Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment 91, which prohibits funds to finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule by the EPA titled: ``Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter.''

The EPA's proposed rule will lower the particulate matter or PM standards to a level Maricopa County and other counties in Arizona could never meet. The PM present in Arizona is not due to manufacturing. It is naturally occurring. There is no way to lower the PM in the desert.

Approximately 50 percent of Arizona is a desert. As a desert, it is prone to accumulations of frequent dust, including frequent dust storms. Maricopa County, for example, records one to three massive dust storms called haboobs every year. The current ambient air quality in southern Arizona rarely meets the EPA PM 2.5 standards due to the widespread naturally occurring dust particulate matter throughout the area. During a dust storm, the PM levels increase dramatically. Over 100 times the non-dust storm days, and it is well-documented by the National Weather Service.

The proposed rule is unreasonable, incomprehensible, and it is not based on environmental science. The proposed rule would have substantial impacts on large swaths of the Western United States, not just Arizona.

For example, if the standard were set to the proposed levels, populated areas of Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and New Mexico would be designated as nonattainment and subject to stringent regulatory requirements and penalties.

The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which made its recommendations to the EPA, failed to account for the naturally occurring and ambient PM concentrations throughout the Western United States.

The EPA must consider the world in its natural state. In Arizona, and even in Michigan, particulate matter in comparatively high levels exist in the natural state.

Without any contribution from mankind, there will be dust and particulate matter in Arizona that exceeds the proposed and current regulations adopted by the EPA.

How an agency that is supposed to be based on science can ignore the National Weather Service data and the data from Maricopa County is perplexing.

We expect better from our agencies, and we certainly expect an agency to reconsider the differences between a rainforest and a desert. For these reasons and more, I ask my colleagues to support Amendment 91 prohibiting funding to finalize or enforce the EPA's proposed rule titled, Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Yeah. Obviously, the young lady does not understand the desert. She hasn't been in the desert. You can't just water the desert. That is why it is the desert. Particulates are in the air. And so, if you are an asthmatic, if you have got problems breathing, you don't belong in the desert. But you can't lower those standards without going through extraordinary circumstances.

You know, we do a lot of watering in the desert anyway, but the particulates are in the air. It is naturally occurring. So I think this is just ridiculous that there would be opposition from anybody in regard to this. If you doubt me, come out to Arizona. I will be happy to show you a haboob, show you the ambient quality.

This is by far an amendment that we need to adopt. I implore my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment 92, to prohibit the Biden administration from implementing, administering, or enforcing the recent Grand Canyon National Monument designation and corresponding mineral withdraw for almost a million acres.

The monument designation flies in the face of multiple-use doctrines for public land. Further, it creates no new revenue, and neither creates nor empowers any employment. Make no mistake, the Grand Canyon National Park is already protected under the Grand Canyon Protection Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and multiple other regulations and laws.

Further, the roughly million acres of newly designated land is far outside the actual Grand Canyon, believe it or not.

I am also a proud sponsor of the Northern Arizona Protection Act, which nullifies Biden's designation of corresponding mineral withdrawal.

The almost million acres of designated land fall within my district and my colleague from Arizona, Mr. Crane's. But at no point were we consulted. And our constituents' opposition was ignored. Arizona already boasts more national monuments than any other State. We do not want any more monument designations.

The Federal Government already controls far too much land in Arizona, and this restriction is unacceptable.

Despite repeatedly expressed concerns and questions from my constituents, county supervisors, local groups, and the House Committee on Natural Resources, the Department of the Interior has refused to address any of them.

Instead, without consultation with my constituents or their Representative in Congress, Biden and Secretary Haaland have permanently withdrawn more than a million acres from its intended multiple-use doctrine.

Under House Rule X, the Committee on Natural Resources has general oversight of any matter relating to its jurisdiction, including the management of Federal lands and the development of mineral resources. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I have made repeated inquiries to the Secretary of the Interior regarding this proposed designation. Yet still, the Secretary of the Interior has not responded to repeated inquiries from my Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, further bypassing Congress and the legislative process. Biden's designation is nothing short of a full-scale attack on the livelihoods of many of my constituents. It sets back our Nation's national security and even strengthens Russia.

