Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, we had the same discussion yesterday. Once again, these are offshore leases that are part of the American public's domain, not the State of South Carolina or California or Massachusetts or Florida. I understand that application.

But, once again, we also have heard that we want to have responsible renewable energy, so we are actually predisposing no seismic aspect. Well, how do you actually look at moorings in regard to subsurface anchors if you didn't use seismic activity? That is contradicting all the way around the aspect here.

Once again, this just shows that we want nothing of the sort: no seismic, no wind, no solar, no oil and gas. That is unbelievable.

If this is the kind of attitude that we want going forward, those in Arizona and the Western States that have public lands ought to be getting a lot more say in those applications.

And when we start looking at it, maybe what we ought to do, if we are talking about oil spills, one of the worst ways to actually import oil is through boats. So maybe we ought to disallow ships, because a ship that has an accident is one oil spill away from anywhere.

So this just begs my indifference in regards to what the heck we are trying to do here. It is looking at our assets. We have a due diligence to the American people to look at those assets for public assets.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I have been sitting on the floor. I sat in the House Committee on Natural Resources yesterday and heard this assault on oil and gas. So I want to remind everybody that the only mechanism to fund LWCF is actually these funds from the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas.

It is amazing. It is absolutely amazing that we have this rhetorical conversation on the House floor.

So we are against adding any access to know what the resource actually is by seismic. We are responsible on behalf of these resources to the American public. Yes, the American public actually owns these jurisdictions. And what we are doing is we are leveraging as that opportunity to fund LWCF.

Be careful, Will Robinson, what you are asking for.

Those responsible applications, we heard it over and over from the gentleman from Louisiana. Once again, these are an asset of the American people, not South Carolina, not Florida, not California, not Massachusetts. So responsible applications here, we have got to be taking in good stewardship.

So with that in mind, I caution everybody that LWCF is the only mechanism for funding. The only mechanism for funding is these Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leases.

These are responsible aspects, and they actually know what the resources are. You are going to need seismic, if you are going to look at alternative energy aspects, particularly wind, in regards to permanent moorings.

So from that standpoint, I just offer a cautionary plea. Be careful what you ask for. You may end up having no funding at all.

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

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

The Acting Chair. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. Chair, we don't need a moratorium off the coast of California. We actually need a resurgence in domestic energy development offshore.

I heard from the gentleman that the last oil spill was in 1969. Let's see, it is 2019. Fifty years later, technology has been much different.

While the local demand for oil in California has dropped over the last 40 years, foreign dependence has increased from 5 percent to 57 percent.

In 2018, California imported 135 million barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia alone. According to the national offshore energy industry, leasing in the 240 million acres of currently off-limits areas would support an additional 165,000 jobs and inject $15 billion in annual contributions to the economy.

There are already 23 active oil platforms in Federal waters adjacent to California. Once again, let me repeat, there are 23 active oil platforms in Federal waters adjacent to California. These platforms produced nearly 17,000 barrels of oil per day in 2016 and

brought in $32.8 million in total royalties in fiscal year 2016. In a State that is importing 57.5 percent of its refined oil from foreign nations, it is imperative that we take the opportunity to utilize domestic energy supply.

Once again, let's highlight that: 57.5 percent is from overseas, which is much dirtier than what we produce here. If we are concerned about climate change and emissions, we ought to be importing less and looking at what we actually do.

Last but not least, I would like to remind everybody that we just had a conversation on the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is funded exclusively by Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas. Once again, the people who don't want this for their States, maybe they should turn down LWCF funding because it seems contradictory to the conversation.

Once again, I remind my colleagues that Federal waters belong to the U.S. people, not the States of California, Florida, South Carolina, or Massachusetts. We have a due diligence to look at the management of those resources.

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

Mr. Chair, yes, I am landlocked by California, but you know the old adage. I am waiting for oceanfront property in Arizona, as the song goes.

Once again, let's take a look at this. When we start talking about offshore assets for the Outer Continental Shelf, there is less jurisdiction with regard to that versus what we do on-shore. If we are giving this type of leverage to States with offshore assets, we ought to be giving those States like Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and Montana more jurisdictions because the law is better on their side than it is with those on offshore.

Once again, I find it interesting that we have a dichotomy here. We are all for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, but we are unwilling to look at the resources it takes and where they are derived from to make sure that that is permanently, in perpetuity, funded.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, the EPA's announcement in late December intended to revise the cost-benefit findings behind the MATS aspects and benefits. The Obama-era EPA's own estimate of the cost implementing MATS exceeded its estimate of benefits by 1,233 to 2,400 times, an absurdity papered over by the accounting trick of double counting as co-benefits reductions in non-mercury emissions as though these reductions were already achieved under other regulations.

The financial costs of this implementation are between $4 to $5 million annually--no, I am sorry--$9.5 billion annually.

Once again, the rule hasn't even been put out yet.

Don't you think we ought to be waiting to find out what the actual rule is before we say no go?

Because we don't even know where it goes.

We also want to take a look at catastrophic wildfires. Catastrophic wildfires are the largest aspect in regard to contaminants into the air as we witnessed in hazardous breathing times, particularly in Montana and California. So from that standpoint, I urge a ``no'' vote against this one because it is premature to actually what the rule is coming out.

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

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Madam Chair, this amendment also makes a mockery of our laws that govern the permitting process for mining operations and is a complete violation of basic fairness.

Specifically, this amendment supersedes the Democrats' supposed flagship environmental regulatory law, NEPA--unbelievable.

Currently, the Army Corps of Engineers is doing exactly what Congress intended it to do under NEPA with regard to the proposed Pebble Mine project. It is analyzing the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of the proposed mine.

A wonderful adage is good process builds good policy, builds good politics. We ought to embrace that. And if we really want to put our nose in other places, maybe what we ought to do, as I challenge my good friend from California, is, instead of focusing on this project, to look at his State in his own district. Maybe he ought to be focusing on the illegal marijuana farms in his district that are using pesticides and polluting local waters and damaging national forests and our plants.

This is something that is pertinent to Alaska, to the Member from Alaska. The Tribes have been consulted. It is just that the one Tribe that he is talking about, no process followed. But the people closest to this that are most involved have been for this mine. They want good process, and I oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer), and I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer Congressman Luetkemeyer's

amendment to ensure the United Nations climate change organizations are no longer used as an international slush fund for ineffective climate change research and projects.

Unfortunately, many of the United Nations climate change organizations operate with little oversight or accountability, while being financed, in part, by the American taxpayer.

Unelected bureaucrats and foreign leaders across the globe should not have greater control over U.S. policy than our citizens and elected officials, especially when we are paying for it.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCC, and the Green Climate Fund, GCF, have been surrounded in controversy since their inception.

The IPCC, which is broadly represented as the top authority on climate matters, was under fire when emails were publicly released from a university in England that showed that leading global scientists-- that 95 percent, they are always quoting--intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals.

Further, while the IPCC supposedly issues assessments based upon so- called independent surveys of published research, some of the most influential conclusions summarized in its report have neither been based upon truly independent research nor properly vetted through accepted peer-reviewed processes.

