Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding because I know that he, too, works hard for our Nation's veterans and the men and women who serve in the United States military.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and recognize a World War II and Korean war veteran, Colonel Ben Skardon, who was notified last week that he was set to receive an honorary promotion to the rank of Brigadier General.

After months of coordination and conversations between my office, the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, Congress, and the family of Colonel Skardon, the Army and DOD have concurred with my recommendation and, in an extremely rare circumstance, approved Colonel Skardon's promotion to the rank of Brigadier General.

Very few American soldiers ever receive this honor in this manner, and it is well deserved on behalf of Colonel Skardon for his brave military service to our country.

Now, let me just tell you that Colonel Skardon served in World War II, and he was in the Philippines as commander of Company A of the 92nd Infantry Regiment Philippine Army and led his troops through some of the fiercest days of World War II in the South Pacific.

After the surrender of tens of thousands of Filipino and U.S. soldiers to Japanese forces on April 9, 1942, Skardon was forced into the infamous Bataan Death March. For 65 miles, Skardon and many others were forced to walk, suffering physical abuse, fatigue, and the mental exhaustion of watching the death of many fellow prisoners.

Colonel Skardon survived this horrific march because of his perseverance and commitment to his will to live. Skardon's strength and will continued for the 1,255 days he spent in Japanese prison as a prisoner of war.

He defied all odds with the help of two fellow Clemson University graduates who spoon-fed him and made sure he was safe from Japanese guards. Skardon managed to keep hidden his Clemson ring. As a Clemson alumnus who wears his ring proudly, I understand the sacrifice that he made to keep that hidden.

He and his fellow alumni made the tough decision to trade Colonel Skardon's gold Clemson ring for food and medicine, which ultimately saved his life. With the help of his fellow soldiers and his pawned ring, he recovered.

Skardon also survived the sinking of two unmarked hell ships, prisoner of war ships, that were transporting POWs to mainland Japan. Not just one but two prison ships were sunk by the United States military.

At 24 years old and only 90 pounds, he was finally liberated in Manchuria by Russian units in 1945.

After World War II, he went on to serve our Nation in the Korean war, retiring with the rank of colonel in 1962.

His leadership skills were exemplified by his continued military involvement with the young men and women in ROTC at Clemson who wanted to go on and serve in our military. Colonel Skardon would mentor them about what they faced.

For all of his valor, endurance, and suffering in World War II, he was awarded two Silver Stars and two Bronze Stars for valor. He was a Purple Heart recipient and a Congressional Gold Medal recipient.

When he retired, he continued his life of service as a professor at Clemson University for nearly 20 years. He earned several esteemed citizen and civilian awards, including the Clemson Medallion, Clemson University's highest honor; the Alumni Distinguished Service Award, the Clemson Alumni Association's highest honor; and from the State of South Carolina, the Order of the Palmetto.

His life of perseverance and selfless leadership exemplified what it means not only to be a United States soldier but a true American hero.

Colonel Skardon was informed of the promotion that he received from colonel to brigadier general just this weekend. Colonel Skardon was 104 years old. He passed away last night.

Working to secure his promotion to brigadier general is one of the most humbling acts that I have undertaken during my time in Congress, and I have no doubt that divine intervention was responsible for ensuring that he learned of this great honor that our country bestowed upon him before his passing.

My thoughts and prayers are with his family and the Clemson community during this time. He will be deeply missed, but he will never be forgotten.

To the family of General Ben Skardon, and to Ben, Godspeed. We appreciate your service to our great Nation. You wore that Clemson ring proudly. Clemson honored you. I honor you today, and I thank you for your service to our great Nation. Godspeed.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th birthday of Ms. Sue Lott. Throughout her life, Ms. Lott has seen 18 different presidents and many changes in the world. Growing up during the Great Depression, Ms. Lott learned the importance of simplicity and hard work, where many of her days were spent tying strings around June bugs for fun and picking butter beans with her sister to trade for ice cream. Other days, she would

work with her family all day to make a mere 50 cents. Ms. Lott worked as a seamstress as she grew older, and during World War II, she was one of many women who kept the country going while the men served in the war. She worked for many years at Regal Mills, sewing diapers.