Biden's proclamation imposed a nearly million-acre land grab permanently banning mining in an area almost the size of Delaware. Some falsely frame the designation as an effort to protect the Grand Canyon, which of course is completely disingenuous. No one wants a mine within the Grand Canyon. The designated area is miles away from the boundaries of the buffer area--let me repeat that--the buffer area of the Grand Canyon National Park. The area in question is home to the highest grade and largest quantity of uranium deposits in the United States. So this amendment does not just effectively affect Arizona, it harms our national security for the entire country.

The designation plays right into the hands of Russia, who along with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are literally trying to corner the global uranium market.

China is also joining in on this game, buying up uranium mines in Africa. Everybody knows that in order to go green, you have to use nuclear. We better get on board.

There is no question this designation will hurt local revenues, kill jobs, and undermine American energy security. It does not protect the Grand Canyon. It is opposed by the people of my district, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, you know, I love the fact that we have individuals from across this country, it is a beauty, but it is also detrimental to us here in this aspect. No one has taken an airplane over this general area. They don't know what they are talking about.

So number one, being ancestral, anything can be that way. Teddy Roosevelt set this thing up called public lands. And in due process, what he did is he established also at the same time the multiple-use doctrine, the Taylor Grazing Act requiring these lands to be not just used but to be improved and to be used for multiple purposes. That is mining. That is energy development. It is not conservation. Let me repeat, not conservation.

So when people start talking about these monuments, you got to come out to Arizona. We have got more than any other State combined. So let's get after this. But this is very important for national security, and this designation does not need to go through. I ask that people vote for this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of Collin Michael Morrison, devoted American patriot and late President/CEO of LionHeart Security Services in Tempe, Arizona.

Born at a British military base in Singapore, Michael was the son of Scottish U.S. Army servicemembers. He spent his childhood in the United Kingdom and Southeast Asia where his father worked in intelligence.

After moving to the United States, Michael's core values in teamwork and equal justice led him to serve in both the U.S. Navy and U.S. Army, in the Monterey County Sheriff's Department, and later in international security.

Notably, his international work landed him at U.S. embassies in Africa, including roles as a Project Manager for security forces in Guinea, West Africa, and as a security consultant for U.S. embassies in Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, and Senegal. Here, he developed security training modules for local security forces assigned to these embassies.

After 7 years in Africa, Michael returned to the United States to foster his continued sense of duty and create LionHeart Security Services in Arizona. As a business owner, he held an ``always can do and will do'' attitude with intense follow through. Every time the United States of America asked Michael to step up, you can guarantee he did.

Beyond his accomplishments in the security industry, Michael was also a strong Conservative Republican. He was instrumental in drafting Congressional legislation to ensure U.S. Security Force project managers only report to U.S. Diplomatic Security Agents at U.S. embassies and consulates abroad. Similarly, he assisted in the Arizona House to pass a law to allow honorably discharged veterans to obtain a security guard I.D. card without a waiting period, thus enabling veterans to begin working as soon as their discharges were complete.

He did not consider himself a hero, but an ordinary man in service of the nation he so loved. However, Michael's greatest service was not in work, but in friendship. He lived by the following words:

If you cannot stand, I will lift you.

If you cannot walk, I will carry you.

If you are blind, I will see for you.

If you are mute, I will speak for you.

If you are deaf, I will hear for you.

If you are in fear, I will comfort you.

If you are lost, I will guide you.

If you are in danger, I will protect you.

If you need courage, I will be brave for you.

If you are confused, I will reassure you.

If you cannot fight, I will defend you.

And if you just need a friend, I am here for you.

After contracting COVID-19, Michael spent his final days surrounded by friends, family, and his loving wife Mariam. He will be remembered as a man of courage, honor, and integrity. But most of all, a friend of mine.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment No. 33, prohibiting changes to existing air tour management plans, or ATMPs.

This amendment would prohibit air tour management plans for national parks from completely banning air tour operations over the parks. Additionally, this amendment requires an air tour management plan to take into consideration the economic viability of commercial air tour operators.

While the ATMPs do real economic harm to the operators, it is also discriminatory against visitors who choose to experience the national parks by aerial sightseeing.

As we move past the pandemic years, many national parks saw their resources strained by the large number of visitors as the public began to travel again. Air tours are an important option for many visitors conducting a once-in-a-lifetime trip to see such famous landmarks.

Visitors taking advantage of air tours benefit by avoiding traffic, wait times, and walking trails that are inaccessible for the disabled or elderly, while reducing congestion and demand on park infrastructure.

