Jeff Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. 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.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. 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.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. 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.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. 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.''

Mr. DUNCAN. 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. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. 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. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. 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.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. 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

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. 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. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. 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.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. 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.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor a good friend and esteemed colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, John Shimkus. Congressman Shimkus has been a true statesman and a devoted public servant for the people of his district. He's a testament to hard work, commitment to the job, and dedication to serving the United States of America. John and I have served on the House Energy and Commerce Committee together and share a passion for energy and environment policy. We have fought for Yucca Mountain and for the promise of a permanent geological repository for our nation's nuclear waste, something that impacts both South Carolina and Illinois. We have fought for the advancement of nuclear energy as part of our all-of-the-above energy matrix and a carbon-free source of electricity. We fought for these things and more--and his efforts in these fights will be truly missed. I thank John. It has been great working with him here in Congress. I know God will bless him in his future endeavors.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the former chairman for yielding me the time today. I rise in opposition to H.R. 4447, the Democrat's so-called energy package. This bill promotes a radical Green New Deal policy that would cost Americans more than $135 billion. Meanwhile, the bill provides no regulatory or permanent reforms. If Democrats were serious about reducing emissions, they would focus on getting clean technologies, like nuclear energy, to market quicker. I offered an amendment last night, but it was rejected by the Rules Committee which would facilitate efficient environmental reviews for nuclear reactor licensing. Its goal was to accelerate the deployment of nuclear reactors which generate zero emissions during electricity generation, if that is your goal, zero emissions. Unfortunately, Democrats would rather weaponize our permitting laws for political motives. If we eliminate natural gas, or nuclear, in power generation and transition to 100 percent renewables, which H.R. 4447 seeks to do, the cost to national security would be detrimental. The United States would shift from being an energy-dominant country to being energy dependent at a cost to energy consumers because lower income Americans in this deal would pay more as a percentage of their disposable income than others. It would be costly to the environment and our own security self- interest. I don't understand why my amendments aren't made part of this package other than the politics. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4447.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, here we go again, voting on an appropriations package without funding Yucca Mountain because the Federal Government will not follow the law passed by Congress. It is the law of the land to store the Nation's nuclear waste in a long-term repository, and Yucca Mountain is the site that was chosen by the Federal Government to store that. Now, the government wants the American people to follow the mandates recommended by the CDC, but they won't follow a duly-passed law. Let's be clear: It doesn't matter whether the Republicans or the Democrats control the House of Representatives or the White House, the law is ignored because of the politics of Nevada. The terminology the other side uses, ``The science is settled,'' well, the science is settled with regard to Yucca Mountain. It was settled a long time ago. It is settled with reprocessing, too. But short of that, we need to do something with the waste that sits beside the pristine waters of Lake Erie, the Savannah River, Lake Keowee in my district, and waterways all across this great land. I have got a question for my colleagues, Republican and Democrat: How much have the utility rate payers in your State forked out for nothing? Nothing. I can tell you, in South Carolina, it is over $3 billion. I can tell you that nationwide, it is about $40 billion. And, folks, we are not just talking about spent fuel, which sits at 121 sites in 39 States. There is also yucky stuff sitting at Savannah River site, Idaho Flats and Oak Ridge and Hanford, Washington, that has been turned to glass. Let's put that glass and the spent fuel where the Nation decided by law that we should put that, and that is Yucca Mountain.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment which strikes harmful language in the underlying bill that would prevent any funding to be used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to process permits for lawfully sport-hunted trophies from the countries of Tanzania, Zimbabwe, or Zambia. Sportsmen groups and conservation groups, both here at home in America and internationally, all agree that well-regulated hunting in the countries affected by the shortsighted language found in section 436 of the underlying bill, is just reckless pandering to special- interest animal rights groups. The irony is this language will have an adverse effect and hurt populations of the remaining wild lions and elephants which these emotionally driven, science deniers claim to be advocating for. But what about those who live and work in the countries affected by this legislation? How do they feel about this Congress mindlessly targeting their livelihoods? Well, it may come as a great shock to those on the other side of the aisle, but just this week a letter was sent to the Speaker of the House by local representatives of millions of rural Africans who object to this attack on their basic human right to sustainably use their natural resources