Although Ms. Lott never had her own children, her many nieces and nephews and members of the community consider her to be a mother and grandmother. She is an active member of Providence Baptist Church in Hodges, SC, and her love for others and the Lord radiates around her wherever she goes. Ms. Lott loves to cook, garden, and read a good book. Throughout the isolation of the pandemic, Ms. Lott's main source of joy and comfort was reading. She lived most of her adult life in Greenwood, SC, and has since returned to her birthplace, as a resident of Saluda Nursing Home. Her impact is seen everywhere in the community, and I am proud to represent and serve constituents as impactful as those like Ms. Sue Lott.

On behalf of the Third District of South Carolina, I would like to wish Ms. Sue Lott a very happy 100th birthday and thank her for her many dedicated years to our community.

Madam Speaker, due to the draconian measures instituted on masks and metal detectors, I missed a vote out of frustration. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 244, En Bloc No. 5.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question, so that we can amend the rule to immediately consider H.R. 751, the Protecting American Energy Production Act.

Now, my bill is straightforward. It prohibits the President from declaring a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, unless Congress authorizes the moratorium.

It further expresses the sense of Congress that States should maintain authority for the regulation of oil and natural gas production on State and private lands. That is how it has been done for decades.

President Biden and House Democrats have wasted no time in this Congress, and since his administration began, undermining American energy independence. They have signaled that they will use any tool necessary to end fossil fuel production in the United States.

In fact, Democrats keep rushing to President Biden's defense, claiming he never supported a fracking ban, which is simply not true. When he was asked by a debate moderator during the Presidential debates in 2019 if there was any place for fossil fuels in his administration, this is what Senator Biden, now-President Biden, actually said: ``No. We would work it out. We would make sure it's eliminated.''

He was talking about fossil fuels.

How is this policy working out for the American people at the pump?

They are seeing higher prices for gasoline, and as they are getting ready to travel over the holidays and go on vacation, they are paying more at the pump. That is less money to spend on their family for family vacation during the holiday this summer. That is what bad policy gets you, Madam Speaker.

President Biden has already made good on his promises to revoke the Keystone XL permit, ultimately resulting in its cancelation and the loss of thousands of American and Canadian jobs--thousands of jobs. He also has halted all new Federal oil and gas leases. There is no telling which energy-killing promise he will fulfill next as he continues his war against American energy.

Instead of prioritizing American jobs and American energy, President Biden and the Democrats would rather appease the backwards logic of the radical environmental left. I have no other way to say it.

They would rather make us weaker and more reliant on energy from our foreign adversaries at a time when we are energy independent and we are actually exporting oil and gas.

The adversaries that they are supporting have no regard for the environmental standards that we all push in this country.

The INVEST in America Act--or more accurately titled, the green new deal and inflation transportation act--is a continuation of this America-last agenda. One out of every $2 spent in this bill is tied up in Green New Deal priorities. Madam Speaker, one out of every $2 is tied up in Green New Deal priorities.

It is ironic that while President Biden has no problem killing American energy projects and jobs, he is greenlighting at the same time Russian energy projects, like the Nord Stream II Pipeline that is going to bring gas into Europe and give Vladimir Putin even more control to manipulate politics in Europe.

President Biden doesn't think twice before waiving sanctions on a Russian company and friend of Vladimir Putin's.

Undercutting American energy production is a handout to Vladimir Putin and opens doors for Russia to influence operations across Europe and even in the United States.

New England doesn't have a pipeline for natural gas to come up there. They bring an LNG ship in from Russia that provides natural gas to the New England States--Russian, not American gas.

Colonial Pipeline's cyberattack is the most recent reminder of this longstanding effort by the Russians. Putin will continue to use energy as a political weapon, and through policies like the partisan Green New Deal infrastructure package, Democrats will continue to help Russia, not American families--they are paying more at the pump this summer-- Russia, Vladimir Putin. Putin will continue to use those policies.