The national parks should be available for all visitors to see. Limiting flights over the park unfairly limits the elderly, very young, disabled, and others to experience the park. Limiting flights over the parks is discriminating to those who might not have the resources, time, and physical ability to see them any other way.

Like ground-based tours, air tours are a valid part of our visitor experience, providing a unique window from which we can share our cultural, historical, and environmental sites with the world.

Air tours require no ground-based infrastructure at the park, which allows visitors accessibility without the need for roads, trails, signs, bathrooms, garbage cans, or other services.

By further restricting an already limited number of allowable air tours, we are reducing opportunities to access our parks in a way that leaves little to no environmental footprint or disturbance. Through carbon offset efforts and strict altitude requirements to control noise, just to name a few, air tour operators are working to ensure they have responsible stewardship of the Nation's parks.

Typically, operators pay a fee each time an air tour flies within the park boundary. The National Park Service collects hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue each year from these air tour flights. Air tours require no infrastructure, leaving the bulk of overflight fees to go toward those supporting services that benefit the public.

If overflight access is removed completely, it removes the ability to use new technologies like electric aircraft.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 33, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls).

Mr. Chair, having had these tour operators in Arizona, they have moved technology to quiet air, and you can barely hear these planes. You can be right next to them, these quiet air turbines, and you don't even hear them.

To say that they are disrupting to the environment, that just does not happen. From that standpoint, I urge everybody to vote for this amendment. It is a smart idea, and this is the way to go.

Mr. Chair, I urge everybody to vote for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Is it what I hear? Is it really what I hear, that we are too lazy to do our job? Because that is what I heard.

Every 6 months we are supposed to come here to this floor and ante up in regards to the national emergencies. A national emergency, by its whole name, is temporary and short-lived. It is temporary and short- lived.

I guess that is why I would have to quote Milton Friedman: ``Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.''

Mr. Speaker, that says it all. That says it all.

There is a whole different way of getting to these perpetrators, these bad actors, and we should do that. However, we are rushing through this thing, and all I hear is: Wait a minute, if we take this down, then all these people are going to get off.

That is not what happens. Remember, we are bicameral, so the House will pass something, then it will go to the Senate where most of the time it will die, but at least they might get something right in this case as foreign affairs. They probably will get something right in regards to who the people are and what is the vehicle to do this in.

This is exactly why Senator Church did this in 1976. It was to try to orchestrate how do we put this together, how do we have checks and balances, and how do we make this work for everybody?

This isn't the way. We just saw a COVID national emergency. Today there is not one inventory in that disbursement record--not one, not one--of $4.8 trillion. That isn't chump change, Mr. Speaker. That is a bunch of money. That is a bunch of money.

So I look at this, and I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is time to get rid of these national emergencies. We can do this. We can do it right. We can make everybody look all right.

Mr. Speaker, let's review the facts. There are currently 41 national emergencies that are subject to periodic congressional review, including the emergency declaration related to Libya, which is more than a decade old.

The National Emergencies Act mandates Congress consider joint resolutions terminating national emergencies at least every 6 months. Think about it; every 6 months. That is our job--not the President's; our job.

Yet, Congress has never, not even once, reviewed the legitimacy of the national emergency related to Libya since its declaration by President Obama in 2011, nor has Congress reviewed any of the national emergencies debated today as required by law.

Almost comically, the extended national emergency related to Libya still cites Muammar Qadhafi as a reason for declaration. Mr. Speaker, Muammar Qadhafi has been dead for almost 12 years. You can't make this stuff up.

The situation in Libya poses no extraordinary threat to the national security or foreign policy of the United States. Once again, temporary measures, short-term, punch, terminate.

No group or person in Libya currently poses a threat to our national security. Furthermore, even if there was some hostility, none rises to the level of an unusual and extraordinary threat to national security.

To the extent that there is a desire for certain sanctions, they can be applied without these national emergency declarations in compliance with the Constitution, Federal laws, and national security needs.

Now, that is an important point here. We can adjust these. We can put these in in different places that adhere to our Constitution, our legal aspect, because once again, this is us.

Despite unfounded concerns, sanctioned individuals and entities can be redesignated pursuant to other authorities available to the President, including but not limited to existing national emergencies related to terrorism, Russia, and Iran.

National emergencies are supposed to be rare and brief. In passing the National Emergencies Act in 1976, Congress did not intend for the executive to utilize declarations for decades in order to apply sanctions. That is something Congress can do separately from a national emergency declaration.

