Jeff Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Bell Street Middle School in Clinton, South Carolina, for the outstanding accomplishment of winning their 12th consecutive Science Olympiad State Championship. You hear a lot about sports teams, but this is a science olympiad team. Each year, the South Carolina Science Olympiad competition brings together schools from all over the State to compete in science-related contests, with the goal of changing the way science is perceived and taught. Bell Street Middle School has repeatedly excelled in the competition, leading the State for over a decade. This year, Bell Street finished first in 12 of the 20 individual competitions in the State tournament. Last year, the school placed in the top six in the Dynamic Planet competition in the Science Olympiad national tournament. We are very proud of these students and what they accomplished. I am confident they will go on to represent South Carolina well in the national competition. I want to thank the students, teachers, the parents, and the volunteers who have worked tirelessly to make the dream a reality. I wish the team great success in the upcoming national competition and continued success in the State tournament for years to come.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas. There was a tragedy this week at Fort Hood, Texas. The folks in South Carolina once again stand with the people in Texas. The President's former Chief of Staff, and now the mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, infamously said: Never let a crisis go to waste. That is what we are seeing going on today with Harry Reid looking to use the recent Fort Hood tragedy to pursue his agenda of control. Harry Reid said this week that the recent shooting should renew discussion about gun control, and then went on to talk about background checks and mental health issues. Mr. Speaker, these comments have nothing to do with the facts at hand. However, Harry Reid wants to use this as a way to restrict Americans' Second Amendment rights. I don't agree with his motives, but I do agree with his suggestion that we need to revive a discussion on the Second Amendment. It should reawaken our discussions about Americans' constitutionally affirmed rights to keep and bear arms to defend ourselves, to defend our families, to defend our property, and, ultimately, to defend this great Nation. With regard to our military, the gentleman from Texas and I had a conversation earlier. I fully understand that when you join the military, you give up some rights. You give up the right to speak unless you are spoken to or it is appropriate. You give up the right to assemble peacefully. You assemble when they tell you to on the parade ground, I have been told, but you don't have the right to assemble. You don't have a right to trial by jury. We set the jury of court-martial for the military. I get that. Yet we trust these soldiers with both high-tech and low-tech weapon systems that they use to defend this great Nation, but then we turn around and create these gun-free zones on their bases, which have resulted in two incidents. Gun-free zones have resulted in two incidents at Fort Hood and the killing of unarmed and law-abiding citizens. I will mention, as the gentleman from Texas did, that the President wants to call this an episode of workplace violence. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. Major Hasan was an Islamist jihadist intent on doing harm in the war against America that we see raging all over the world in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. The folks that were wounded there and the soldiers that were killed at Fort Hood deserve the medals that they have earned, and it is time to call this for what it was. It was an episode of terrorism, and the original Fort Hood shooting incident requires, I believe, that those victims receive the medals. That is something I renew the call on. I raised this issue about the travesty this week and the gun-free zones to my constituents via Twitter and Facebook. These are some of the things they had to say. A lady named Carolyn Chandler says: Our own soldiers, without guns, shot down on our own base in our own country. A ban on guns gives the criminals free targets. The criminals will have the guns. Criminals do not obey laws. Steve Carey says: The victims at Fort Hood are not dangerous. The politicians who have disarmed the soldiers at a military base are dangerous. Ken Crowe says: We don't need more gun laws; we need fewer gun-free zones. I agree with him on that. It is time for America to wake up. The only lawbreakers in Fort Hood, Texas, in both of these tragic events were the killers themselves who took a firearm into a gun-free zone. I am reminded of an old adage that says, when seconds count, the police that can protect you in these gun-free zones are just minutes away. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away. Think about that, America. It is time to let our soldiers and law-abiding Americans defend themselves and reaffirm our Second Amendment and constitutional rights in this country I appreciate the gentleman bringing forth the SOS law. I look forward to cosponsoring that. Let's allow law-abiding Americans, soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines to defend themselves. SOS sends a warning signal. It is an alarm. It is put on the beach when someone needs to be rescued. Well, guess what? The people in gun-free zones need to be rescued as well by having the ability to defend themselves. So I thank the gentleman from Texas for giving me the time to talk about this important are issue. May God bless him, may God bless the Republic of Texas, and may God bless the United States of America.