The infrastructure policies we should be focused on are hardening our energy infrastructure to protect against these attacks, but the INVEST in America Act doesn't do this.

It instead remakes the entire energy market, squeezes fossil fuels, and makes the grid far more vulnerable to attacks.

The INVEST in America Act puts radical climate and Green New Deal priorities above the infrastructure needs of the Nation.

It creates more roadblocks for transporting clean-burning LNG, gives more money to EV charging stations than to the entire Rebuild Rural America grant program, and it fails to include any regulatory reforms that plague infrastructure projects.

My goodness, instead of voting on a $548 billion Green New Deal- disguised infrastructure bill, we should be protecting American energy production and American energy jobs here in the United States.

Not long ago, the U.S. depended on OPEC for much of our oil supply. We now lead the world in oil and gas production as well as emission reduction. That is a fact that the left doesn't want to acknowledge. We lead the world in emissions reduction.

The Democrats refuse to acknowledge this and recognize this. Instead, they want to surrender one of our greatest economic and strategic advantages: our energy independence. As Admiral Mike Mullen once said: ``There is no national security without energy security.''

Listen to this, Madam Speaker, there is no national security without energy security.

How true is that statement?

This is all in the name of saving the climate. The reality is phasing out fossil fuels in the United States won't eliminate carbon emissions globally. Production will just happen someplace else, oftentimes in dirty production areas, because they don't have the same regulations that we have so that the environment gets dirtier, along with the jobs and geopolitical leverage that we have when we export our energy.

Democrats' anti-fossil fuel agenda will have no effect on the climate. Eliminating fossil fuels will also undercut our own economic interests. On average, a Federal fracking ban will increase household energy costs by $618 a year.

Allowing President Biden to ban fracking will make all of this worse. Russia, China, and Iran stand ready to take advantage of us as we continue to pursue this self-inflicting harm.

By prohibiting the President from banning fracking, we, in turn, safeguard our energy production, our national security, our geopolitical influence, and the livelihoods of Americans--thousands of Americans--who have lost their job.

At the end of the day, American citizens--our constituents--pay less at the pump and for their household energy needs when we produce energy here in this country. That is a winning solution, and this bill that we are hoping to replace isn't.

So if President Biden wants to back up his buy America rhetoric, I have a question for him:

Why not start right here?

Let's buy American energy.

If he truly believes in buy America, then let's buy American energy and support American energy jobs.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that the House will immediately consider this bill, put Americans back to work, and protect our national energy security.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is riddled with problems, but one example I want to focus on right now is the Low-Income Water Customer Assistance Program.

I have an amendment that would rein in some of this program's outlandish spending and take a more targeted approach at water assistance.

Let me be very clear. I am not saying that there is not a need for a program such as this, and I am not saying that some people wouldn't benefit from it. All I am saying is that we should figure out the best way to attack the problem before authorizing $8 billion to fund it. Funding the program prior to a study is backwards.

The logical first step is to determine the scope of the problem, rather than just throwing money at it; and my amendment would do just that.

I would argue that the Democrats even recognize the need for a study. They included it in the bill. I am just arguing it should be done before the implementation of a permanent entitlement at the EPA, the very first of its kind, when the EPA said they didn't have the logistics or the ability to run the program.

This is irresponsible government, and it will come at the cost of taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to consider this and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, this CRA is another act by the Biden administration to undercut American energy production. It is plain and simple.

In committee, I offered an amendment to this resolution that would simply express Congress' disapproval for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would bring Russian gas to Europe.

Now, for the entire Trump administration, Democrats were obsessed with imagined Russian influence over his policies, repeatedly calling him a Russian agent. If Trump had waived sanctions on a Russian company and a friend of Vladimir Putin, like President Biden just did, there would be an immediate call for an investigation. You guys would probably try to impeach him again.

President Biden just killed the Keystone pipeline and continues to hamstring domestic producers, particularly smaller producers, killing American jobs and American energy production. It is truly baffling and illogical to me that he is willing to greenlight Russian energy projects while he kills American projects and kills American jobs.