In fact, let's look at the history of the National Emergencies Act. It was written to respond to FDR and to Truman in keeping the country in a state of emergency as part of their daily governance. That is what they used the national emergencies for.

Congress allowing these tyrannical authorities to remain in place is recklessly endangering our Republic, checks and balances, and the civil liberties of our constituents.

Under all these extended national emergency declarations, the U.S. Code provides the President with an additional 135 special statutory powers, including: Testing chemical and biological weapons on human beings, including American citizens. Can you say COVID?

Take over or shut down radio stations and U.S.-based internet traffic. Wow. Censorship.

Detail members of our Armed Forces. Waive sanctions on confidentiality provisions related to public health services. Impose crippling and unconstitutional sanctions on American citizens that could freeze their financial assets or restrict anyone from selling them groceries, renting them an apartment, representing them as an attorney, providing dental and medical treatment, and much more--all without any due process supposedly afforded by the Constitution.

Clearly the President thinks he has authority to invoke these special statutory powers absent an executive order explicitly detailing them, which is why he announced his intention to forgive student loans via a press release instead of an executive order.

Oh, but voila. The U.S. Supreme Court said: You can't do that. What does this President do again? He turns around and does it again, shoving it in the Court's face.

Under the extended national emergency declarations, Congress abdicates control over policy and spending and instead transfers unfettered power to the executive branch.

For example, despite repeated bicameral requests, Biden has never provided a single expenditure report related to the COVID-19 national emergency declaration as required periodically by law. Not one.

Now, how can we, Congress, with the explicit power of the purse, allow any President to spend money without requiring a report?

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution says: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.''

Further, 50 U.S.C. 1641(c) clearly states: `` . . . the President shall transmit to Congress, within 90 days after the end of each 6- month period after such declaration, a report on the total expenditures incurred by the United States Government during such 6-month period . . .''

Despite repeated--and I said repeated requests--there have been no expenditure reports to this date allocated in the COVID-19 national emergency, nor was there a final report that was due on July 9.

In fact, what we heard is this President realized that he was behind the gun, and he actually rushed it through on July 7, had the Secretary of Health and Human Services actually try to do it for him. What a shame.

The Constitution clearly provides Congress with the power of the purse, not the President, regardless of supposed emergencies. These emergencies are supposed to be limited, not forever bearing.

We have to come up with a different solution. This is not working. This doesn't work at all. For us particularly, we as Congress, haven't done our job.

Every 6 months--if you hear what I am saying here, every 6 months we

should be bringing these up, whether their application is great or fettered or very, very faint, and we should discuss this: What about Libya? What about Yemen? What about these other ones, Iraq and others? By the way, this is regular order. Anything we are detailing here is regular order.

This is almost comical to me. I hate to say it in that light, but when Senator Church put this detail together, he spent a lot of time trying to address this publicly. He tried to get as many people involved in it as he could, and yet, we turn around and do this to him.

We have got to come up with something better, something different, something short-lived, something that actually can keep our eye on the prize.

I don't know whether it is something that we put together in a clearinghouse for known terrorists and whether we utilize that in some way, shape, or form so that we can make sure that we are keeping up to date on all of that, but something has to happen, and it is not in the national emergencies.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this joint resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, Golda Meir once said that there would be no peace in Israel until Palestinians love their children more than they hate Israelis. Can't that be the same way?

Why I say that is, let's talk about Yemen. Heartlessly, while this emergency has been extended, Yemen stifles the donation of food, clothing, and medicine intended for human suffering in Yemen.

It is estimated that 130 children die each day because of the famine in Yemen. That is more than 85,000 over the past decade.

I thought love meant a lot to children. Is it our way or the highway? Is it thinking outside the box? A child needs very little. A child needs very little, and this is one of those things that we ought to be looking at, those children.

Right now, because of our sanctions, no international groups will even give food or medicines. Not one. That is sad. That is the result of the United States. I would hate to be that individual.

Nearly 80 percent of the people in Yemen need treatment for malnutrition, and 20 million lack access to adequate healthcare. I have to tell you, I think we need to start thinking outside the box.

If we are building these futures that hate America, that hate all, where is the joy in that? There is no joy. This is one of those that we can actually seemingly give some help to, and those children are not going to balk.