The United Nations Green Climate Fund, which, unfortunately, received $1 billion in taxpayer funding thanks to the Obama administration, has not approved a new project since 2017, causing the executive director of the fund to resign.

According to the Green Climate Fund former co-chair, 30 percent--yes, 30 percent--of the funds pledged are never going to materialize.

Despite its stated goal of supporting developing countries to pursue renewable energy sources, the Green Climate Fund's pledges that do materialize are going to wealthy nations with little to no effect on emissions.

Let me give a couple of examples.

One project to install a solar plant in Kazakhstan directly benefited Chinese construction companies instead of investing in Kazakhstan's companies. Directly investing in one of our economic rivals, China, is definitely the best use of taxpayer funds.

Worse yet, the fund proposed a $9.8 million investment in the wealthy kingdom of Bahrain's oil sector. How is this pursuing renewables in developing countries?

Many former and current members of the United Nations climate change organizations acknowledge they have made little to no progress and don't see the organization being successful in the future.

This amendment is not about climate change, but about the proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

Our constituents should not have to foot the bill for organizations that have no track record of success and have a proven history of funding corruption and bad science to advance a radical climate change agenda.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

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

Mr. Chairman, once again, throwing money into the wind when it has no accountability is foolhardy. We have seen these over and over. Good process builds good policy is good politics.

We want to see outcomes, and what we are not seeing from this is outcomes.

Mr. Chair, I ask everybody to join in.

This isn't about climate change. This is about accountability. We need to see results, not just throwing money to the wind.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I want to applaud the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), but I also want to highlight that there is a further issue that we need to address.

Not only is there a pipeline problem, but there is a floodplain problem that needs to have some jurisdiction and some changes and involvement.

We have become the victims in regard to when floods run. We see our infrastructure on this side of that international border being destroyed.

Mr. Chair, this is a golden opportunity to highlight an opportunity that is a joint venture between the two countries that we can actually see some camaraderie to actually facilitate change.

Mr. Chair, I applaud the gentleman for bringing this up, and I look forward to seeing us remedy this continuing problem.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It would prevent any funds in this bill from being used for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is responsible for some of the worst multinational agreements we have signed onto.

These agreements are technically implausible and have unrealistic emission goals in order to appease environmental extremists. This includes the flawed Paris Agreement, for example.

Americans for Tax Reform estimates the Paris Agreement will cost the U.S. an estimated 6.5 million jobs by 2040 and reduce our GDP by over $2.5 trillion.

NERA Consulting estimates those numbers are even higher and that the

Paris Agreement will cost the U.S. an estimated 31.6 million jobs by 2040 and reduce the GDP by over $3 trillion.

In June of 2017, President Trump announced he will withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, stating: ``The Paris Climate Accord is the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers. . . . and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.''

The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change has also become a mechanism for executive overreach. For example, when President Obama signed us up in the Paris Agreement, he did not consult Congress in any way. This was a direct assault on Congress' constitutional duty to approve any treaty signed on to by the United States.

Fortunately, there is an alternative. Mr. Chairman, the best way to improve our environment and ensure our economic prosperity is to allow energy innovations in this country, not by sending millions of dollars to some transnational organization.

We have new innovations being implemented in our energy sector as we speak, every day. From carbon sequestration coal plants in Texas, to the shale revolution in the Midwest, to solar facilities in my home State of Arizona, locally driven solutions are creating thousands of jobs and benefiting our environment.

It is a simple concept. The people who depend upon our energy resources to provide security for their families and communities understand those resources best. States and municipalities are best suited to deal with local issues than are the distant out-of-touch Washington and U.N. bureaucrats.

The facts are clear: The U.S. has had one of the largest absolute decreases in carbon emissions of any country in the world. From 2005 to 2017, the U.S. cut 862 million tons of carbon, a 14 percent decline. Over the same period, global emissions increased by 26 percent. China increased its emissions by 4 billion tons, and India increased its carbon dioxide emissions by 1.3 billion tons, a 70 percent increase.

America's energy renaissance is the backbone of our economy. It is a story of freedom, prosperity, and opportunity. The story of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is a much different one, one that is characterized by a one-size-fits-all policy that gives special preferences to some of the world's worst polluters, like China and India.

This isn't a partisan issue. This is about doing what is right for America and protecting freedom and opportunity for our children and grandchildren. I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to support my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, once again, we hear the same lame excuse over and over again, that doing the same thing over and over, we are going to get a different result. Well, that doesn't work anymore.

Trust is a series of promises kept. Why don't we set by example? And that is exactly what we are proposing here.

The United States, by our technology, by our innovation, has shown the way in regards to combating climate change. That is exactly the way that we ought to handle it, not by some failed multinational bureaucracy that uses the United States as a slush fund.

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

Mr. Chairman, once again, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is insanity. Once again, we have seen the ineptness of the United Nations in regard to this. We have seen the misuse of money to developed nations like China and India, and we allow them to continue to pollute when we set the example.

I like the idea of setting the example for everybody else to follow. We are the innovators. We are the leaders. We ought to establish that. I ask everybody to vote for this amendment.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor World War II Veteran John O'Conner as he celebrates his 100th Birthday. John O'Conner of Payson, Arizona epitomizes a life dedicated to serving others and defending our country.

John was born on June 11, 1919 in Branford, Pennsylvania. He attended the University of Buffalo in Buffalo, New York. During this time, he met and married his wife of 54 years, Velma. After such a joyous and momentous occasion, his country called for him to serve as socialism spread throughout Europe.

Without hesitation, John answered his country's call, took his new bride to live with his mother and joined millions of the Greatest Generation to fight for the survival of mankind. The year of 1940 marked the beginning of John's five-year service in the European Theatre. He served in the artillery division of the United States Army Air Corps. By the grace of God, John survived the war and helped save the world from the rise of socialism.

After the war, he went on to author the first instruction manual for the nuclear submarine, the very same nuclear submarine invented by the ``Father of the Nuclear Navy,'' Admiral Hyman Rickover. John and Velma went on to raise three wonderful children, John, Patricia and Kathleen. John moved to Payson in 1969.

When we look at John's life and what he has accomplished, it's clear to see why he is loved by so many. He and so many like him put their lives on hold and placed themselves in a situation that none of us could possibly fathom. All of this, in defense of our country. We can never repay John's service to our country. May he have a blessed birthday and may many learn from his example of service and patriotism. Happy Birthday, John.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a constituent of mine that has made an outstanding impact for the community of Lake Havasu. Jim Salscheider of Lake Havasu has been selected as Lake Havasu's Citizen of the Year and will have the distinct honor of serving as the grand marshal of the London Bridge Days Parade. Jim has been a tireless advocate for the community and for the environmental causes of Lake Havasu.

His leadership was instrumental in forging an ongoing friendship and partnership with the Chemehuevi Tribe, in improving marketing and promotion for the hundreds of local businesses that depend on the marine industry,

and developing a relationship with local, regional, state and national governmental entities. Jim has developed an educational campaign about invasive species in Lake Havasu and highlighted unfair practices that quarantined watercraft at the California ports of entry.