You know, the irony is that these energy-destroying policies actually have a negative impact on the environment. Think about this: Russian natural gas exported to Europe has a lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions profile that is 41 percent higher than American LNG exported to Europe. If Europe were to switch from dirtier Russian gas to clean-burning U.S. natural gas through LNG exports, global emissions would actually go down by 70 million tons each year.

The United States is the number one oil and gas producer in the world, but we also lead the world in emissions reduction, something you all don't want to acknowledge.

Putin would love nothing more than for America to be energy dependent, and President Biden is helping him achieve this goal. And Vladimir Putin is laughing.

I urge my colleagues to defend American energy production and vote against this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Colonel Houston T. ``Terry'' Hawkins, who made his trip home on June 14, 2021, with his wife, Martha Butts Hawkins by his side.

Born in Seneca, South Carolina, Colonel Hawkins was known by his friends and family as ``Terry.'' In 1959, Terry graduated from Seneca High School with honors and went on to further his education at Clemson College, which is now known as Clemson University. There, he was a member of the ROTC program and graduated with a B.S. in Chemistry in 1963. Following his graduation, he was stationed at Wright Patterson Air Force Base (AFB) in Dayton, Ohio. While on leave, he asked Martha Butts on a date, which began a beautiful and lifelong love. The two were married on October 3, 1965, and later welcomed two beautiful daughters into the world. He was a devoted disciple of Christ and a member of the White Rock Baptist Church.

In 1967, Terry was stationed at Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan to serve in the Vietnam War. After returning home to the U.S., Terry and Martha moved to several different locations as he rose through the ranks within the United States Air Force (USAF). Terry was later promoted to Lieutenant Colonel which brought his family to the Washington, D.C. area where he completed three consecutive assignments. Terry became the leader of the Defense Intelligence Agency's Nuclear Energy Division from 1979 to 1983. After, he served as the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Air Force Nuclear Matters, then transferred to the Defense Nuclear Agency in 1987. Finally, Terry joined the Los Alamos National Laboratory where he served our great nation for 30 more years. Terry received numerous awards and recognitions throughout his career, most notably the Chief Justice Earl Warren Medallion awarded by the CIA. He will be laid to rest on June 23, in his hometown of Seneca.

Reflecting on the life of Colonel Hawkins, I am reminded strongly of the verse John 15:13: ``Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.'' From a young age, Colonel Hawkins selflessly and nobly served his country. I am proud of the leadership and service Colonel Hawkins showed.

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to serve the Third District of South Carolina and to honor the lives of patriots like Colonel Hawkins. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends during this time

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Corporal William James McCollum, who was killed in action during the Korean War on December 2, 1950.

Born in Anderson, South Carolina on June 19, 1931, Corporal McCollum was affectionately known by his friends and family as ``Billy.'' At the age of 17, he was inducted into the U.S. Army at Fort Jackson in Columbia, SC and subsequently to the battlegrounds when the Korean War began. After enduring repeated enemy attacks at the Chosin Reservoir, Corporal McCollum was declared missing in action on December 2, 1950. It was not until December 3, 1953, that Corporal McCollum was officially declared dead, still with no knowledge of the location of his body.

Following the summit between President Donald J. Trump and the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea Kim Jong-Un in July of 2018, an agreement was reached to return 55 boxes of remains to the USA. The remains were believed to be those of U.S. soldiers who had been killed at the Chosin Reservoir in 1950. Due to the tremendous leadership of President Donald J. Trump, the body of Corporal McCollum's body was accounted for on September 11, 2019. After 71 years, Corporal McCollum can return home and rest in his home city of Anderson. His funeral service, with military honors, will be held on June 19, 2021 at 1:00 pm at the M.J. Dolly Cooper Veterans Cemetery.

Reflecting on the life of Corporal McCollum, I am reminded strongly of the verse John 15:13: ``Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.'' From a young age, Corporal McCollum selflessly and nobly served his country. The United States is blessed to have the finest troops in the world, where so many heroes like Corporal McCollum are willing to put on our country's uniform in defense of our freedoms.