Now, once again, let's go back. National emergencies every 6 months have to be brought up and reviewed by Congress. To this date, none of these five have had any review whatsoever. I have heard a lot about the Presidents here and there--President Obama, President Trump, President this or that--all saying that they looked at it and anted up, but I have yet to hear where Congress has reviewed these designations. Not one.

Therefore, when I saw these, when I looked at these and my staff looked at these, we said, oh my God, we are not doing our job, and we are not doing our job. We are not doing our job at all if we are not reviewing each one of these to find out whether they pertain, whether they don't. If they are not a national emergency, where do they belong?

I hate to give a lot of additional thought to the Foreign Affairs Committee, but this isn't the place for these national emergencies, even with the involvement of IEEPA. We have to do something a little bit different. These have to be mainstayed, where we are actually looking at these and saying: ``Okay, here are all the different bad actors in the world. Here are all these bad institutions going on across this world. How do we involve all our assets, whether they be humanitarian, military, or just a little bit of everything?'' That is what we should be doing.

However, once again, Congress hasn't done its job. Let me say it again. Congress hasn't done its job.

We just went through the COVID national emergency, where $4.8 trillion had been allocated to fighting COVID. Not one inventory on that disbursement record is actually there. Not one, for $4.8 trillion. That is a sad state of affairs. That is a really sad state of affairs.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at these and then turn and look at--the United Nations actually looks at this as the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.

Let me also ask you this. Did the United States do this on its own or was there somebody else that they are speaking up for?

I will let you answer that question, but I will actually tell you that I hope you will vote for this if nothing else for children, the malnutrition, the medicines. Let's see if we can get a new tomorrow where people love the United States instead of hating us.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

With that 4 minutes what I will do at this point in time is speak up on behalf of my good friend Eli Crane, who is looking at the Iraq national emergency, and then my good friend Matt Gaetz, who is looking at Syria. These are all from the same area, same detail. None of them have had renewals by the National Emergencies Act. That is flawed. We allow Presidents to re-up them, but we don't do anything on the Congress side.

As a Congress, we need to step up. We need to step up our game.

If these aren't part of the National Emergencies Act--and I find it very atrocious that they are--then we need to find a home for these. We need to find a home where they manage it properly, that everybody gets a chance to see them, look at them, and inventory them. Other than that, we have to make some serious changes.

It is sad that we are here on these five. There will be 36 more coming your way because, once again, when Congress doesn't do its job, somebody has got to squawk, and I will be one of those that squawks from here to sunset.

I have to tell you, we have to do something different. I wish all Members would vote for my amendment, and, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to condemn the health care industry's obscene profitmaking derived from mutilating little children.

The grotesque fad of chemically castrating boys or performing breast removal surgery on girls is not healthcare. This is a shameful time for those doctors and hospitals that enjoy mutilating children--for sky- high profits (surgery costs about $150,000).

As a society, we have decided that children and young adults have not developed the mental capacity to make wise decisions in certain areas. For example, if you are under 21 you can't rent a car, buy tobacco, buy a shot of whiskey, and you have to be 18 to vote or buy a gun. You are, after all, still maturing.

However, today, a 5-year-old or l0-year-old child can ``decide'' they are really the opposite gender, and once a doctor at a children's hospital gets a whiff of that, they smell profits and want to start the process of chemically, surgically, and often permanently castrating boys and maiming girls. It is horribly disfiguring of our children.

In my view this is not healthcare. This is abuse. It is parental- abuse for any parent to subject their child to this. It is unethical and unprofessional for any hospital or doctor to participate in this mutilation.

Victims of this abuse are starting to speak up, but for many it is too late.

If a person is 18 or older, and they want to castrate themselves, I would recommend counseling for mental illness, but at least they have reached the age of majority where they can make decisions, even dumb decisions, on their own behalf.

There is no excuse for any doctor who does this mutilation on anyone under 18. I would vote to criminalize this practice and revoke the medical license of any quack that does these surgeries and hormone treatments.

History will prove us right. The leftists agitating for child mutilation are fundamentally demonic and harming children.

This story is about a hospital in Minnesota claiming that ``gender dysphoria'' is just like asthma and diabetes. It is not. It is about big money for this hospital--a hospital that cares nothing about the long term impacts its actions will have on these children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 80th anniversary of the United States Army Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. Although the proving ground is only celebrating its 80th birthday, the land's rich history extends beyond a century. In 1850, Fort Yuma was constructed overlooking the Colorado River crossing, and 15 years later, a second facility was constructed in 1865 to act as a supply base for Army posts across the Western United States.