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 147, I missed the vote on final passage of H.R. 1459, the Public Involvement in the Creation of National Monuments Act. I supported this bill in the Natural Resources Committee and would have voted in favor of it on final passage. Unfortunately business on the Senate side of the Capitol prevented me from voting before the rollcall ended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, as well as the underlying bills. Mr. Speaker, the instances of executive branch overreach are numerous. Whether it is the multiple episodes of the President of the United States unilaterally delaying and waiving aspects of his signature law, the Affordable Care Act, or the failure to enforce this Nation's immigration laws by unilaterally implementing aspects of the DREAM Act, this President has shown an appalling lack of concern for the laws which his oath demands that he enforce. Someone who holds the office of the Presidency cannot pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce and which laws he wants to ignore. I was astonished when, during the State of the Union speech, many in this Chamber stood and applauded when the President said that if Congress didn't act on issues which he felt were important, he would just go around Congress and act on his own. This followed his now infamous ``I've got a pen and I've got a phone'' statement earlier. Is that really how the legislative branch should feel about its constitutional position in the Republic? The ``pen and phone'' approach to his executive duties is disastrous to the Founding Fathers' vision of liberty protected by limited government which is spread across multiple, equal branches. Where is the President's respect for the rule of law? He expects Vladimir Putin to respect international law with respect to Ukraine while the President, himself, at the same time, continues to disregard the laws passed by the United States Congress. The legislative branch was designed as an equal branch of government. In fact, the establishment of the executive branch was easy for the Founding Fathers, who didn't wish to see imperialism in a Presidency, and they intentionally chose to limit that branch's powers. It was the legislative branch where they spent most of their time--deliberating, designing, and enumerating the powers which we hold--and it is past time for this body to say ``no'' to Presidential overreach. No, Mr. President. You cannot write laws via executive orders. No. You must enforce the laws passed by Congress or actually lead in an effort to change the laws with which you may disagree. In 1787, when asked what form of government the Framers had given us, Ben Franklin reportedly replied, ``A Republic if you can keep it.'' Mr. Speaker, I am afraid we are slowly losing grip on our Republic-- the government designed by this Nation's Founding Fathers that has provided over 200 years of freedom and prosperity. It is time for the people's House to regain its constitutional authority as the sole legislative body.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Sergeant First Class Douglas Lesh, in honor of his retirement from the United States Army and his extraordinary dedication to duty and service to the United States of America. Sergeant First Class Lesh and his wife Amanda will be moving on from his current assignment as the Non- Commissioned Officer in Charge of the Office of the Chief, Legislative Liaison's Travel section. Army Congressional Liaisons provide an invaluable service to both the military and Congress. They assist Members and staff in understanding the Army's policies, actions, operations, and requirements. Their first hand knowledge of military needs, culture, and tradition is a tremendous benefit to Congressional offices. A native of Grass Valley, California, Sergeant First Class Lesh enlisted in the Army on August 5, 1993, and entered infantry basic training at Ft. Benning, Georgia. Sergeant First Class Lesh's assignments have taken him to Tong Du Su Shon, Korea; Fort Stewart, Georgia; Fort Carson, Colorado; Sacramento, California; Fort Benning, Georgia; Ramadi and Baquba, Iraq; The Joint Staff at The Pentagon, and the 1st Battalion 3rd Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard). Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a grateful Nation, I join my colleagues in recognizing and commending Sergeant First Class Lesh for his dedicated service to this country. For all he and his family have given and continue to give to our country; we are in their debt. We wish him, his wife Amanda, his son Logan, and daughters Chloe and Hattie, all the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, let me begin by reminding the House that the gentleman that spoke before me on this side of the aisle, Mr. Sam Johnson from Texas, is a real American hero, and let us not forget that. This week is recognized as National School Choice Week, a week dedicated to bringing awareness to a very simple idea: let's put parents in charge of their children's education. School choice means giving every child the opportunity to learn at the place that best meets their needs, not one they are relegated to because of where they may live or what district they are assigned to. For decades now, where our children