conducting House business. My request for a remand for the state legislature to double check electoral integrity lost cosponsors and lost immediacy because of the violence that day. I thank the overwhelmed Capitol Police.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I note my long-term support for our police. It is not a fashion for me, as it is others, who condemn police and seek to defund it on one day, and then after feeling scared and vulnerable, call for more police. I remain consistent in my support for ethical law enforcement. I wish they had back up that day and were able to arrest and stop any incursion. The leftists in this body have brow beaten our law enforcement to such a degree the rules of engagement are not known to even themselves. All law enforcement knows is one mistake and they are cancelled. It does not have to be that way. It should not be that way.

For these reasons, Madam Speaker, I stand in opposition of the resolution and the invocation of the 25th Amendment and I voted No. Now, more than ever, God bless these United States.

Mr. Vice President, I, Paul Gosar from Arizona, rise for myself and 60 of my colleagues to object to the counting of the electoral ballots from Arizona.

Yes, it is.

Senator CRUZ. It is.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my objection.

Madam Speaker, I filed my challenge on the slate of electors from the State of Arizona that was actually put forward by Governor Ducey of Arizona.

My ask to you, the Speaker, through the Vice President, is simple. Do not count these electors until and unless the secretary of state allows a forensic audit of the election, a request she has denied repeatedly.

We have been told over and over that even though this was a public election using public money and public machines utilizing public employees, the public today has no ability to simply double-check the veracity of these results.

If the Presidential election was a football game, we would get a slow-motion review from multiple angles and a

correction of a controversial decision. But not so, we are told by our secretary of state, for the Presidential election, no review for you.

No access to the Dominion voting machines with a documented history of enabling fraud through its now discredited adjudication system, a system that literally allows one person to change tens of thousands of votes in mere minutes.

In the only audit done in Arizona, a court found 3 percent error rate against President Trump. Vice President Biden's margin of error was one-tenth of that, at 0.03 percent. By the way, a 3 percent error rate at minimum is 90,000 ballots. After finding the 3 percent error rate, the court stopped the audit and refused to go further.

In Arizona, as my attachments make clear, mail-in ballots were altered on the first day of counting as shown in data graphs we have provided, as concluded by data analysts. Over 400,000 mail-in ballots were altered, switched from President Trump to Vice President Biden, or completely erased from President Trump's totals.

The proof is in the counting curves, the curves that cannot occur except with odds so rare and unlikely that winning the Mega Millions lottery is more probable.

Mr. Speaker, can I have order in the Chamber?

Recess

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the probability of these ectopic curves, you have a better likelihood of winning the Mega Millions lottery than you do having statistical issues here.

Over 30,000 illegal aliens voted in Arizona using the Federal ballot, yet our secretary of state refused the public access to review the ballots.

Over a thousand residences were visited for proof of residency and address; 456 failed that test. They were vacant lots. Even the Recorder's office was used as an address.

What are they hiding? If the process was fair, these would be improbable. These would be once-in-a-lifetime-type applications.

So let's look at the ballots, the signatures, and the adjudicated records. Until this is done, Mr. Speaker, we should not count this slate.

You have a letter from the Arizona Legislature stating its intent to review the issue on January 11. Our Governor has refused to allow the State to properly convene to do its proper oversight.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you one question today: Are you a ceremonial figurehead in your current role, or did the drafters of the 12th Amendment and Congress, in the Electoral Count Act of 1887, envision a role where you made discretionary decisions about ballot fraud and fair elections?

If you are merely ceremonial, then let's be done with this. Let's eat our tea and crumpets and witness our national decline.

But if you are not merely ceremonial but vested with discernment, rationality, and legal authority to not just count from 1 to 270, then do not accept Arizona's electors as certified. Remand the slate back to the secretary of state, back to the Governor, with the following instructions: Until a full, complete electoral forensic audit is allowed by the secretary of state, the electors currently certified will not be counted.

It will then fall on the State of Arizona to decide are its electors in the game or not. Anything less is an abdication of our constitutional Republic and our ethos: one man, one vote.

We ask: Why? What is there to hide? Shouldn't the lawful victor of an election be proud, open, and transparent about an election audit? I would. Instead, we are met with denials, cover-ups, and contempt of subpoenas.

There is too much evidence of fraud, demonstrated by statistical anomalies that experts have determined cannot happen in the absence of fraud, to accept such a slate. I am not asking these electors never be counted; it is just that they need to be certified the proper way.