Fast forward 78 years later in 1943, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers opened the Yuma Test Branch, while General Patton selected Yuma as the site for Camp Laguna. Although this site was deactivated in 1944, it was successfully prepared ground troops for desert combat.

In 1963, the site reopened as Yuma Proving Ground with a new, affirmed mission: to provide innovative testing for new technology and provide adaptable training to the entire defense industry. Due to its overwhelming success, the site was designated as a Major Range and Test Facility Base only three years later.

The proving ground constructed the ``Cibola Range'' in 1971 for the purposes of testing helicopters, umnanned aircraft, and navigations systems. With approximately 2,000 miles of restricted airspace, Yuma Proving Ground has become a prime site for all varieties of aircraft testing. Both the Apache helicopter and the Global Position System, more commonly known as GPS, completed all their developmental testing at Yuma Proving Ground.

In addition to aircraft testing, Yuma Proving Ground offers over 200 miles of vehicle courses with a variety of road and terrain conditions. Such testing space has been utilized by the M-1 Abrams tank and the M60 Main Battle tank. All U.S. ground weapon systems deployed to Saudi Arabia during the Persian War were tested at Yuma Proving Ground.

For the past 80 years, Yuma Proving Ground has succeeded in ensuring the safe function and efficiency of military equipment for the United States defense industry. It currently employs more than 2000 Yuma residents, enabling our community to positively impact the country's national security.

It is my distinct pleasure to recognize the 80th anniversary of such an essential site in the history and success of our great state of Arizona and beyond. Congratulations to Yuma Proving Ground. I look forward to the next 80 years of triumph.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the 86th birthday of a fellow patriot and founder of the Wickenburg Republican Club, Mrs. Frosty Taylor.

Born in 1937, Frosty grew up on her grandfather's cattle ranch in Montrose, South Dakota. After graduating from Iowa's Atlantic High School in 1955, Frosty married her high school sweetheart and started a family, which has now grown to include 2 children, 2 grandchildren, and 3 wonderful great-grandchildren.

Shortly after winning the Mrs. Nebraska pageant in 1964, Frosty embarked on a career in the media. From 1967 through 1983, Frosty rose through the ranks at Paradise Valley News, starting as a columnist and quickly advancing to the position of editor. She was the first female reporter to ride in a Phoenix Police helicopter and was named honorary Phoenix Fire Department firefighter in Station 32.

In the years following, Frosty continued in communications as editor and publisher at Paradise Valley Voice from 1983 through 1989. After great success in the media industry, Frosty worked in the Arizona Attorney General's office for both Robert Corbin and the late Grant Woods. Frosty's next professional adventure was a 10-year stint as an officer with the Arizona Game and Fish Department Heritage Fund.

However, Mrs. Frosty Taylor's dedication to her community has not concluded. At a vibrant 86 years old, she currently serves as President of the Wickenburg Republican Club and is one of her district's precinct committeewomen and state committeeman, while covering news throughout Arizona as editor of the Republican Briefs. The Wickenburg community should be proud to have such a compassionate leader. Frosty has spent many years serving Arizona, and she is just getting started.

I congratulate Mrs. Frosty Taylor on celebrating 86 years and thank her for her continued work in our great state of Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of Charles Vernon Parker of Austin, Texas, known as Charlie to his friends and family.

Over the last three decades, Charlie Parker has been a leader in the business community, construction, real estate, and many other areas. Charlie's companies have completed massive projects across the United States, providing jobs and opportunities to dozens of Americans.

Beyond Charlie's vast accomplishments in the business world, he has been one of our Nation's greatest advocates and leaders in the area of drug and alcohol addiction recovery.

As a person in long-term recovery, Charlie has been clean and sober since 1984. In the three decades since, he has traveled the world with his wife and best friend, Katie, as one of the most sought-after addiction recovery motivational speakers.

To date, thousands of men across the world attribute their freedom from addiction to Charlie Parker.

Charlie Parker served on the board of directors of Austin Recovery and was a large benefactor of dozens of charitable organizations and an active member of his Christian church.

Recently diagnosed with a terminal illness, Mr. Parker is spending his final chapter still actively working with the men he mentors and being a force for God and a force for good every day in our Nation, as well as spending time with his loved ones: his daughters, Sadie and Grace; his grandchildren; and his loving wife, Katie.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to commemorate the life of Charles Vernon Parker.