on which their communities' livelihoods depend. They understand, better than the folks here in this body, that sustainable hunting practices which they utilize lead not only to benefits for their wildlife populations and their ecosystems, but to the betterment of their fellow man and their communities. In many cases, the population of these species exceed the carrying capacity of their habitats. If left unmanaged, they threaten the viable habitats as well as the safety of humans in these rural areas. Experts, including scientific and management authorities in those countries, the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, credit sustainable hunting programs as a cornerstone of the successful conservation and wildlife management strategies that are responsible for these wildlife populations. Any law that discourages, rather than facilitates, these hunting programs will have an adverse impact on sound ecosystem conservation. The language, which this amendment will strike, is not backed by science. To the contrary, the best conservation science clearly shows that populations of lions and elephants in the affected countries are some of the highest found anywhere on the entire continent. Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Chair, many of the senior leadership on the other side of the aisle voted for the 2002 AUMF on Iraq, including the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the majority leader, and the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The AUMF in 2002 gave this President every bit of authority he needed to go after a terrorist in Iraq. In fact, the terrorist that he killed, Soleimani, was designated under Barack Obama Executive Order No. 13224 as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist in 2011. Where was the outrage when President Obama was using the same AUMF as justification for dropping bombs in countries like Yemen or Syria, or violating the sovereign airspace of Pakistan, which we all agreed with, but violated the airspace of Pakistan to go in and kill Osama bin Laden? We were fine with that. This is a Specially Designated Global Terrorist who deserved death after he was responsible for 600-plus American deaths, atrocious and abysmal acts.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, we are not debating impeachment of an American President today. Your minds are already made up. The Democrat majority has had a verdict, impeachment, looking for a crime since the inauguration. The Washington Post ran the headline, ``The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun'' just 19 minutes after President Trump took the oath of office. The freshman Congresswoman from Michigan told a group of supporters, ``We are going to impeach the mother-blank'' shortly after she was sworn in. Even Speaker Pelosi admitted last week that the impeachment effort has been going on for 2\1/2\ years, long before any phone call between two world leaders. In fact, 71 percent of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee supported an impeachment before the phone call. The impeachment sham is based on hearsay, conjecture, and opinion. And you know what, you can't even get a speeding ticket in this country based on hearsay, yet we are going to impeach an American President based on just that. Where are the crimes of treason, high crimes or misdemeanors committed here? Those are things that constitute impeachable offenses, not hatred or policy disagreements. If memory serves me right, Congress told the administration to withhold aid to Ukraine until they got their act together, addressed corruption, and straightened it out. That was in multiple NDAAs voted on by both parties in this Chamber. So in the simplest terms, we are impeaching the President for doing something we told him to do. Give me a break. We have wasted precious time we were given to serve the American people while you held secret hearings and depositions behind closed doors in Chairman Schiff's chamber of secrets. But the American people have a great sense of fairness, I promise you. They see President Trump has not been treated fairly in this process. Impeachment based on hearsay and opinion, not facts. It is a sad day in this Chamber, the people's House.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, the American people are asking: What in the world is going on in the people's House? But it is easy to see when you hear the words from Mr. Green from Texas, who said: ``If we don't impeach this President, he will get reelected.'' That has led to closed-door hearings, secret depositions, and a parity by a committee chairman. Nothing good happens in the dark behind closed doors. In fact, the German people knew this after reunification at the end of World War II. At the end of years of being behind the Iron Curtain, they rebuilt their Parliament with a glass dome and a mirrored spire, directing sunlight into the chamber, a chamber made of glass walls for sunlight and transparency. This people's House operates the same way, or at least it should, until these hearings, behind closed doors, these secret depositions happen. Madam Speaker, I support President Trump.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I stand in opposition to this legislation, as it hamstrings U.S. energy production and goes against the will of the people. Tax reform not only delivered on the tax cuts for the country and propelled our record-breaking economy, but it paved the way to further energy dominance by authorizing the development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Specifically, there is an area in the NPR that has reserves designated in 1980 by a Democratic Congress to be opened up for gas and oil lease sales. Before tax reform and the opening of ANWR, 92 percent of the 19.5 million acres could not even be legally touched. This area was set aside by the 1980 Congress and was limited to 2,000 Federal acres. That is just 0.0001 percent of ANWR. I heard an analogy the other day. It is like the size of a football on a football field. It is a very, very small spot. I heard another analogy, the size of a postage stamp on a wall. This was set aside for energy production. It has the resources, and it is time for us to develop those resources because the failure to develop the resources we have in this country to meet the energy needs of our Nation means that we continue to be dependent on other nations. We think about the Middle East when we think about that, but as I told a story yesterday, the New England States get natural gas from Russia. An LNG tanker that showed up at Boston Harbor provides natural gas to an American State. That means they are relying on Russia. That is hard for me to fathom when we have an abundance of natural gas in this country, when we have an abundance of oil in this country both offshore and onshore. These are American resources that should be developed, with a very minimal impact on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is time for America to develop the resources God gave us when He blessed this great Nation, develop these resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is the law of the land right now. It is time to develop.