I am proud of the leadership demonstrated by President Donald J. Trump, and it brings me comfort knowing that families were able to be reunited with their loved ones after so many years, especially in the Third District of South Carolina. Corporal McCollum's funeral service will be held on the anniversary of his 90th birthday.

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to serve the Third District of South Carolina and to honor the lives of those lost in conflict, like Corporal McCollum. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends during this time.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained by the unconstitutional magnetometer at the entrance to the House Chamber. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 44.

Madam Speaker, this process we are going through today isn't about personalities. This isn't about Joe Biden or Donald Trump. As hard as some try to paint it that way, let me say that names and personalities don't matter. This is, gravely, about the Constitution of the United States.

Almost 20 years ago, after the attacks on 9/11, Americans were persuaded to give up some of their constitutional liberties. Using the justification of that global crisis, the terrorist attacks on that fateful day, America saw the erosion of their liberties for the safety and security many felt they may receive through the USA PATRIOT Act and other resulting processes too many felt would keep us safe from another attack here on our shore.

This year, using the justification of the global pandemic, COVID-19, we once again saw our Nation's Constitution violated. You see, the Constitution is clear in Article II, Madam Speaker, that the power and duty to set the manner of national elections rests solely with the State legislatures.

That power doesn't rest with us. That power didn't rest in the hands of unelected county election officials, secretaries of state, or a supreme court but, rather, in the hands of the State legislatures, which pass laws setting the manner of elections held in their States.

This year, using the extraordinary circumstance of the COVID-19 pandemic, we witnessed these duly passed laws circumvented and usurped time and again, not by having the laws changed in the respective State legislative bodies, but those laws arbitrarily

and unilaterally changed by county clerks; secretaries of state; and, in this case of Pennsylvania, an elected supreme court, which is supposed to interpret the law, not make law.

When those nonlegislative entities change the laws without getting the general assemblies to change the law, in my opinion, the resulting ballots cast, either by mail or in person, those ballots were illegal under the law.

Illegal ballots should not be counted. Therefore, the resulting electoral votes should be considered invalid.

What bothers me is that so many of you are okay with that, that so many Americans, because their person won, you are okay with the manner in which that victory was gained.

It is politics. Look, I get it. But we didn't swear an oath to play politics. We swore an oath to the United States Constitution. As George Washington said: The Constitution is the guide which I will never abandon.

Madam Chair, I rise in favor of the Chabot amendment.

Our country faces serious threats around the globe. We have cyber threats coming from China, Russia, and Iran, and others. Iran is also pursuing nuclear weapons that threaten our friends and our ally, Israel, and indeed the rest of the world.

While ISIS is defeated and on the run, radical islamic terrorism remains one of our Nation's greatest threats, thanks in part to Iran's actions as a leading state sponsor of terrorism.

It is, therefore, extremely irresponsible to take our attention and resources off of these known and proven threats to American national security and divert those funds and attention to climate change.

The intelligence community, which is tasked with protecting Americans from fiscal and cyberattacks, should not bear the burden of silly, politically correct, left-wing social policy. But just as Democrats politicized military policy with the NDAA, here they go again with the intelligence policy.

That is a mistake, it is irresponsible, and that is why I support this amendment to strip out this silly idea and refocus the intelligence community on the actual threats to our national security.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense amendment that will allow the Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson to restore the longstanding, scientific definition of gender as it relates to federally subsidized same-sex housing.

The underlying legislation strips the Secretary of that power, and my commonsense amendment simply gives it back to him. I ask the House to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), chairwoman of the House Values Action Team.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It is important that we give the Secretary the ability to set this definition.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer another commonsense amendment that will allow the Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson to restore the longstanding and scientific definition of gender as it relates to federally subsidized same-sex homeless shelters.

The underlying legislation strips the Secretary of that power, and my commonsense amendment simply gives it back to him. By doing this, we are working to protect at-risk homeless women and children in the shelters.