learn has been decided by arbitrary government rules that could never understand the needs of each individual child or family. When kids fail to make the grade, the solution has been to throw more money and government regulation into the mix, but the end results cannot be clearer. This top-down, government-knows-best system has failed to serve the very people it seeks to help, and support from parents and teachers for initiatives like Common Core continues to crumble. Be it a charter school, private school, home school, or local public school, the fact of the matter is parents know what works best for their child, not Washington. We owe it to our children to help them reach their full potential. I strongly believe that every child, regardless of background or school district, should have the opportunity to learn at the school that best meets their needs. Let's work together for a brighter future for our children.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we are all getting calls in our offices as to the impact of ObamaCare on average Americans. Here is an example from just this morning: A female, aged 23, making below the D.C. poverty level per year. She currently pays $94 a month for her health care insurance. She went on the ObamaCare Web site just to find out that it would cost her $250 a month, with a $6,000 deductible. Folks, the impact of ObamaCare on average Americans is why ObamaCare should be a part of this spending-and-debt debate here in Washington.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of a gentleman who is with me in the Capitol. He was the high school valedictorian at Liberty High School. This summer, during his valedictorian address, he ripped up his approved speech and delivered The Lord's Prayer in defiance of the school district's decision to no longer include prayer at graduation. This is someone that reminds us that we as a Nation need to return to God. I am thankful for him and the inspiration of his generation.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, over 1 week ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid shut down the government rather than have an honest conversation about the problems facing this country. The House has passed not one, not two, not three, but four separate bills that would have kept the government running, while ensuring basic fairness for all Americans under the President's health care law. And even after the United States Senate rejected every single one of these bills, still House Republicans asked to simply have a conversation, and the Senate said no. So here we are. House Republicans are working and will continue to work to fund important government functions like medical research and benefits for our veterans. We hope the Senate and the President will join us in these efforts. It's time for the President and the Senate to stop playing games at the expense of the American people.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Madam Chair, amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Those who choose to trade liberty for security will find they have neither.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in the run-up to the American Revolution, American colonialists were concerned over the English Government's use of general warrants--giving British authorities the right to enter into private homes or businesses without evidence of wrongdoing--to search for and seize anything they considered contraband under English laws and taxation. This led to the Founding Fathers including this in the United States Constitution: Amendment IV. The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated and no warrants shall be issued but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. That is why this debate over NSA programs is so important. Americans should be secure in their private papers--electronic or otherwise-- against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Let's just be clear, America, what we're talking about and where we're talking about. This chart shows the Western Gap, the only area covered under the transboundary hydrocarbons agreement--the agreement negotiated by the Obama administration--to open up this area; 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico that's so far away from the shore of Florida that really makes this amendment not applicable. This is the area we're talking about, this 1.5 million acres that would produce American jobs and American energy resources.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I urge opposition to this motion, Mr. Speaker. What we have here in this motion to recommit is just the latest attempt by a few on the other side of the aisle to cater to special interests instead of the needs of the American people. Behind me, I have a copy of the transboundary area that we're talking about, the Western Gap. You'll notice in that map you don't even see the State of Florida. This bill enacts an agreement between the United States Government and Mexico to open up a million and a half acres to offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, an agreement negotiated by and signed by the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in February 2012. We want to make sure this agreement will help create American jobs. We want to make sure that we're developing our resources in a safe and responsible way. We want to make sure that this bill puts us on the path toward North American energy independence. This bill does all of those things, yet the gentleman