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this legislation which undermines the United States' energy dominance and makes us strategically weaker as a nation. I remember Admiral Mike Mullen saying there is no national security without energy security. We get that by exploring and developing the natural resources we are blessed with in this Nation. Currently, 67 percent of the energy used in our Nation is generated from oil and gas; 94 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf is off limits to exploration. The Department of the Interior projects that an estimated 89.9 billion barrels and 327 trillion cubic feet of natural gas has yet to be discovered on the Outer Continental Shelf. Opening up the entire Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf could support nearly 265,000 new, higher paying jobs, $22 billion a year in private investment, and generate almost $6 billion in new revenue for the government within 20 years of the initial lease. Mr. Cunningham's bill blocks $2.2 billion from going to schools, roads, and conservation efforts in South Carolina. Through revenue sharing, oil and natural gas development are a critical source of funding for many valuable programs. Over the past 10 years, royalty payments from lease sales have generated $73 billion for the Federal Government. Much of this money goes into conservation programs, such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Many people on the other side of the aisle that will support this bill also supported the reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In 2018, the LWCF received $893 million in offshore revenues. South Carolina received $1.5 million in 2018 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Oil and gas royalties totaled about 90 percent of the LWCF's funding. Congress has already voted to permanently reauthorize in this Congress. How do the supporters of this bill intend to make up nearly all of the funding for a program that they supported that they would be cutting with this bill? They would do it by taxing the hardworking American citizens, I guess. Blocking offshore development would not only significantly harm our economy, but it would increase dependence on our adversaries for energy. Just in 2018, there was a Russian LNG tanker that arrived in the Boston harbor. It traveled 4,500 miles from Russia to the U.S. when the United States has been the number one producer of natural gas since 2009. New England relies on foreign countries for about 20 percent of its natural gas. Why? Because we don't have the pipeline capacity running from the Marcellus shale up to New England to provide American natural gas, so they are having to buy from Russia. Development of our resources on the Outer Continental Shelf, opening up areas that were blocked by past administrations to energy development, exploration, and, ultimately, production, provides money for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and it provides national security for places like New England and lessens their dependence on a foreign source of natural gas. And that foreign source, ladies and gentlemen, is Russia. Let this be a lesson in what is in store for this country if this bill is adopted. This bill leverages our adversary, Russia, while undermining our security.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 205, which is hostile to U.S. energy production and unnecessarily takes domestic resources off the table. This legislation overly restricts offshore exploration and development, which would eliminate opportunities to create jobs, grow the economy, and increase U.S. energy development to lower prices for consumers. In fiscal year 2018, offshore oil and gas development generated over $3 billion for the United States Treasury, and over $200 million for the Gulf States. So why would we move bills like this that would stop all the progress that we have made in the American energy renaissance? Members of Congress who support bills like this, they still like to drive their cars. They still like to fly in airplanes. They like that 24/7, 365 baseload power supply that heats and cools their homes, provides the electricity for their cold drinks, and provides the power for the manufacturing processes when they are in their district. Admiral Mike Mullen said that there is no national security without energy security. I firmly believe in that. We are going to weaken our national security by taking areas off the table for exploration and production. What that means is, we are going to be more reliant on foreign sources of energy. I talked about New England States receiving LNG ships from Russia to provide natural gas, which we have an abundance of here in this country, but New England States are getting natural gas from Russia. I find that horrid and abysmal when we have the resources in this country to provide the energy to meet our needs. Instead of focusing on anti-energy bills like H.R. 205, we should be pursuing policies that encourage safe, reliable, and affordable energy to the American people through free-market solutions. We are in an American energy renaissance thanks to President Trump and Republicans' progrowth policies, and anti-offshore bills like H.R. 205 hamper these hard-earned gains. Taking domestic energy production off the table would mean one thing--I reiterate--reliance on foreign energy, and that is wrong when we have the resources here in this country. We should explore. We should find. We should develop. We should produce. We should benefit from those productions. And we should benefit from the royalties that come back to the States and the United States Treasury. To fund things like the Land and Water Conservation Fund that sets land aside for posterity funded through royalties through oil and gas production offshore. How are you going to fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund if you take those royalties off the table? I tell America, what they are going to do is raise taxes on you because they like the conservation policies. They are going to fund it with raising taxes. Royalties provide that funding for conservation. I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.