Furthermore, Jim opened lines of communication with the United States government when U.S. Fish and Wildlife dropped no wake buoys into some of the best skiing water on Lake Havasu on May 20, 2015. It was because of his tireless dedication to the community at large that myself, Senator John McCain, Senator Jeff Flake and other federal officials heard about the arbitrary action that U.S. Fish and Wildlife had taken. My office became immediately involved and helped facilitate a local public meeting with U.S. Fish and Wildlife, where more than 1,000 concerned residents voiced their vehement disapproval of this action. Thanks to Jim's vigilance, this action was reversed on June 16, 2016.

Jim's leadership truly drives home the point that the beauty of Lake Havasu is not just in the serene landscape, but rather the community that encompasses it. Our 40th President of the United States Ronald Reagan summed it up best when he said that, ``The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. He is the one that gets the people to do the greatest things.'' Jim's leadership perfectly embodies these words and is proof to everyone that sometimes all that is necessary is the voice of one principled individual. Thank Jim Salscheider for his leadership and dedication to the people of Lake Havasu. Congratulations.

Madam Speaker, I rise today as a grandchild of legal immigrants to this country.

We are debating whether or not to grant the greatest gift our Nation has to offer, permanent residency and citizenship. We must get our priorities straight.

While we are here in the middle of a humanitarian crisis on the southern border, Democratic leadership is choosing to bring amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants to a vote.

By choosing to ignore our current immigration laws, Democrats are effectively inviting the mass migration of illegal immigrants across our border States, including Arizona. If enacted, this would be the largest amnesty in U.S. history. It would do nothing to enforce our laws but, instead, reward lawbreakers.

This legislation grants smugglers and gang members with green cards and a path to citizenship. It will simply serve to incentivize more migrants to come to the United States illegally.

Congress should work with the administration in stopping the surge of illegal immigration, not incentivizing more caravans.

My constituents have recently and repeatedly made it clear that Arizona's Fourth Congressional District does not support amnesty.

This bill does not promise the American Dream but, rather, the perpetration of a crisis. This crisis is doing real harm to Arizona and all of America.

I encourage my colleagues not to vote for H.R. 6, which would only serve to enable the humanitarian crisis on our southern border and does nothing to close loopholes or even enforce existing law.

I find this legislation to be a disgrace. The American people deserve better. It is time this Congress started putting American citizens first.

It came as a closed rule. That shows you that it is bad process and bad policy.

As former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis is quoted: ``In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. . . . If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.''

Do I need to say anything else?

I ask my colleagues to reject this legislation and vote ``no.''

Madam Chair, I rise not against this bill, but I have concerns about a provision capping the veterans' training benefits. This severely undermines the important goal of helping our Nation's veterans enter a field where they are desperately needed.

H.R. 1947 does have needed improvements for structural veteran flight training benefits. This includes an accelerated payment provision to provide greater flexibility and a more efficient funding mechanism to help veterans complete their flight training.

The bill also provides coverage for obtaining a private pilot's license when it is incorporated into the requirements of a professional flight training program.

Additionally, this action provides flexibility to public schools, allowing them to contract for flight training, which, in turn, makes aviation training more available to interested veterans.

There is improved fiscal responsibility by the government, and there is strong support for tightening the existing regulations of the Department of Veterans Affairs to curb abuses by a minority of flight schools affiliated with collegian degree programs. However, the bill caps payments for flight

training programs, which unfairly impacts the ability of veterans to pursue well-paying jobs in the civilian aviation sector.

Capping funds available for flight training degree programs virtually guarantees that veterans seeking to use their GI Bill benefits to enter the aviation industry will have insufficient funds to achieve their goals. They will either abandon their pursuit or be burdened with significant personal debt through either expenditure of personal funds or taking on severe student loans. This will harm veterans and limit their employment opportunities in the aviation industry.

It is unfair and discriminatory to single out these funding caps for veterans seeking employment in aviation. These caps deprive them of the ability to pursue collegian flight training, a common path to a career as a commercial pilot.

I hope this provision can be addressed prior to finding its way to the President. These jobs in aviation are in high demand, and our veterans are some of the most deserving and most needed.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Bishop for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the current form of

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in strong opposition to H.R. 312.

H.R. 312 is contrary to the view of the Department of the Interior. It contradicts a Supreme Court decision and aims to reverse Federal court decisions on this matter in order to build a massive 400,000- square-foot, off-reservation gaming complex for the benefit of Genting, a foreign Malaysian gaming company.

H.R. 312 creates two reservations for the Mashpee Tribe of Massachusetts:

One reservation will be the town of Mashpee, the Tribe's historic reservation lands. No casino will be allowed within the geographical boundaries of the town of Mashpee.

The other reservation is, oddly, 50 miles away from Mashpee, in the city of Taunton. This site is not part of the Tribe's historic reservation and was selected by the Tribe and Genting for a billion- dollar casino project because of its proximity to the Providence, Rhode Island, casino market, 20 miles distant.

There is no reason for the second reservation, other than to build an off-reservation casino 50 miles away from the Mashpee Tribe, where they currently reside. In fact, the new off-reservation casino will be only 20 miles from the New England Patriots' football stadium and, again, 50 miles from the Mashpees' historic reservation.

In 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, with the intent to restrict casinos to Tribes' original reservations. By placing land in

trust for the Mashpee Tribe for gaming in Taunton, H.R. 312 creates an off-reservation casino, which is inconsistent with congressional intent. This is often called reservation shopping, and it is an abuse of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

The Tribe's lawyers knew that reservation shopping was a political headache, so they went to the bureaucrats within the BIA to obtain the two reservations through administrative action. RedState recently reported:

No one is more desperate for H.R. 312 to succeed than

Genting Malaysia. If the casino doesn't come through, the

Tribe doesn't have to pay Genting back the over half a

billion dollars it borrowed.

H.R. 312 is a financial bailout for Genting. The Tribe is swamped with a $500 million-plus debt to Genting, and there is no way the Tribe can ever pay this back and still make enough money to sustain itself. Genting, therefore, will be the real owner of the project, not the Tribe.

This kind of arrangement where the creditor practically controls the financial future of a debtor Tribe is contrary to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which requires every Tribal casino to be 100 percent tribally owned.

At the committee hearing on this bill, counsel for the Governor of Rhode Island testified that H.R. 312 will cause the State significant harm with regards to revenues for education, infrastructure, and social programs and is contrary to the limitations contained in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Moreover, the American Principles Project also reported on the ties between convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, stating:

The expansive Abramoff investigation uncovered major

corruption within the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe. Its chief,

Glenn Marshall, pled guilty in 2009 to multiple Federal

charges, including embezzling Tribal funds and campaign

finance violations committed while working with Abramoff to

secure the Federal recognition of the Tribe in 2007.

For my Republican colleagues: The bill was opposed by 10 of the 13 voting Republicans during the committee markup, including the ranking member, Rob Bishop; President Trump tweeted that he opposed the bill and urged Republicans to do the same; House Minority Whip Steve Scalise also sent an email recommending Members vote ``no'' on H.R. 312. Do you really want to vote for Elizabeth Warren's top Tribal priority?

For my Democratic colleagues: Representatives Cicilline and Langevin strongly oppose this bill, and it is opposed by the Democratic Governor of Rhode Island. The bill is also ``strenuously opposed'' by other federally recognized Tribes in Massachusetts.