that offers the motion says he is against the bill. Actually, he said he's for it, but for a lot of different reasons. But this is an attempt to delay the fact that we need to make changes. The time for delay is over. The time to come together in a bipartisan way to create jobs through energy is at hand. We want to develop these resources to achieve North American energy independence and end our dependence on Middle Eastern sources of energy, and we want to reduce the cost of fuel for all Americans. We want this bill to be part of an all-of-the-above, all-American energy strategy. We want to provide the regulatory clarity and the certainty that energy producers need to explore the area, create the jobs, and produce the energy that we need. And for all of you still on the fence about whether or not to support this bill, let us remember that this is the administration's agreement, and we actually want to get it enacted. So let's get to work creating American jobs while producing American energy. Let's defeat this motion and let's pass this bill to put Americans back to work. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I want to thank the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee for his leadership on this issue as well as to thank my friend, Mr. Salmon from Arizona, for his leadership in the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee on this issue because he understands what is at stake. One thing this bill will do is attract jobs. It will help the United States Government create energy sector jobs. The second thing it will do is help meet our energy needs, and it will help lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy by producing those energy resources here at home. That's a national security issue. By being less dependent on foreign sources of oil, we are less dependent on what goes on in that part of the world. There can be no national security without energy security, and this is a step in the right direction. We are willing to say that the Obama administration got something right in forming this agreement and signing it. In February of 2012, Secretary Clinton signed this agreement with the Foreign Secretary from Mexico, Patricia Espinosa, to open up this area known as the ``western gap'' in the Gulf of Mexico so that both countries--Mexico and the United States--could explore and start producing oil and natural gas from this area. What it does is to create a broader legal certainty along that U.S.- Mexico boundary area in order to foster more American energy development and job creation. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement estimates that this area contains as much as 172 million barrels of oil and 34 billion cubic feet of natural gas-- shared resources. Yet they're shared under a common border, a border between the United States Government and Mexico. If you think of a border, think about it out in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. It's a maritime boundary, and these resources lie underneath the Earth's Outer Continental Shelf. Underneath that border, who do they belong do? This agreement addresses that they are shared resources. They belong to both countries, and we ought to utilize this agreement in order to start harvesting those resources. The gentleman talks about changes to Dodd-Frank and other things, but why is that necessary? Who will benefit? I'll tell you who won't benefit if we don't put this language in there. The people who won't benefit are the American consumers. They are paying almost $4 a gallon for gasoline. They won't benefit because we won't be producing American resources to meet their energy needs. So why is this necessary? Without the changes to this agreement, the language in the agreement can create an impossible situation for American companies operating on transboundary hydrocarbon resources. For example, Mexican confidentiality requirements may forbid the disclosure of the very information that the Dodd-Frank rule requires of American companies. This would lead to a situation in which companies that are regulated by the SEC have at the very least uncertainty about compliance with both Mexican and American disclosure laws. This uncertainty and potential disclosure conflict would place foreign state-owned oil companies, which are not regulated under Dodd-Frank or by the SEC, at a competitive advantage to the companies which operate under the United States' agreement and are regulated. The change in this language will open up competition and allow American companies to actually go to work without the uncertainty as to which laws they need to comply with and which they don't. This is the right thing. The changes to this language will ensure that American energy development will go forward in the transboundary area and that those resources in that area will be harvested to provide the necessary energy for America, which drives our economy. This is the right thing for America. We are willing to enact this agreement because we want to harvest those resources, and we want America to move toward American energy independence. Ultimately, we want to put Americans to work. We want to create jobs--good paying, long-term, energy sector jobs. We do that by moving toward American energy independence. We do that by enacting this agreement and by opening up 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for energy exploration and development. It's the right thing for America. It's a movement toward an all-American energy policy, utilizing American resources to meet American energy needs and putting Americans to work. I can only see a win-win for both Democrats and Republicans and for all Americans by moving this agreement forward. We asked, from February 2012 until now, for the United States Department of the Interior to send us the enacting legislation, to send us the enacting ability so that we could vote on something in the last Congress, and they failed to do that. So understanding that we need to do that, the Natural Resources Committee took the bull by the horns and said, We're going to do it. We're going to pass the implementing language to enact that agreement and put Americans to work and provide those resources that are so vital to moving this economy along.