Mr. DUNCAN

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, we are here tonight, as the House Energy Action Team, to discuss the numerous economic, national security, and environmental benefits of the American energy renaissance. The HEAT team will never be supportive of policies that increase electricity prices for consumers, favor foreign-based production over domestic, and deter the development and construction of energy infrastructure. Due to policies that incentivize private investment and production, the United States has become the global leader in natural gas and oil producing, as well as refining. This has given us the ability to export energy to our friends, allies, and countries that want to import U.S. energy. Energy Secretary Rick Perry recently said, ``The United States is not just exporting energy. We are exporting freedom.'' I couldn't agree more. There is no national security without energy security. We understand that in the House Energy Action Team. Looking at this graph, in 2018, U.S. crude oil production exceeded 11 million barrels per day, surpassing Russia as the world's largest crude oil producer. The U.S. produced 12.16 million barrels per day of crude in April 2019. I was just out in North Dakota, in the Bakken. I am amazed at the production going on in that little corner of the world. I say ``little,'' but the Bakken is huge. It is a tremendous resource for the Nation. In fact, we are producing more oil and natural gas in the Bakken in North Dakota and Montana than they are in the country of Venezuela, which is known for its natural resources, known for its oil production. They are producing more in the Bakken. Robust domestic energy production is essential to global leadership in the United States. According to the U.S. Energy Information Institute, natural gas and oil supplied about two-thirds of American energy used in 2016. Oil and gas will continue to be a prominent source of energy. The Energy Information Institute estimates that fossil fuels will account for nearly 70 percent of the country's energy used by 2050. The goal should be to produce, develop, or make fossil fuels available cleaner through private sector innovation, not regulation. That should be the goal, private sector innovation, not the heavy boot of government telling the innovators what they should or should not do. The innovators are actually making things cleaner. We are producing a lot, and we are exporting a lot. One thing I applaud President Trump for doing is challenging Chancellor Merkel and Germany to lessen their dependence on a foreign source of energy, in this case, not the Arab states, Saudi Arabia, or others, but lessen their dependence on Russia. A lot of Europe, Eastern Europe and Western Europe, get their energy from Russia, Gazprom and Rosneft, which support Vladimir Putin. By lessening Europe's dependence on Russia for their energy, Russia is no longer an influencer. It can't turn the spigot on and off to influence political policy in Europe. Europe still has to meet its energy needs. It can do that looking west to the United States through our export of LNG, liquefied natural gas put on ships, sent to Europe, and off-loaded to provide the natural gas and energy security for our friends and allies overseas to lessen their dependence on Russia. Exports of U.S. LNG are set to rise 72 percent this year, as compared to 2018. Russia is just a gas station masquerading as a country, but they are providing that natural gas to Europe. They use their levers of influence, turning that spigot on and off to affect policy not only in Eastern Europe but in Western Europe. Those policies and those pipelines continue to be built to provide that natural gas. We need to provide that from this country. We have an abundance. We have an abundance of oil, too. We are now an exporter of oil. If we look at what the U.S. energy sector has been able to do during this American energy renaissance, it will show that we are a leader in energy production and energy technology. We can help other countries around the globe to meet their energy needs with our technology as well. Madam Speaker, we have a great group of House Energy Action Team members who want to talk about what is going on, maybe in their States, maybe things they know about in this Nation. I know Rick Allen wants to talk about nuclear power and what is going on in Georgia. I know Bruce Westerman wants to talk about what is going on in Arkansas. We have so many others. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) to talk about what is going on in his part of the world.

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman). He was out in North Dakota with me. One thing we saw with natural gas and oil being produced out there, and the understanding of a need for infrastructure in this country, gas utilities the United States added over 730,000 miles of pipeline to serve almost 220 million more customers. At the same time, methane emissions have fallen 70 percent, 75 percent, and CO2 emissions from U.S. power systems are at their lowest level since 1985. Pipelines are the safest way to transport natural gas, but some parts of the country refuse to accept this reality. For example, New England has moratoriums on natural gas extraction, and the inability to construct a pipeline caused an increase in electricity prices. These policies are just asinine and need to change. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Kevin Hern), a freshman Member of Congress and a leader on the House Energy Action Team. We will hear about what is going on in his great State of Oklahoma.

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I tell you, in Oklahoma, they know energy. I think one of the first wells ever drilled in the United States of America was over in Oklahoma. And another place they know a lot about energy is down on the Gulf Coast in my adopted State of Louisiana. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) knows energy, and they have got a lot going on in The Pelican State. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Natural gas is being produced in this country in a tremendous amount, so much so, that we can export it anywhere in the world. But those on the other side are refusing to accept the reality of the benefits of natural gas. In fact, Berkeley, California, is the first American city to ban natural gas from being used in new homes and businesses, being banned from being used in new homes and businesses to heat and cook in their homes, probably banning transportation fuels, as well. Natural gas is affordable for so many Americans, and I can tell you what. When Americans go to the pump, they are conscientious about the price because the money they put in that tank could be the difference in discretionary income they could use for other things. When you help keep energy prices down, not only transportation fuels, but energy prices through the electricity generation in this country-- folks over in Georgia understand electrical generation. In fact, they are building the Nation's only nuclear power plant over in Augusta, Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Savannah, Georgia, to talk a little bit about that.