For Members on both sides of the aisle: Do you really want your name tied to a Tribe that only received Federal recognition in 2007 as a result of shady lobbying by Jack Abramoff? Do you really want to vote for a $500 million bailout for a former gaming corporation?

In short, H.R. 312 authorizes an off-reservation casino, bails out a foreign corporation from major financial problems of its own making, reverses the judgment of a Federal court, and contradicts the Supreme Court ruling.

Wow, all in one breath.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to vote against H.R. 312, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that my colleagues on the other side understand that, as the city of Mashpee, no one has any problems, but it is the city of Taunton that is part of the problem, and that is where we have the gist. So I caution them to watch their rhetoric.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island so that we may have a quick colloquy.

As the gentleman made mention, it was locals in Taunton that actually sued; is that true?

I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Does the gentleman think that the court in which they sued had any of the information skewed in front of it, in front of their jurisdiction?

All this information that we are hearing, that is myth versus fact; is that true?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for engaging in the colloquy, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric coming from the other side is hot and heavy like I don't know what I am talking about with Native American Tribes when I have lived my whole life in association with Tribes. So let's get through some of the false myths that are out here that continually are being talked about.

Now, the myth is that Congress has done this for other Tribes, i.e, we have heard about the Gun Lake Tribe.

Fact: That is false. This will be the first time, as my colleague from Rhode Island said, that Congress would overturn a Federal Court decision where the court ruled that the Tribe did not meet the Federal standard to have land taken into trust, a State-recognized Tribe.

Myth: The Tribe is facing extinction unless Congress acts.

That would be false. The Mashpee Tribe will not lose its Federal recognition and will continue to receive Federal benefits and funding even if H.R. 312 does not pass. Further, if this is not solely about a casino, then my amendment should have been considered and adopted in committee. The amendment was a compromise that would have secured a reservation for the Mashpee for all purposes but not gaming.

Myth number three: H.R. 312 is not a casino giveaway nor a case of reservation shopping.

Fact: It is both. There is no reason for the second reservation other than to build an off-reservation casino 50 miles away from where the Mashpee Tribe currently resides. If this weren't solely about a casino, then my amendment would have also been adopted in committee.

Myth: The two tracts of land in the town of Mashpee and the city of Taunton both are sites within the Tribal historical territories. My colleague from Massachusetts actually alluded to this.

That would be false. The Mashpee Tribe will build a massive, 400,000- square-foot, off-reservation casino away from their Tribal land on the border. That would be Taunton, Rhode Island.

In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act with the intent to restrict casinos to Tribes' original reservations. By placing land in trust for gaming in Taunton 50 miles away from the Tribe's historic reservation--he also brought that point up, that it wasn't their traditional land--what Congress intended in the Gaming Regulatory Act would be severely harmed.

Myth: This bill has nothing to do with approving a specific casino project.

Fact: We actually heard it again from the other side. If that were the case, then my amendment would have been made in order and received votes or deemed adopted at the committee level. The amendment would have secured a reservation for the Mashpee Tribe for any nongaming purposes.

These may include, but not be limited to, the construction and operation of Tribal government facilities and infrastructure, housing, a hospital, a school and library, a museum, a community center, assisted living for Tribal elders, business development, natural resources management, the Tribe's exercising its government jurisdiction over Tribal members, and many other Tribal uses.

The next myth is that H.R. 312 is not a bailout.

H.R. 312 is not a bailout? In fact, the Malaysian hedge fund, Genting Malaysia, that is underwriting the casino--yes, underwriting this casino.

The Mashpee Tribe will not receive a penny of revenue from the casino for many years, if ever, because of the massive size of the $500 million-plus debt they have incurred to Genting. Genting, therefore, will be the real owner of the project, not the Tribe.

This kind of arrangement where the creditor practically controls the financial future of a debtor Tribe is contrary to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which requires every Tribal casino to be 100 percent tribally owned.

The last myth: The Mashpee Tribe will go bankrupt if H.R. 312 does not pass.

Fact: The Mashpee Tribe will only be required to repay its debt to the Malaysian company underwriting the deal if H.R. 312 is enacted and the casino is approved.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to address Congress' intent, under article I, section 8.

As I said before, the Mashpee reservation of the city of Mashpee is not of consequence. It is the area outside of their previous homeland of Taunton that is of discussion. That is only the aspect here. What has happened here is the bypassing of protocol and law that actually causes the problem.

So let me give you a little bit of background about why I have this problem.

We had seen previous abuse in the past where the off-reservation land was taken in a trust against the will of States, compacts, and local communities for the sole purpose of building new casinos.

This was certainly the case of the Tohono O'odham Nation right in Arizona when they acted against the fellow Tribes, the State of Arizona, and the general public to open an off-reservation casino in Glendale, despite agreeing to a voter-approved compact not to build any more casinos in the Phoenix metro area until the compact was renegotiated. Litigation discovery and audio recordings affirm this shameful conspiracy implemented by the Tohono O'odham.

I am concerned that this bill as written will encourage future abuse in that regard and allow for more off-reservation casinos to be built against the objections of local communities.

Furthermore, there is no CBO score for this bill. There is no committee report that I have seen. We are pushing this bill through that has no chance of being signed into law without amendment and without knowing the full ramifications of this legislation.

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

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

Let's go back to some more of the myths.

The Mashpee Tribe will lose its Federal recognition and benefits if H.R. 312 does not pass.

Once again, that is false. The Mashpee Tribe will not lose its Federal recognition and will continue to receive Federal benefits and funding even if H.R. 312 does not pass.

Here is the next myth. It was the intent of Congress for all Tribes to have land and trust under the IRA of 1934 regardless of when the Tribes obtained Federal recognition.

Fact: That is not what the Supreme Court said in Carcieri v. Salazar. The Supreme Court said that the Tribal aspect of the IRA of 1934 does not authorize the Secretary of the Interior to place land in trust for Tribes that were not under Federal jurisdiction on the date of enactment of IRA, or 1934.

Fact: There is no evidence that Congress, in 1934, thought that off- reservation gaming would turn into the controversial mess it has become today.

Myth: After a Federal judge struck down the Obama administration's second definition of Indian analysis, the Trump administration chose not to defend the decision.

Fact: The Trump administration chose not to defend the decision because the judge said it was ``not even close,'' and the Obama administration had not used this analysis in any other Tribe's trust land case. It was used once only for the Mashpee. The Court remanded the matter back to Interior for an examination under the same ``first definition of Indian'' analysis used for all other Tribes.

In applying the Obama administration's analysis used for all other Tribes, the Trump administration determined the Mashpee did not qualify, and yet Tribes blame the Trump administration for something the Obama administration could have done years ago but chose not to.

Could the fate of a billion-dollar casino be the reason why the Obama administration bent the rules? I wonder.

H.R. 312 doesn't amend the IRA. It doesn't amend any law. Rather, H.R. 312 declares the Obama action struck down by the U.S. district court to be lawful and proper. The bill also orders the court to dismiss the lawsuit concerning the casino property and to prohibit the filing of any future lawsuit over it.