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana for his amendment. I think it is the right thing. I thing the Gulf Coast States are treated unfairly with the cap. This raises the cap. It's the right thing. I was talking with a gentleman from an ACC school--I know you're an LSU guy--but he was from Virginia Tech. He said, Go Hokies. I didn't like that, but he understands that Louisiana is treated unfairly when you compare to what is going on in Wyoming where they got a billion dollars last year in revenue. My State of South Carolina is included in this bill, and they want the revenue-sharing as well. It is the right thing for the States that help produce America's energy. So I commend the gentleman. Let's raise that cap, and let's treat those Gulf Coast States fairly because they are the producers of American energy. And so I commend the gentleman.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this is a jobs bill. It creates American jobs, producing American energy. So it's an energy security bill, as well. And there can be no national security without energy security. So this is a national security bill, as well. Virginians get it, South Carolinians get it and Americans get it. The first domino is the jobs that are created on the offshore rigs. But if you ride on Highway 90 from Lafayette, Louisiana, down toward New Iberia and Houma, Louisiana, you're going to see on both sides of the road business after business after business that is supporting the offshore industries. These are pipe welders, pipefitters, mechanics and the service industry. You know what? Those guys contribute to the Chamber of Commerce and the United Way, and they go to church, they tithe and they eat at the local restaurants. This is a true job creator, and the first domino is the domino of putting Americans to work offshore, and that's what this bill does by opening up more areas on the Outer Continental Shelf. And with the trickle down, all the other dominos fall that provide money to the economies that desperately need it in this country in all the offshore areas. We want it in South Carolina. They want it in Virginia. And Americans want us to meet our energy needs with their own resources. That's why I urge the passage of this legislation, and I thank the chairman for his leadership.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman. I have stood on the floor many times in my short service in the United States Congress to talk about this very topic, and that's American energy independence. We hear terms like all-of-the-above energy approach and energy policy. I like to think about an all-American energy policy where we utilize American resources to meet our energy needs in this country. I applaud the House Republicans, and specifically the House Energy Action Team, for focusing on three things--jobs, energy security, and national security. And they go hand in hand. By pursuing an all-American energy policy, we're putting Americans to work. Whether you're talking about voting the Keystone pipeline or talking about offshore drilling, putting Americans to work is what's important. I think about North Dakota and an energy-driven economy in North Dakota, your great State. They give you a job when you get off an airplane up there whether you need one or not; that's how many jobs they have available. If you're looking for work, America, go to North Dakota. But let me tell you, that's a microcosm of what we could be in this great Nation if we truly pursued an energy policy utilizing American resources, putting Americans to work. That's really what it's about. And that's one thing that I think the House Energy Action Team is focused on. The second thing is energy security: lessening our dependence on foreign sources of energy, utilizing the resources that we have in this country. God blessed the United States of America with the resources that we have here: oil, natural gas and coal. We heard just this week that the Obama administration is going to wage a war on coal--not that they haven't already been waging a war on coal. But I think they're waging a war on American energy independence. Because by utilizing the resources that we have in this country, we could lessen our dependence on foreign sources and make certain parts of the world that seem hostile to American interests not so important. So American energy independence is the second thing. The third thing segues right into that, and that's national security. In fact, I think it was Admiral Mullen that said there is no national security without energy security. Think about that for a minute. Energy security means that we do have national security, that we can meet our energy needs, not just to drive our economy and the engines of our economy, but also fuel the engines