Thank you, Charlie, for a life well lived.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act.

America has an abundant supply of minerals, oil, and gas, and my State of Arizona ranks first among all States for non-fuel mineral resource production.

While the mining industry is still thriving in Arizona, primarily due to previously started mines, the Biden administration, and some in this very Chamber, have purposely slow-walked the permitting approval process, threatening this critically important industry.

H.R. 1 incentivizes domestic mineral production, unlocking resources that are vital for national security, renewable energy, and new technologies, like mineral processing, refinement, and concentration. This typically has been sent overseas to China, which then, in turn, monopolizes and holds these critical and rare resources ransom through supply chains.

Sadly, Arizona has two of the last three copper smelters in the United States, to which we hold to the highest environmental safety standards.

Allowing China to process these minerals is a continual slap in the face of the United States' stringent and responsible environmental laws.

Not surprisingly, it takes more than a decade, sometimes even two, to permit a mine in the United States. Canada can permit a mine in less than 3 years.

H.R. 1 modernizes the Federal regulations that delay projects for decades. H.R. 1 will help restore America as the global leader in energy technology development and protect Arizona's mining industry from the Biden administration and the leftists who want to shut it all down.

Madam Chair, I applaud Chairman Westerman for his leadership, and I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1. The mantra should be: Now mined in America. Now refined in America. Now built in America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of Charles Vernon Parker of Austin, Texas. Charlie, to his friends and family. Over the last three decades, Charlie Parker has been a leader in the business community, in construction, real estate, and many other areas. Charlie's companies have completed massive projects across the United States, providing jobs and opportunities to dozens of Americans.

Beyond Charlie's vast accomplishments in the business world, he has been one of our Nation's greatest advocates and leaders in drug and alcohol addiction recovery. As a person in long-term recovery, Charlie has been clean and sober since 1984, and in the three decades since, he has traveled the world with his wife and best friend Katie, as one of the most sought-after addiction recovery motivational speakers. Despite hundreds of thousands of CDs of his motivational talks being sold across the world, Charlie never accepted any fees or gratuities, seeing helping people achieve sobriety as God's calling for his life. To date, thousands of men across the world attribute their freedom from addiction to Charlie Parker.

Charlie Parker served on the board of directors of Austin Recovery and was a large benefactor of dozens of charitable organizations and was an active member of his Christian church.

Recently diagnosed with a terminal illness, Mr. Parker is spending his final chapter still actively working with the men he mentors and being a force for God, and a force for good every day in our Nation, as well as spending time with his loved ones, his daughters Sadie and Grace, his grandchildren, and his loving wife, Katie.

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to commemorate the life of Charles Vernon Parker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 7, legislation I introduced requiring the Biden administration to finally end the outdated and abusive COVID national emergency declaration.

Nearly 3 years have passed since President Trump rightfully declared a national emergency concerning the COVID pandemic. The factual basis for this declaration was apparent then.

As time has progressed and as we have learned about this virus, we know that it is no longer a national emergency. Since President Trump's initial declaration, the House of Representatives has not once voted, let alone debated, whether to terminate this national emergency or keep it as required--let me repeat that--required under the National Emergencies Act.

The National Emergencies Act requires Congress to review termination or continuation of a national emergency no later than 6 months after its implementation and at least every 6 months thereafter. Yet, former Speaker Pelosi repeatedly blocked my attempts to simply debate about the merits of extending or terminating the COVID national emergency declaration, despite the law requiring its review. That would make it almost four to six times we should have had this debate during that time.

What type of representative body cannot even discuss a national emergency?

Until now, the House of Representatives has failed to perform its most basic constitutional duty: checking the powers of the executive branch and the power of the purse.

In contrast, companion legislation has twice passed the Senate, most recently with overwhelming bipartisan support.

Last September, Mr. Biden declared the pandemic is over, cases are down, America has opened back up. This hardly sounds like a country under a national COVID emergency. Yet, Joe Biden continued to extend the COVID national emergency simply to force Americans to live under extreme measures that deprive us of our freedoms.

Just this week, Mr. Biden issued a Statement of Administrative Policy opposing H.J. Res. 7, implying to veto the legislation. This action stands in stark contrast to the recent promises that Biden would end the COVID national emergency in May.