Our beloved Constitution is but a mere piece of paper if we do not follow the law, upholding the law. But now, alas, we find ourselves lawless, destroying the very thread that binds us together. But we need to get back to the rule of law. That is what has been violated, truly, by the actions in these States.

Recess

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Master Sergeant Doncarlos Pagan who served his country in the United States Army for 28 years. Master Sergeant Pagan's service in Afghanistan and his work for the State of Arizona and the United States Army exemplify his strong devotion to duty and country.

While in Afghanistan, Master Sergeant Pagan's experience as a construction engineer enabled the 158th Infantry Battalion to plan, and build, construction projects that included bridges and roads that enabled villagers in Najil, Afghanistan to bypass destroyed roads. In addition, he developed an artillery battery munitions storage bunker for the Afghan Army and he helped train Afghan Combat Engineer Soldiers in Force Protection Operations. His expertise in construction and developing force protection efforts was recognized by the 82nd Airborne, All American 6, General Rodriguez and earned him a Combat Action Badge. At times coming under direct enemy fire, Master Sergeant Pagan held firm and completed the mission.

Master Sergeant Pagan was also crucial in the development of planning for multiple construction projects valued at over $2.5 million to support multiple counties, government agencies and the State of Arizona.

Madam Speaker, this is only a fraction of the numerous accomplishments that span the 28 years of Master Sergeant Pagan's service to our country. His leadership has left a profound legacy that will continue to positively impact the United States Army for years to come. His proudest accomplishment however is his wonderful family. He and his wife Shawna have 4 children and 8 beautiful grandchildren.

I thank Master Sergeant Pagan for his service and leadership to our country. May his leadership continue to inspire generations of men and women who serve in the United States Army.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight the disaster at our southern border and how it is affecting our children.

This afternoon, I want to read a letter on the House floor from a young constituent of mine, Mitch, an 11-year-old from San Tan Valley, Arizona, and he had this to say: ``Dr. Gosar, we moved to San Tan Valley a couple of years ago from Flagstaff. I am 11 years old and, I want to let you know how illegal immigration is affecting me.

``My classes are overcrowded. The teachers have to spend more time on other children to make sure they are able to take the State-mandated tests. This is taking time away from my education. Yes, they need to be educated if they are here; however, why should I lose instructional time because of the laws?''

He goes on further to say: ``Do you know what is being done to help with smaller class sizes? Where are we with border control?

``My education is important to me. I want to be successful in life. The tensions are high at my school because of the illegal immigrants. This is how racism is perpetuated, not prevented.

``I will be going to a private charter this fall; however, I am still concerned because my future wife may not be so lucky to escape this problem. My friends are not all able to switch schools.

``This is not the way it should be. Please hear me. I hope that you can offer guidance. No one knows what the answer is.''

This is how it is affecting students, and I submit, it is a sad state of affairs in southern Arizona.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this because I want to remind everybody this is continental offshore; this is not State-owned property. This is the property of the American public.

So, if we are going to extend that aspect, I want the same type of application to lands out in western Arizona and the Western United States. So we have to start looking at this.

We have seen opposition, basically, state that they can't coexist: fundamental energy development, exploration, and tourism. But we see that very vibrantly in the Gulf State of Louisiana. We see one of the most vibrant fishing areas. The argument doesn't hold muster in that regard.

In regards to that, we need to explore and find out exactly what kind of resources are actually there. It makes a big difference in regards to energy independence because those who spend money for tourism have to have a job, and plentiful energy at affordable prices help American businesses and the American worker.

So the same aspects we are trying to extend here for Florida should be extended all the way across the board.

But, once again, this is the public's property. It needs to be well invested, and the government has the due diligence in which to do that.

We can take into consideration the concerns of the military. We do it time and time again in southwestern Arizona. We have the Goldwater Range, the Yuma Proving Ground, yet we still coexist with the natural resources and environmental protections.

I think, within that aspect, I rise in opposition, and I would ask everybody to defeat this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, the irony of this aspect, to explore something that is of the public nature of the people of the United States, the ironic aspect is unfathomable.

To look at seismic, we don't even want to do seismic. We need seismic in regard to looking at moorings in regard to big wind. That is what we have seen over and over again, that this area wants to have big wind.

The other part to this aspect is, how does that work when you have to have a Russian tanker moored outside of your bay, which is one of the most easily spilled aspects of oil that you have to have for heating oil and natural gas in regard to heating your energy platforms in the areas? That is just unfathomable to me.