of our United States defense. Putting those airplanes in the air and the ships in the oceans and the tanks in the desert or in the forest, that takes energy. If we can meet our needs through American resources, then we do have true American independence. An all-American energy strategy is the right thing for this country. Just this week, we're going to take up two very, very important bills. One of them deals with opening up all of the Outer Continental Shelf areas that are currently off-limits under the Obama administration moratorium--the moratorium that George Bush lifted. He said, you know what, we need to be energy independent; we're going to lift the moratorium for offshore drilling, and we're going to open up those areas for more utilization. And so we're going to do that. Off the coast of my State, South Carolina, and Virginia and other places, we're going to go after those resources that we believe to be there. We're going to allow exploration. We're going to allow production. And we're also going to allow revenue-sharing back to those States whose economies are struggling now just like the U.S. economy when we're $17 trillion in debt. Our State economies are struggling as well, But we can utilize and bring back revenue to the States through revenue-sharing. An example is Wyoming gets $1 billion a year in revenue-sharing for production on Federal lands. The Gulf Coast States get revenue back to those States. South Carolina would love to benefit from that as well. The second thing--and I'll end with this--is a bill that I have on the floor that I authored that would implement an agreement that was signed by the Obama administration. Hillary Clinton--Secretary Clinton at the time--entered into this agreement with Foreign Minister Espinosa of Mexico that said, you know what, we have a maritime border, a border between the United States and Mexico. Out in the Gulf of Mexico in the water is a maritime border and, guess what, there are resources underneath that border. Who owns those? Does Mexico own those resources? Do we own those resources? They're shared resources. So they entered into this agreement and said we're going to go after those in the Western Gap, not over near Cuba, but closer to the western side of the gulf. We're going to go after those resources, and we're going to allow exploration of those resources, production of those resources. And we're going to share those revenues with each country because we are co-owners of those resources. They got this one right with this agreement. We're going to implement that because we waited a year on Ken Salazar with the Department of the Interior to send us the implementing language so that we can go forward with a lease in that area of the Western Gap, but he failed to do that. So we took the bull by the horns in the United States Congress, and we authored this legislation and said we think this is important to American energy security; we think this is important to national security; and we're going to work with our southern neighbor in Mexico, and we're going to develop those resources in that transboundary area with a hydrocarbon agreement, and we're going to go forward with implementing that. That's what this bill does. America understands that we've got the resources. America understands we can work with Mexico and safely and soundly harvest those resources using American safety standards and regulation standards. It is the right thing for America, and that's H.R. 1613. I look forward to passage of that. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota for his leadership on the House Energy Action Team.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I rise today in support of two of the bills that are under this rule, H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act, and H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. Both these bills do three things-- they provide for jobs; they provide for energy security; and they provide for national security. Let's put Americans to work harvesting the resources that we have here in this country, and let's meet our energy needs. Because as Admiral Mullen said, there can be no national security without energy security. Let me repeat that: there can be no national security without energy security. Let's open up these offshore areas that we have resources under and let's produce American energy here at home, putting Americans to work to provide for our energy needs. I specifically rise to talk about H.R. 1613, which implements the Obama administration's own agreement, an agreement signed in Los Cabos by Secretary Clinton and Foreign Minister Espinosa from Mexico that says: Do you know what? There are resources under that shared boundary out in the Gulf of Mexico, the boundary shared between the United States and the country of Mexico; resources that can be explored and produced to meet our energy needs here at home working with our southern neighbor--Mexico--to share those resources and share the revenues. Let's do it the right way. Let's do it with the American safety standards and American environmental standards that currently apply to American energy companies producing in the Gulf of Mexico. Let's require those Mexican companies to comply with those standards and then let's share those revenues. This is the right thing. H.R. 1613 will implement that agreement, but it will do something else. It will remove the uncertainty and provide for American competitiveness when you're competing with foreign countries such as Mexico. This is the right thing for America. Put Americans to work, meet energy needs, and meet our national security needs. That's why House Republicans have focused on an all-of-the-above American energy strategy, and these bills are part of that.