Let's not forget that Mr. Biden once promised the American people that there would be no Federal COVID vaccine mandates. Yet, he soon lied and mandated COVID vaccines for millions of Americans.

We simply cannot trust if and when Biden will keep his word. The evidence is to the contrary.

It is time to end this emergency declaration now. If passed through the House today, the National Emergencies Act requires the Senate to expeditiously vote on my resolution within 18 calendar days.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation and send it to the Senate. Do your due diligence. Do what the law requires.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my own bill, H.J. Res. 7, terminating the COVID national emergency declaration.

It is the same bill text that I sponsored in the 117th Congress and the same bill text that passed the Senate twice last year, most recently in November with the bipartisan support of all Republican Senators and 12 Democratic Senators.

Emergency powers were created to give the executive branch flexibility to respond to a range of crises facing the United States, and the National Emergencies Act was passed in 1974 to rein in the Presidential emergency powers that are activated when a formal emergency is declared.

As I have said before, good process builds good policies builds good politics. So, let's look at the timeline. On March 13, 2020, President Trump rightfully declared a national emergency concerning COVID-19. Mr. Biden has since abused Presidential authorities by repeatedly extending pandemic powers beyond their timeline and scope.

Section 202 of the National Emergencies Act requires Congress to review termination of all national emergencies, stating that 6 months after declaration, and every 6 months after the emergency continues, Congress must--must--meet to consider a resolution of termination.

Sadly, rather than debate and vote on terminating the emergency declaration, the former Speaker changed the rules of the entire House of Representatives and handicapped Congress' ability to perform its most basic constitutional duty: check the powers of the executive branch and the power of the purse.

As a result, Mr. Biden continues to extend the COVID national emergency into perpetuity. Until now, there has been zero oversight from the House, even though Federal law requires congressional review.

By now, and by any measure, the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States has ended, but Biden has dubiously continued to extend his pandemic power. Why? Under the continued COVID national emergency extension, more than 120 special statutory powers only meant for times of actual emergency continue to be available to Mr. Biden, including the power to draft Americans without consent, barricade the United States Capitol, place the Public Health Service under military control, and, yes, even move money around.

Biden's unwillingness to let go of the temporary pandemic powers is tyranny, and the former Speaker is complicit.

Thankfully, with our new Republican majority and restored House rules, Members of Congress and millions of Americans that they represent are finally able to weigh in on their concerns with continued pandemic powers.

The COVID pandemic emergency in the U.S. has ended, and most Americans have returned to prepandemic normalcy. Biden himself stated: ``The pandemic is over.''

So, why does Biden continue to extend the COVID national emergency? The answer is simple: To force Americans to live under extreme measures that deprive us of our freedoms.

It is sad to hear the other side talk about all this lack of tyranny and not following the rules. We were forbidden to do our job.

The National Emergencies Act requires, demands, that Congress, every 6 months, look at this national emergency and decide whether to go up or down. That is all it did.

In the 2 years since he has been President, we have done neither. It is high time that we answer that call and do our job. At least the Senate has done it twice.

I think we need to get back to getting back the power of the purse and holding this administration accountable. Time is up. I ask that everybody vote for these bills.

Mr. Speaker, censorship in America is a major problem. Congress cannot continue to deputize Big Tech to censor competition and lawful political speech.

Reforming section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is critical. That is why I have sponsored Stop the Censorship Act: to empower users with their editorial control, not government or Big Tech.

Making it worse, Big Government has colluded with Big Tech to censor American citizens and to influence elections, which is a clear and illegal violation of the Hatch Act and First Amendment. Now, we have AT&T's DIRECTV deplatforming Newsmax. It is all unacceptable.

Corrupt corporations and bureaucrats must be held accountable. We will utilize the Holman rule and all tools at our disposal in Congress.

Looking back even 10 years, it was difficult to predict the totalitarian instincts that Big Tech and fake news media now promote.

Our country was literally founded on free speech and other civil liberties. Today, the fragile Big Tech hipsters are afraid of ideas. They are afraid of open discussion. They cannot fathom how to issue a counterpoint to anyone or an idea they don't like.

Censorship is un-American. It is uncivil. It is a recipe for discontent and authoritarianism. An enforced contract between the subscriber and user protects free speech.

I thank the Congressman from Colorado for hosting this Special Order on this important issue, and I look forward to our investigations and to our reforms.