Mr. Speaker, we constantly see over and over again, the problem with H.R. 312 is it is once again being rushed to the floor.

I want to reference a letter from Eagle Forum and highlight, basically, their reservations.

``This bill is a deceptive plan to undermine the Federal Government's decision to deny the Mashpee Tribe land for a new casino. The Mashpee Tribe has previously engaged in questionable financial and lobbying dealings. They are currently $450 billion in debt to Genting, a foreign Malaysian gaming company, because of this project.

``The Tribe has no way of paying the company back, which means Genting will be the true owner of this project. Taxpayers should not be responsible for the bailout of their irresponsible dealings.''

Down further it goes:

``Just the issue of gambling alone has been devastating to families across the United States, especially among Native Americans.''

Further down it goes:

``For these reasons, we urge you to vote `no' on H.R. 312, Mashpee

Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act.''

I also want to reference Americans for Limited Government:

``The House of Representatives should reject H.R. 312, the Senator Elizabeth Warren-led attempt to punch piecemeal holes through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. This isn't about the ability of Tribes using land that is part of their long-established heritage for casino development, but, instead, it is about whether Congress should place gambling institutions on unrelated land based upon proximity to urban areas.

``If Senator Warren and her benefactors wish to change the Indian gaming laws, they should introduce wholesale reforms rather than turning the existing law into Swiss cheese for nothing more than investor pecuniary interests.

``Rick Manning, President, Americans for Limited Government.''

We actually have our opposition to 312:

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 312, the Mashpee

Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act, when it comes

before the House today.

H.R. 312 is contrary to the view of the Department of the

Interior, contradicts a Supreme Court decision, and aims to

reverse Federal court decisions on this matter in order to

build a massive, 400,000-square-foot, off-reservation gaming

complex for the benefit of Genting, a foreign Malaysian

gaming company.

The bill forever strips the Federal Government of its

jurisdictions over this Tribal casino and overturns a well-

reasoned decision from a Federal judge.

H.R. 312 also provides a massive tax shelter for Genting by

shielding the land--and the casino on it--from taxation and

State regulation.

The bill creates two reservations for the Mashpee Tribe of

Massachusetts, one reservation which we have no problem with,

in the town of Mashpee, the Tribe's historic reservation

lands. No casino will be allowed within the geographical

boundaries of the town of Mashpee.

The other reservation will be 50 miles away from Mashpee in

the city of Taunton. This site is not part of the Tribe's

historic reservation and was selected by the Tribe and

Genting for a billion-dollar casino project because of its

proximity to the Providence, Rhode Island, casino market, 20

miles away.

In 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

with the intent to restrict casinos to Tribes' original

reservations.

By placing land in trust for gaming in Taunton, H.R. 312

creates an off-reservation casino, which is inconsistent with

congressional intent. This is often called ``reservation

shopping,'' and it is an abuse of the Indian Gaming

Regulatory Act.

The Tribe's lawyers knew that reservation shopping was a

political headache, so they went to the previous

administration to obtain the two reservations through

administrative action.

Once again, the Federal judge, however, ruled that what the

previous administration did was unlawful, so now they need

legislation to authorize this off-reservation casino.

The bill was opposed by 10 of the 13 voting Republicans in

the committee markup. Ranking Member Rob Bishop was one of

those. These Members are joined by Americans for Limited

Government, the American Principles Project, the Coalition

for American Values, Eagle Forum, the Governor of Rhode

Island, Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, Congressman David

Cicilline, Congressman James Langevin, and President Donald

Trump in opposing this bill.

President Trump tweeted that he opposed the bill and urged

Members of Congress to do the same last week. House Minority

Whip Steve Scalise also sent an email recommending Members

vote ``no'' on H.R. 312.

The bill is also strenuously opposed by the only other

Federally-recognized Tribe in Massachusetts.

All of this opposition was enough to have the bill pulled

from consideration by the House of Representatives under the

suspension of the rules procedures one week after it was

considered in committee with no bill report or score--

actually, there was a bill report but no score from the

Congressional Budgetary Office.

Now, the Democrat leadership is using a closed rule and not

allowing any amendments to get this controversial bill out of

the House of Representatives. Given that H.R. 312 authorizes

an off-reservation casino, bails out a foreign corporation

from major financial problems of its own making, and

reverses the judgment of a Federal court and contradicts

Interior and Supreme Court decisions, it is no wonder that

the majority had to resort to these drastic measures.

I urge everyone to vote ``no'' and to oppose this bill that

sets a dangerous precedent that will open the floodgates to

off-reservation Tribal casinos all over the United States if

enacted into law.

Once again, I want to reiterate, if you have a problem with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, let's do the wholesale changes on a massive scale, not do it one piece at a time, one Tribe at a time, not allowing lawful actions to occur.

So, I ask all my colleagues to vote ``no'' against this bill. Send a clear message that we have got to follow the law or change it wholesale for everybody.

Mr. Speaker, I ask a ``no'' vote from my colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Frank Ayers for his remarkable career in education and his dedicated service to the Prescott, Arizona community. Dr. Ayers is the 7th Chancellor of Embry- Riddle Aeronautical University's Prescott, Arizona Campus. He is a preeminent example of an educator who enriched and inspired his students every step of way. His tenure at Embry-Riddle has shaped the careers of the next generation of aviators, national security experts, and aerospace engineers.

In his 10 years as Chancellor, Dr. Ayers has dedicated his efforts to better the Embry-Riddle community by promoting the creation of new degree programs, establishing seven new athletic programs and creating a family atmosphere at the Prescott Campus. In addition, he was instrumental in working with the Prescott and Prescott Valley City Councils so that Embry-Riddle could help serve the greater Yavapai County region in the best ways possible.

This semester was Dr. Ayers last as Chancellor at Embry-Riddle. He leaves a remarkable legacy and Embry-Riddle, along with the greater Prescott community, will miss his outstanding leadership. I wish him a long and happy retirement surrounded by his family and friends, and thank him for all he has done for our community.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my amendment ensuring the constitutionality of the Paris Agreement. The previous administration refused to abide by the Constitution and called this an agreement, not a treaty, despite the agreement having an impact on every American.

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the President shall ``have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.''

My amendment simply states that the Paris Agreement is a treaty, and before anything can be implemented to abide by the agreement, it should be submitted to the Senate for approval.

My good friend from Virginia, Representative Morgan Griffith, said it best yesterday in our Special Order when he eloquently stated: ``If we are going to bind our hands and seal our fate to be the number two or number three or number five economy in the world instead of being the number one economy in the world, if that is what we are going to do, then there ought to be votes taken down the hall. Men and women in the United States Senate should put their name on the line and say yes or no. And the American people then will know who has voted yes and who has voted no. They won't be hiding behind any games or circumstances or procedural maneuvers. Then the American people can use the power that was given to them by our Constitution and an inalienable right granted by God to use the ballot box to make a decision as to whether or not they wanted to be bound, whether or not they wanted to have their economy reduced, and have their children and grandchildren to be lesser than what we have today in our economic wealth.''

Many radical environmental groups are saying the Paris Agreement does not need to go to the Senate, that the agreement reiterates obligations already contained in article 4 of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or the UNFCCC. This is completely a falsehood.