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, last week I had the pleasure of spending time with first responders and public safety personnel in my district. I toured facilities in seven counties, meeting with the men and women who are the first line of defense, the ones who go into danger rather than run away from it, the folks who are so critical to the safety of our citizens. I believe it's important for our first responders to know that their hard work and sacrifice are appreciated. As one final step of this tour, I'd like to extend my deepest appreciation and gratitude to all those whom I did not get to personally speak with last week. On behalf of South Carolina's Third District, and Americans all across the country, we thank you for everything that you do. Mr. Speaker, it is also with great sadness that I rise today in honor of the fallen first responders, many of whom are volunteers, who gave their lives in Houston, Texas, and West, Texas, recently. May the Members of this House honor the memory and heroism of every first responder who has lost their life serving this great Nation. May God bless the families of the fallen. And I ask every American to remember them in your thoughts and prayers. May God continue to bless the United States of America with heroes such as these.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I thank Chairman Denham for yielding me this time, and I want to commend Chairman Shuster and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for bringing this bill to the floor at this time. This is a very important bill. As Speaker Boehner said on the floor yesterday, it would create 20,000 direct jobs and about 100,000 indirect jobs. The State Department estimated 42,100 direct jobs, and these are American jobs. We have millions of people--too many millions--who are unemployed, Mr. Chairman, and many millions more who are underemployed, who are having to work at jobs far below their skills, talents, and abilities. This will create good American jobs. There would be 830,000 barrels of oil a day being piped down. By itself, maybe it wouldn't bring down gas prices, but it certainly would keep OPEC and some of these other foreign energy producers from raising their prices as fast as they surely would like to and have done in the past. I can tell you that, if we don't pass this bill and similar bills to increase energy production in this country, all we're going to be doing is helping OPEC and other foreign energy producers. It's time we start putting our own people, our own workers first, start putting our own country first again; and we need to pass this bill to help in that process.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. You mentioned the folks that are coming from Mexico. I was recently down at the King Ranch in Texas, which is eastern Texas--830 acres, a larger ranch than the whole State of Rhode Island. They own their own security force, Mr. King. I was talking with the security force about the illegals that are coming into this country that travel. They traverse the King Ranch. One thing he said, a term that he used, was OTM. I had to ask him what that was. And he said, Other than Mexicans. And I said, Well, I thought that was a little bit harsh. And he said, Well, what that means is they're not Mexican, they're not Honduran, they're not Nicaraguan, they're not Guatemalan. They are African, Middle Eastern, and Asian. And I said, you're kidding me? He said, No. He said, Congressman, we have apprehended folks that were Middle Eastern that didn't speak Spanish or English, that spoke Farsi--Africans or Orientals or Asians that were here that have come across. And it took me aback, because I started to think, well, I know that the Latin Americans, the Hispanics that are coming, are generally coming for work to provide for their families. I've been to Guatemala; I've been to Mexico. I understand that desire to come to America and chase that American Dream that I'm living today and try to make a reality and future for your children. But these were people other than that. And so being on the Homeland Security Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee, I'm concerned that we've got others coming here from those parts of the world--Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. What are they coming here for? And I'm reminded that Iran and its special Revolutionary Guard Quds Force hatched a plan to deal with the drug cartels to help them assist them to come across our southern border into this country into this very town to assassinate the Ambassador from Saudi Arabia at a restaurant in Washington. They were trying to utilize connections with the drug cartel in Mexico to come across our poor southern border. And so when I hear that we've got Africans or Middle Easterners or Asians coming into this country, I have to remember as an American, understanding the homeland security nature, I have to wonder what they're coming for. And I also wonder if we had a truly secure border, would we be seeing that. So I thank the gentleman for mentioning that other than Mexicans, others that are coming or may be coming into this country. I believe they are coming into this country. What are they coming for? We need to ask ourselves that question.