We do this better, and the technology is actually coming back around.

As the Western Caucus chairman, we went down to Houston to actually see the technology that exists. It is profound, absolutely profound what is there.

No one is asking to go past go, collect $200. What they want to do is follow the rightful process in that aspect.

There is evidence like I cited in the Gulf States. Definitely when you look at Louisiana, it is a plethora. It is one of the most diverse aquatic ecosystems around.

There is a way to have this and looking at it and benefit everybody.

Once again, the dichotomy of trying to separate one aspect of holdings for the American people, and then apply it to out West, where there is even more defined aspects of jurisdiction, to land aspects of public lands and public minerals and gas leases, is just ironic.

Mr. Chair, I remain in opposition.

Madam Chairwoman, specifically, the CPP aimed to dramatically reduce carbon dioxide, CO2 emissions, from new and existing power plants. These new regulations called for an unrealistic 32 percent nationwide cut in CO2 emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels.

I have just got to tell you, we are wrapping up scientific evidence, and we are putting a moral cloud on it. That is exactly the definition of what Alinsky wanted us to start talking about and moving processes.

These new mandates placed incredible burdens on States. They would have increased the electrical rates and endangered overall reliability of the grid. Due to this unprecedented overreach, Congress rejected these new regulations, using the Congressional Review Act.

Specifically, the Senate voted on November 17, 2015, to reject these rules, and the House followed suit on December 1, 2015. Unfortunately, President Obama decided to veto both of these pieces of legislation and continue his war on coal.

We shouldn't be picking winners and losers. Climate change has been going on for eons of time. That is why you can actually have a fossil coming from Green River, Wyoming, that is nowhere close to the ocean. I vote against this.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, 32 fires in 2015. The average over the last 10 years has been 15 to 20 fires. We ought to know better.

In Arizona, I have had to witness the most catastrophic fires in Arizona history because of our mismanagement of forests: The Wallow fire, the largest fire in Arizona history; and then the Yarnell fire, where we lost 19 firefighters.

It is incredible that what we are doing is we are trying to have jurisdiction over fires. There is a reason why we have had to subsidize that: because we have put the industry out of business by sue and settle.

Folks, there is a cost to these fires, and you have to start looking at mitigation in that aspect. If you want climate change mitigation, the best thing you can do is have a dynamic forest that actually produces more oxygen than carbon. That means medium- and small-growth trees, not old-growth trees. A happy medium of all is a dynamic forest.

So if you are preventing this--the gentleman from Arizona ought to know better. We are sitting on catastrophic results in Arizona. Let's not impugn the trees in Alaska.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Madam Chair, my amendment is straightforward. It would prevent any funds in this bill from being used to carry out the EPA disastrous 2009 Endangerment Finding.

The EPA's Endangerment Finding has served as legal justification for the Federal Government to attack American energy under the guise of climate change since 2009.

The Information Quality Act provides a framework for the oversight of the quality of information disseminated by the Federal Government. Unfortunately, bureaucrats in President Obama's EPA evaded the requirements set forth in the Information Quality Act by refusing to admit that the document was a highly influential scientific assessment.

If climate change is as dire as some of my colleagues consistently argue, why then did President Obama's EPA go to such lengths to prevent their assessment from rigorous peer review?

Interesting.

In April of this year, President Trump's Office of Management and Budget released a memo to ``reinforce, clarify, and interpret agency responsibilities with regard to responsibilities under the Information Quality Act.''

In April, the Competitive Enterprise Institute petitioned the EPA to stop using the 2009 Endangerment Finding until it subjected itself to the high-level scientific peer review that is legally required under the Information Quality Act.

CEI's petition to the EPA found numerous instances in which the EPA failed to meet the Agency's own peer review standards for the highly scientific assessments. Some of the failure of the EPA noted by CEI include failing ``to allow public, including scientific and professional societies, to nominate potential reviewers,'' allowing an EPA employee to conduct peer review, utilizing peer reviewers who were reviewing their own work, and reliance on the United Nations Climate Change Panel reports that do not meet Federal peer review standards.

Completely obnoxious.

Now, even the staunchest advocates for taking aggressive action on our climate should be able to agree that the process the EPA used to adopt the Endangerment Finding failed to meet the required peer review process.

Fortunately, there is an alternative. Madam Chairwoman, I believe the best way to improve our environment and to ensure the economic prosperity of this country is to rely on sound science, not on the opinions of unelected bureaucrats at the EPA.