The Congressional Research Service has already proven them wrong.

Let me quote the CRS: ``The George H.W. Bush administration stated that Article 4.2 of the UNFCCC, which commits the parties to, inter alia, adopt national policies and, accordingly, mitigate climate change by limiting GHG emissions did `not require any new implementing legislation nor added regulatory programs.' Perhaps, most importantly, it stated that an amendment or future agreement under the UNFCCC to adopt targets and timetables for emissions reductions would be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent.''

Furthermore, in a subsequent report, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations wrote:

``A decision by the conference of parties to adopt targets and timetables would have to be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent before the United States could deposit its instruments of ratification for such an agreement. The committee notes further that a decision by the executive branch to reinterpret the convention to apply legally binding targets and timetables for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to the United States would alter the `shared understanding' of the convention between the Senate and the executive branch and would therefore require the Senate's advice and consent.''

The previous administration purposely ignored the will of Congress by refusing to send the Paris Agreement to the Senate. I often hear Members from both sides of the aisle lament about executive overreach.

Here we have a clear case of the executive branch telling Congress it doesn't matter.

If Congress refuses to exercise its constitutional authority and not demand the Paris Agreement to be sent to the Senate, then this body is telling future Presidents that there are no checks and balances.

Madam Chair, I urge the adoption of my amendment that preserves the constitutional checks and balance, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Madam Chair, I will finish that up.

The State Department has a Circular 175, and there are ten opportunities

that tell us whether they are an agreement or whether they are a treaty.

So let me highlight just four or five of these.

Number one, the extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole.

This obviously impacts everybody across this country, therefore, ratification by the Senate.

Whether the agreement is intended to affect State laws.

This will bind all State laws, because they have to fulfill the ratification based on that activity. So, therefore, it, once again, has to be a treaty.

Whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress.

This agreement obligates U.S. taxpayer funds to the Green Climate Fund, which is a slush fund, but it still obligates those applications and that money to that fund. Therefore, it must be fulfilled by a treaty.

Madam Chair, I ask Members to adopt my amendment, 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 rise today to offer an amendment that strikes section 3 of the bill. Section 3 prohibits the use of funds to advance the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement. My amendment ensures any decision made on the Paris Agreement will be based on the merits, not politics.

I have said this before, and I will say it again: Either the Paris Agreement is a treaty, or it is not. If it is not a treaty, then the current administration may independently terminate the agreement without congressional approval, as the previous administration entered into the agreement without congressional approval.

Makes sense, right?

What one administration does by executive action can be undone by the next administration by executive action.

If the Paris Agreement is not an agreement entered into by the United States by executive action and constitutes a treaty, then it should be presented to the Senate and put on the floor for a two-thirds vote per Article II, Section 2 of our Constitution.

For the last several years, Democratic Members have crowed at the top of their lungs about none of the funds provisions and forced the U.S. Senate to agree to only take up appropriation bills if they don't include political riders. Riders have not been included in the final appropriations bills signed into law as a result.

Well, folks, section 3 is a political, none-of-the-funds rider, whose sole ability is to try and prevent the administration from doing something they currently have the authority to do. The hypocrisy here is outrageous, and this amendment should pass based on that precedent utilized over the last several years alone.

We have heard folks on the other side of the aisle claim we need to stay in the Paris Agreement in order to protect future generations. Americans for Tax Reform estimates the Paris Agreement will cost the U.S. an estimated 6.5 million jobs by 2040 and reduce our GDP by over $2.5 trillion.

NERA Consulting estimates those numbers are even higher, and that the Paris Agreement will cost the U.S. an estimated 31.6 million jobs by 2040 and reduce our GDP by over $3 trillion.

How does killing 6.5 to 31.6 million jobs and costing our economy more than $3 trillion protect future generations? I don't know.

The European Climate Action Network reported that no single country in Europe is performing sufficiently to meet the Paris Agreement goals.

A recent United Nations Emissions Gap report found that all participating countries will have to at least triple their efforts in order to meet the Paris Agreement's basic goals.

China and India, the world's two biggest polluters, have said they will not even consider reducing carbon emissions until 2030 at the earliest, while we are pledging to reduce our emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025.

How does tying ourselves to a nonbinding agreement that puts us at a competitive disadvantage and that countries throughout the world are failing to implement protect the American people?

This is not a partisan issue, Madam Chairwoman. This is about doing what is right for America and about protecting freedom and opportunity for our children and grandchildren.

If the administration didn't already have the authority to withdraw the United States from the fundamentally flawed Paris Agreement, then there should be no reason to include the section 3 political rider being debated here today.

But since the United States Senate has failed to take up the Paris Agreement and weigh in one way or the other whether the Paris Agreement is a

treaty or not, this body should not attempt to tie the administration's hands with a political none-of-the-funds rider.

Either you are for the Constitution or you are not. Either you believe executive action can be taken to enter and leave the Paris Agreement or you don't.

I urge adoption of my amendment, which removes the politics from the bill and allows any decision made on the Paris Agreement to be based on merits, not politics.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Once again, Madam Chairwoman, this is an important application. Once again, you have to realize that we are talking about the Constitution.

The other side talks out of both sides of their mouth. They want it one way when they are in the minority, they want it the other way when they are in the majority, and they can't have that.

This is about the rule of law and about good policy. Good process builds good policy builds good politics, and that is just not what is here today.

So when we start looking at the applications here, let's make sure the American taxpayer, the American family, is treated fairly, not put at a disadvantage by the rest of the world.

Too often we have taken the short end of the stick. It is fine for us to stand up.

And, by the way, if I am not mistaken, in 2015, 2016, and 2017 we led the world in carbon emissions reductions. Yes, it is that very application of entrepreneurialism and technology that has driven that boat. Let's continue doing it that way. Let's get back to good process.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Lori Markham for being chosen as Teacher of the Year by the Yavapai County Education Foundation. Lori is a first-grade teacher at Abia Judd Elementary School in Prescott, Arizona and she is a shining example of an educator who enriches and inspires the students she teaches. Lori is a proud graduate of Northern Arizona University and she is currently in her 24th year of teaching at Judd Elementary school. She has not only dedicated her life to educating her students, but also to bettering the education system in Yavapai County, serving on many district-level committees and as a mentor for new teachers.

Recounting the reasons she became a teacher, Lori mentions she was lucky to have teachers dedicated to her success by not only being role models but parental figures and mentors. She has dedicated two decades inspiring hundreds of children to try hard and dream big.

I thank Lori for working tirelessly to educate and uplift students, and I celebrate the impact she has had on her local community in Yavapai County and the entire state of Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may

have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lead a Western Caucus Special Order to voice our vehement opposition to H.R. 9, which aims to prevent President Trump from withdrawing from the fundamentally flawed Paris Agreement.

In 2015, more than 170 countries signed a nonbinding agreement at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris. While most countries set a target reduction of carbon emissions below its 2005 level, the Obama administration sought to dramatically reduce the United States' carbon emissions by between 26 and 28 percent below its 2005 level by 2025.