I ask the House to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), who heads up the Values Action Team which is an important voice for Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his Freudian slip because he knows we shouldn't allow men in the bathrooms with our female children.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleagues for joining me on this.

We all know that many of the homeless on our streets have mental issues, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are okay with allowing those homeless men in the bathrooms with our female children, and that is just wrong.

Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment. I ask my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

This amendment I am speaking in opposition to is actually shortsighted.

We have been producing oil and gas offshore all over the country on the Outer Continental Shelf for a very long time. We can do it safely.

I believe the ones who don't want to see the areas mentioned in this amendment opened up for offshore leasing really just don't want fossil fuel development.

We are in an energy renaissance in this country where we are finding more oil and gas, to the point that we are now a net exporter of oil and a net exporter of gas. That means we are producing more in this country than we are using in this country, so we have a surplus. We are able to help our friends and allies around the world, in Europe, to lessen their dependence on Russian gas.

Shutting down the opportunity to explore on the Outer Continental Shelf in these areas is really not wanting to find out what is out there. What harm does it do to look, to begin the seismic work, to find out what may be off the coast of the great State of South Carolina?

Recently, they just found, off the coast of Suriname and Guyana, 32 trillion cubic feet of natural gas by using 21st-century, 3D seismic technology. If we allowed the seismic work to happen in these areas that y'all are wanting to exclude from energy exploration, we might find 32 trillion, 50 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Then the Southeast is playing in the energy renaissance in this country.

I think this is shortsighted. What harm does it do to look, to allow these areas to be opened for exploration and then, ultimately, production to help meet the energy needs of this Nation and others around the world going forward?

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

Mr. Chair, I have seen, in the Natural Resources Committee, when I was there years ago, where fear tactics were used, saying that whales and other sea mammals, dolphins, would be killed because of the seismic work.

We had the chief biologist from BOEM say not a single marine mammal has ever been harmed in the exploration and seismic work that we have done all over the globe, off the coast of the Falklands, in the Mediterranean, off the coast of Africa. These fear tactics of oil spills and things are just shortsighted on meeting our energy needs, and the gentleman from Arizona gets that.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Chair, I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment because I think it is shortsighted. There are States that want to play in the energy matrix. They want to play in the renaissance. They want to, hopefully, experience a 37.5 percent revenue-sharing back to the State.

Hopefully, they can experience the jobs that are created in the oil and gas industry that is an economic boom, not only for the State coffers through tax revenue but also with the jobs that are created in those communities.

Mr. Chair, I would urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the immediate past chairman of the Congressional Sportsman's Caucus, the largest bipartisan caucus in the United States Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, and I agree with what the gentleman from Alaska just said.

Hunters have conserved more acres and protected more animals all across the globe than many in this Chamber.

I realize we are an urban Nation, that we are having more representation from urban areas and we have gotten away from our days of hunting and fishing and understanding the role that the hunter plays in conservation, but, as the gentleman from Alaska said, we are going to tell other countries that they can't allow hunting because we are going to shut off the ability of the American hunter to bring certain trophies back.

These folks live with 5-ton animals that are damaging their crops, a whole season's worth of crops in one single night. Elephants are dangerous.

Ultimately, if you take the hunter out of that situation, the hunter is paying with his hard-earned dollars, not your tax dollars, his money.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise today with an amendment to ensure that no funds go to the Obama-era Clean Power Plan.

In 2015, Obama's Environmental Protection Agency published a final rule for the Clean Power Plan, with the intent to reduce CO2 emissions from the existing fossil fuel power plants by 32 percent by 2030. It set specific and stringent limits on greenhouse gas emissions for each State based on its electricity mix.

While this sounds well intended, it is important that we look at the costly and burdensome reality of the so-called Clean Power Plan.

It would cause a slew of economic, environmental, and legal problems. Families and businesses would be hit the hardest with more expensive energy and utility bills. And for what?