If climate alarmists are so confident that the 2009 Endangerment Finding is sound science, then conduct proper peer review, following the guidelines of the Information Quality Act put forth by OMB, that will assure the outcome.

Madam Chairwoman, this is not a partisan issue. No matter what side of the climate change debate you fall on, we can all agree that the EPA has evaded its responsibility to peer review and developing sound science when authoring its Endangerment Findings.

The process was broken, and good process makes good policy, which makes good politics. This body should not fund the implementation of policies based on the 2009 Endangerment Finding.

Madam Chair, I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I ask one simple question: If Members of this body are so confident of the 2009 endangerment findings, then high- quality peer review would result in the same outcome, correct? What would be the fallacy with that?

Once again, good process builds good policy builds good politics. We fail to do that. We want to use science when it is convenient for us. That is the problem.

The other side calls themselves the party of science. Then they should be all for this peer review aspect. But, no, we don't want to do that because it is not convenient.

Once again, I agree. Climates are always changing. That is why we find fossilized fish up in western Wyoming. Was man around during that time? No, not at all. Were the carbon footprints

at that time very similar to what they are today? They were higher at that point in time.

Science has been peer-reviewed, and that is why we have gotten to the point that when I give you one set of circumstances, you get the same outcome. That is what peer-reviewed science is. This country is set upon sound science. We ought to determine that.

Madam Chair, I ask for everybody to vote for this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota. Chronic wasting disease is 100 percent fatal. We have similar diseases like mad cow disease in cattle and scrapie in sheep.

One of the things that we are very concerned with, as the gentlewoman alluded to, is that we have no testing available for hunter populations. Is it communicable to human beings and to other aspects of agriculture? Those are some of the things that we really need to address.

As the gentlewoman said, we have now seen it in 25 States, so it is spreading. Once again, being 100 percent fatal, we have to address this because we have whole populations that are at stake.

We can put our ingenuity to task here. We can solve this problem, but it is at the forefront.

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana. As a veterinarian, as a physician, he understands the dire ramifications of this. I thank the gentlewoman for accepting this.

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

Madam Chairman, this amendment attempts to change the requirements for oil and gas leases. I will say it's very entrepreneurial in its disguise.

But I want to remind people in regard to how big this aspect is. This is a small, little area. To give you an example, ANWR is the size of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New Hampshire combined. Energy developed with ANWR is just one-fifth the size of the Dulles Airport. Amazing. If you have ever been there, it is something to be seen.

As the Congressional Western Caucus chairman, we actually took that liberty of going up there and being hosted by the gentleman from Alaska. What you are being told and what is being there in aspect isn't the same.

So, Madam Chair, I actually join the gentleman from South Carolina and ask for a ``yes'' vote.

My colleague, Mr. Mullin, is absolutely correct. When former President Obama directed the EPA, BLM, and other agencies to target industries for greenhouse gas emissions, they went directly for the oil and natural gas first.

But this EPA rule targeting methane is completely unnecessary. It is produced as a byproduct of oil and natural gas production, but it is a valuable product in itself that can be sold and is sold. It is something that oil and gas companies routinely capture and sell. They were doing a great job of this even before this rule. It was unnecessary.

Even EPA estimates show that the methane emissions have decreased while the production of natural gas and oil have increased over the same period. The free market has provided an incentive to reduce methane release on its own. There is no further need for the EPA to impose this bureaucratic hurdle. It is expensive. The cost is estimated to cost our economy $530 million annually. Amazing.

Once again, as Ronald Reagan used to say:

Government is not the solution, government is the problem.

This is a regulation in search of a problem.

Madam Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise today in support of this commonsense amendment that will protect American jobs and the economy but prohibit funds from being used for implementing the Obama administration's flawed social cost of carbon, or SCC, valuation.

This job-killing and unlawful guidance sneakily attempts to pave the way for cap-and-trade-like mandates. Congress and the American people have repeatedly rejected cap-and-trade proposals.

Knowing that he could not lawfully enact a carbon tax plan, President Obama attempted to circumvent Congress by playing loose and fast with the Clean Air Act to unilaterally implement this unlawful new requirement under the guise of guidance.

The social cost of carbon is not based on science, and the models can be easily manipulated to arrive at whatever conclusion is desired.

Once again, when we look at carbon, it is a nutrient for plants. To say otherwise is disrespectful. Once again, we play loose and fast with sound science.

So, in regards to this, the House has decisively voted a dozen times to block or defund and oppose the social cost of carbon. I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.