Before I proceed any further, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs). He is a tireless advocate for small businesses in his district, many of whom have been harmed by this type of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Biggs for his comments.

H.R. 9 seeks to mandate implementations of those same technically implausible and unrealistic emissions goals in order to appease extremists. The bill also seeks to prevent Federal funds from being used to withdraw from the flawed Paris Agreement.

Americans for Tax Reform estimates the Paris Agreement will cost the U.S. an estimated 6.5 million jobs by 2040 and reduce our gross domestic product by over $2.5 trillion.

NERA Consulting estimates those numbers are even higher and that the Paris Agreement will cost the U.S. an estimated 31.6 million jobs by 2040 and reduce our GDP by over $3 trillion.

In June of 2017, President Trump announced he will withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, stating: ``The Paris climate accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving the American workers and taxpayers to absorb the costs in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttering factories, and vastly diminishing economic production.''

There are other significant flaws of the Paris Agreement. MIT found the Paris Agreement will only result in a global temperature reduction of 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. Under the Paris climate agreement, China and India will actually increase emissions until at least 2030.

The Climate Action Tracker, a group of European research organizations, found that participating parties will not meet their commitments, and those are the goals of the Paris Agreement.

The European Climate Action Network reported that no single country in Europe is performing sufficiently to meet Paris Agreement goals, and those that have been making the most progress on their promises did not make large commitments in the first place.

A recent United Nations Emissions Gap report found all participating countries will have to at least triple their efforts in order to meet the Paris Agreement's basic goals.

Given how unrealistic and illogical the Paris Agreement is, the U.S. should not inflict monumental harm on our economy chasing a white unicorn.

Fortunately, there is an alternative. Members of the Western Caucus support personal responsibility, less government intervention in our daily lives, and freedom. They defend property rights and believe that private ownership of property is a fundamental right in America. Our vision encourages innovation and less burdensome mandates.

Members of the caucus support local control and believe that stewardship of our environment and natural resources is best accomplished by empowering local stakeholders, not victimizing them.

The people who depend on the land to provide security for their families and communities understand these resources best. States and municipalities are best suited to deal with local issues than the distant, out-of-touch Washington bureaucrats.

The caucus seeks to promote access to our Nation's energy and resource potential while pursuing a truly all-of-the-above energy approach that aims to ensure the U.S. is a global energy leader.

Our vision utilizes the current energy renaissance and the American energy dominant policies currently being implemented by the Trump administration. America's energy renaissance is the backbone of our economy; it is a story of freedom, prosperity, and opportunity.

After decades of reliance on other countries to meet our energy needs, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that America will export more energy than it imports starting in 2020. We are no longer dependent on volatile foreign sources produced in Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Recent innovations and technology improvements associated with hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have allowed shale resources previously deemed uneconomical to be developed and the main reason the U.S. was the world's leader in carbon emissions reductions in 2015, 2016, and 2017.

That is right. Fracking, demonized by environmental extremists without justification, has proven to be the best energy solution for our environment.

Abundant oil and natural gas have reduced electricity bills, kept gas prices low, and provided the largest share of U.S. electric power generation in recent years.

The United States is the world's top energy producer, and the American Dream is thriving. Passing H.R. 9 and staying in the Paris Agreement threatens that dream.

This is not a partisan issue. This is about doing what is right for America and about protecting freedom and opportunity for our children and grandchildren. I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to reject H.R. 9.

Now, with that, I yield to my friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop). As the Republican leader on the Natural Resources Committee and previously as its chairman, he has been one of the biggest leaders in promoting American energy dominance.

Mr. Speaker, to the Member, to the gentleman, we are also getting another benefit because the catastrophic wildfires that we are seeing out West are a contributor. There is more carbon and pollution that occurs during these catastrophic wildfires in one day than in a year of exhaust from cars.

What we do is we get a benefit there because we have a much more dynamic forest, much more dynamic interfaces. The fires are smaller. They are not as catastrophic, so we don't go further in debt.

This is something that the Natural Resources Committee has been pushing under Mr. Bishop's watch, and I thank the gentleman. There is plenty of benefit in regard to understanding the natural cycle of plants and trees.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to bring up the point that the Western Caucus was dynamic in going to Houston to see Petra Nova in Texas. It is the only carbon sequestration coal plant in the United States, one of only two in the world.

Basically, what they do is they capture the carbon sequestration and pressurize it into pipes. They pipe it down to their oil fields. Once they frack the oil fields, they take this pressurized carbon and force it into the oil field. What it does is it forces out the rest of the gas and oil with it that is still remaining and then solidifies in the ground.

What amazing technology. Once again, going back to the whole application that technology, innovation, the private sector is right there to answer the call.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa). Mr. LaMalfa knows firsthand the negative effects that policies like H.R. 9 can have, given the proposals that have gone into effect in California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher). With his background in the technology industry, he knows firsthand how businesses in his district and across the country are already innovating and helping to reduce our carbon emissions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Idaho for those remarks. You can see where this is going. The right way is not this Paris accord, but through technology and through innovation.

Mr. Speaker, a point that has been brought up multiple times by my colleagues is how the Paris Agreement is a direct violation of our Nation's sovereignty. I could not agree more. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution states that the President ``shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.''

President Obama took unilateral action when he signed the Paris Agreement back in 2015 and failed to consult Congress. There were no committee hearings leading up to the adoption of the agreement and no vote was held by the Senate, as mandated by our Constitution.

Members on the other side will say that the Paris Agreement does not constitute a treaty. But when the Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing on this very bill, every witness believed the agreement was a treaty. This included multiple Democratic witnesses.

The practice of avoiding congressional approval was nothing new for the Obama administration when it came to natural resources and energy policy.

Fortunately, Members will have a chance to correct this unconstitutional action by voting for my amendment that was made in order this week instructing the Senate to take a vote as to whether the Paris Agreement is a treaty or not.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), my good friend. He has some background on this information.

Russia.

Absolutely. The one road initiative. They are taking and leveraging resources across the world and, at the same time, being paid for it. And I dare you not keep up with your payments because it rescinds right back to them.

Going back to your first point, the gentleman from Virginia, what you are telling me is that this body will have that opportunity, with my amendment, to get this right, instructing the Senate to take a vote on the Paris accord to actually see if it can become a treaty, would you agree?

So, what you are really telling me is when you have good process, you build good policy, which builds good politics. It is kind of that simple, isn't it?

The gentleman brings up that when we look at coal, the separation of rare earths, that is the technology that is so important. This is the technology that is driving this renaissance of technology in our country, that plethora of energy where we can geopolitically decide to help other countries become more independent, away from China's and from Russia's jurisdiction.

The entrepreneurial spirit is bred with having energy independence. This H.R. 9 kills jobs.

I also want to bring up to the gentleman, with technology, there is another technology at the same time that takes up pulverized coal and infuses it into oil. When they burn it, they get a 50 percent additional Btu factor and a cleaner burning application, once again reducing the carbon footprint.

Once again, talking about new technologies is what saves us. It is that entrepreneurial spirit making things better. The infusion of new technology helps us get an advancement of cleaner technology.

That is right.