According to climatologist Paul Knappenberger: ``Even if we implement the CPP to perfection, the amount of climate change averted over the course of this century amounts to about 0.02 centigrade. This is so small as to be scientifically undetectable and environmentally insignificant.''

It is evident that the Clean Power Plan is nothing more than a feel- good environmental regulation promulgated by the radical environmental left and is based on a trajectory that is negligible, all while driving up the cost for average American families.

Beyond the negligible effects of the Clean Power Plan, it is legally unfounded and may even be unconstitutional. In the words of Laurence Tribe, who testified before Congress: ``EPA is attempting an unconstitutional trifecta: usurping the prerogatives of the States, Congress, and the Federal courts--all at once. Burning the Constitution should not become part of our national energy policy.''

Because of its legal issues, more than half the States in the country petitioned the Supreme Court to pause the Clean Power Plan implementations. A stay was issued in 2016.

I strongly commend the Trump administration for taking action on this issue this week and replacing the Clean Power Plan with the Affordable Clean Energy rule. This move paves the way for affordable and clean energy, and I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and support continued American energy dominance.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), one of the cosponsors of this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), one of the other cosponsors of this amendment.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, 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 rise today with an amendment at the desk to ensure that we develop energy resources located in a small part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

This development is long overdue, and the decision of Congress to authorize that development through the historic tax reform legislation should not be revisited. We should proceed as planned to further American energy dominance.

The opening of a small part of ANWR for oil and gas drilling will increase access to our resources and will help decrease the prices of oil and gas for the American people.

Alaska contains 192 million acres of parks, refuges, wilderness areas, and nature preserves, and 19.5 million acres of this is in ANWR. Before tax reform and the opening of ANWR, 92 percent of the 19.5 million couldn't legally be touched by drilling.

The law changed to open new opportunities for responsible energy development, and we shouldn't backtrack. This area was set aside to be opened in 1980 by a Democrat-controlled Congress and is limited to 2,000 Federal acres, just 0.0001 percent of the ANWR.

We should move forward with the development of this region as it will create jobs, lower prices of oil and gas, and continue to move us forward with American energy dominance.

I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and our continued energy success in the United States, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), who is one of the cosponsors of the amendment and the dean of the House.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce).

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the rule and the underlying legislation that is both ill-advised and misguided.

The environment in the United States isn't getting dramatically worse as those on the other side claim. We are using more while actually reducing air pollutants.

The total emissions of the six major air pollutants has dropped by 68 percent since 1970. This is a feat no other country has accomplished.

How did we do this? These milestones have been reached due to free- market innovation and technological advances only possible in a capitalistic society.

This is how to solve problems, not through disastrous plans like the Paris climate accord that imposes burdensome and costly regulations not approved by Congress. Remember that: not approved by Congress.

The accord, which was negotiated unilaterally by the Obama administration with little congressional oversight, was flawed in both process and substance. The Obama administration skipped the ratification process in the Senate and tied the American people's hands through executive power.

In fact, I offered an amendment in committee to delay this legislation until the Senate performed their constitutional duty, but the other side would rather send billions of taxpayer dollars to other countries without congressional approval. If the American people are forced to put aside their personal needs in order to help the global good, the Constitution should be followed, and the Senate should perform their proper role.

The substance of the Paris climate accord was equally flawed and would have significantly damaged the American economy. It is estimated that the Paris climate accord would result in a loss of 400,000 jobs, a total income loss of $20,000 or more per family of four, and an aggregate gross domestic product loss of over $2.5 trillion.

While causing harm to the U.S. economy, the accord does nothing to hold the biggest offenders of the emissions accountable, nations like Russia and China. Again, an amendment was offered in committee to hold these nations--Russia and China--to the same standards the United States would be held to and it was shot down by the other side.

We can't have effective climate policy that puts the United States at a disadvantage to its main security and economic competitors in the world. This is not an America First agenda. This legislation is more of a redistribution of wealth scheme than actual sound environmental policy.

I think it is telling when former U.N. climate official Ottmar Edenhofer said regarding international climate policy, ``We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.''

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and defeat the underlying legislation.