The gentleman brings up a great point, along with the former chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, not only in the grazing application but in the stewardship of our natural resources called our forests, dynamic forests. Instead of being victims of these catastrophic wildfires that put so much of the emissions and pollution into the air, we then relegate it, so when we do have fires, it is relegated to low-level type fires that are not as devastating and catastrophic.

I want to bring up one other point. Included in the Paris Agreement was the creation of a slush fund called the Green Climate Fund, which the Obama

administration unconstitutionally utilized to shift $1 billion in taxpayer funds without authorization from Congress. Once again, we were imposed upon by having the money, Uncle Sam Warbucks.

The Green Climate Fund was a goal of raising $100 billion a year through voluntary contributions from countries that signed the Paris Agreement. While developed countries are expected to finance their respective agreements under the Paris Agreement, the Green Climate Fund aims to subsidize the agreements of developing countries that cannot afford the commitments they made when signing the Paris Agreement.

In fact, since the United States ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, the United States has given hundreds of millions of dollars to developing countries to help them mitigate climate change. Amazing.

We know that much of the money we have given over the years has gone to some of the most corrupt countries in the world. My question is, how can we rely on these countries to spend the money properly? When you look, for example, in 2014, the top recipients for climate funds all received failing grades in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. Amazing.

What has been the return on investment for the money that we were giving to these countries? It is nice to be able to fund this, but what are the results? What are we getting from that?

The facts are that carbon emissions from the developing countries have gone up. We know that much of the money was not used to reduce carbon emissions.

Once again, we are not solving it.

It is clear that H.R. 9, that is what it will do. It will put the country back on the road to job losses, higher electric bills, and more government regulations while wasting significant amounts of taxpayer money in the process.

We become victims in this economy. We should be leading the way. Freedom comes with technology and opportunity, and that is what the American people want.

This is something where we should show the way by leadership, by saying: Listen, follow us by the way that we do things.

That seems like a better approach, doesn't it, to the gentleman from Virginia?

Right, the carrot versus the whip. What you are looking at is the opportunity for solutions, that incentivization to find a new opportunity. I think that is the value. We are protecting 6.5 million jobs here.

It scraps the unconstitutional application of the treaty, and it ensures safe, reliable, affordable energy.

Everybody has to have energy. When we start looking at this Paris accord, it is accomplished in so many different ways that H.R. 9 is not something that is a valid or constitutional agreement.

Having said that, the Paris Agreement may have been their most egregious breach of constitutional authority. Many Members on the other side have stated in the past that President Trump does not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw the United States without the consent of Congress.

By virtue of the executive's role as the sole organ of the government charged with making official communications with foreign states, it is responsible for communicating the United States' intention to withdraw from international agreements and political commitments.

In the case of this executive agreement, President Obama had independent authority to enter into an executive agreement. President Trump may also independently terminate the agreement without congressional approval.

In addition to there being no congressional input on the agreement, there was no congressional input when drafting the agreement. This is not the way an agreement as wide-reaching as the Paris Agreement should have been agreed upon.

Passage of H.R. 9 will bring us back to the foreign policy of President Obama and the practice of putting other countries' interests above our own. This is the same foreign policy that brought us Benghazi, the rise of ISIS, and the disastrous Iran nuclear agreement.

President Trump's promise to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement marked a dramatic change in America's foreign policy-- for the better, I might add. The Paris Agreement fails to put America first, and President Trump is right to withdraw us from this sovereignty-sacrificing agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the facts are becoming clearer about the realities and failures of the Paris climate agreement.

First of all, let's talk about the good news. The United States reduced its carbon emissions by 40 million metric tons in 2017. Yes, our emissions did rise slightly in 2018 due to increased domestic manufacturing, but the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that our carbon emissions will continue to fall in 2019 and 2020.

Now for some bad news. The United States' reductions in carbon emissions are totally erased when you account for China's dramatic increase in carbon emissions. Several speakers have talked about that. In fact, China's increase in emissions is three times larger than the U.S.'s decrease in emissions.

Mr. Speaker, this highlights two of the fundamental failures in the framework of the Paris Agreement, which is the fact that there are no mechanisms in place to hold countries accountable for not reaching their emissions reduction targets, and there are no requirements or required countries to establish equitable emissions reductions over the same period.

It is not just China, either. India, for example, saw its emissions rise 4.8 percent in 2017. Forty-seven of the 50 most polluted cities in the world are located in either China or in India.

Well, you may say, let's look to Europe. They are probably on the forefront of following the standards set forth in the agreement.

People would think that, but that would be wrong, as all EU countries are off-target in reaching the goals set forth by the Paris Agreement. Germany, for example, has spent almost

$600 billion in renewable energy subsidies and has seen no meaningful decrease in carbon emissions.

Mr. Speaker, the United States was already a leader in reducing carbon emissions before the Paris Agreement was signed. Since 1970, the United States has reduced six key air pollutants by 73 percent and has seen the largest absolute reduction of CO2 of any country in the world since 2000.

Instead of focusing on bringing us back to the past, we should focus on encouraging innovations that we are already seeing in the energy sector today. Whether it be carbon capture technology, clean coal, or taking advantage of the liquid natural gas revolution that is taking place across the country, the private sector is leading the way in creating a cleaner energy future for this country.

That is the way it should be, not through a heavy-handed government imposing unrealistic, top-down mandates.

Requiring the U.S. to follow the requirements of the Paris Agreement will stifle innovations and return us to the policies of the past when energy was more expensive and economic growth was abysmal.

It appears that I am running out of time, so what I will do is implore my folks to, first, relook at this.

I thank all the Western Caucus members who contributed to the Special Order. It is truly a privilege to be chair of the caucus, which is now 74 bipartisan members strong.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to lead the fight against the extreme agenda, which is why we organized the Special Order in opposition to

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor First Lieutenant Steve Reynolds, a 40-year member of the Navajo County Hashknife Sheriff's Posse. Reynolds has aided in rescue operations on horseback for decades and has been on 60 annual Hashknife Pony Express rides. This year, the Navajo County Sheriff's Hashknife Posse Board has decided to dedicate the 61st ride to Reynolds.

Moving to Holbrook, Arizona with his father at a young age taught Reynolds the value of the hard work engrained in ``the cowboy lifestyle.'' He moved out of Holbrook to attend High School in Chandler, Arizona. After graduation he enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and completed two tours in Vietnam before being wounded by an explosion that left him hospitalized for a year. Reynolds returned to Holbrook and became a deputy with Navajo County Sheriff's Office and a member of the Posse, and later a certified police officer with the state of Arizona.

Reynolds' work with the Posse has led him to aid in rescue operations for decades, working during fires and floods, as well as a part of missing persons search teams. All members of the Posse are required to complete 40 hours of training that cover CPR, first aid, and search and rescue. Reynolds mentions that most mounted Posse organizations have disappeared due to lack of funds; fortunately Navajo County understands the contributions that the Posse has made in the community. The annual Pony Express is one of the biggest fund raisers used to keep the Posse afloat.

Today Reynolds resides in Prescott, Arizona, where he spends time with his many grandchildren. The people of Arizona, but especially the people of Northern Arizona, will always be grateful for the selfless work of our veterans, especially the work of Steve Reynolds.