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa for his comments and his dedication to immigration reform in this country. When I was running for Congress, I remember Congressman King coming to South Carolina and attending some of my events where we talked about immigration and we talked about the border. So I applaud the gentleman for his past work on that. I look forward to continuing our efforts. The past 2 weeks, the discussion in Washington has been about trust. It's been about trust, whether we're talking about the false and misleading talking points that were used by the administration in Benghazi, the wiretapping of reporters, specifically the AP, by the Justice Department or the IRS illegally targeting conservative groups, and the public trust in our government is rightfully at an all-time low. So when we're debating immigration reform, obviously trust is the number one issue on people's minds because they know that the government often promises to do things but never follows through. And that is the case when we're talking about immigration. We're talking about the laws that are already on the books that I'll talk about in just a few minutes. But people have made it very, very clear, Americans have made it very clear that they want two main things. They want us to secure our border--primarily we're talking about our southern borders where the issue seems to be at hand today-- but they want our borders secured, and they don't want amnesty. They don't want to give away citizenship rights to folks who have broken the laws to come here because what happens is you water down what it means to be a United States citizen when you just carte blanche give those citizenship rights away to folks that are lawbreakers, that have broken the law to come here, regardless of how honorable and well intentioned their reasons for coming here are. They still broke the sovereign laws of the United States of America by crossing that border without permission and without legal immigration paperwork. They have broken the United States law. What's interesting is that currently almost half the people in the United States who are here illegally didn't walk across a southern border or they didn't walk across a northern border. They came here legally. They applied in their host country, their home country, at a United States consulate or a United States embassy, and they asked permission to come to the United States either as a tourist here on vacation, or they asked to come here to attend one of our fine universities in this country under an F-1 student visa, or they came here on some sort of work visa. They probably flew into this country through an airport or got off a ship. We know something about them. America, these visa overstays, people that came here legally, they had those interviews, we know who they are, we have their name, we have what they were coming here to do, and usually we have a last known address for that person. Folks, this is low-hanging fruit. And if we're going to talk about addressing illegal immigration in this country, we ought to first address the visa overstays. We ought to first address, America, the folks that came in this country legally, they asked permission to come here, and we granted them that permission. And then they just decided--and I understand their deciding because this is a great country--but they just decided they liked it so much they decided to stay. How do we know that? Well, we really don't know that they either have or have not left the country because this Nation has a failed exit system. We have an entry system where we know when they come into this country from another country under a visa where we granted them permission, but we really don't know when they leave. Japan knows when you leave that country if you're there as an immigrant or you're there as a tourist. Other countries do, as well. Currently over half or almost half of all our illegal aliens in this country came here legally. And we're not doing enough about it. We're not enforcing the laws that are on the books, and that doesn't do anything to build what I talked about in the beginning, and that is the people's trust. And then you throw in the fact that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement--ICE, we call it--they just released thousands of detainees, people that they had detained for immigration violation. They just opened the door and let them go, many of whom had criminal records. This was a pre-response to the sequester. Before the sequester actually kicked in, across-the-board budget cuts, our immigration enforcement officials decided, You know what? We're going to go ahead and apply sequester because we don't want to do our jobs. We don't want to detain these people. We're going to open the doggone jail cells and we're going to let them go. Take that, guys in Congress. We're doing the sequester the way we want to do it. And they let these people go, many of whom, Americans, have criminal records, and they're on the streets now. That doesn't do anything to build the people's trust, not a thing. We're talking about trust. We've got to secure our border. We've got to enforce the current immigration laws that we have. We don't need some comprehensive immigration reform package. We already have the laws on the books that deal with immigration issues in this country, and we are not enforcing those. So why are we going to create a whole other set of laws and then fail also to enforce those? If our government can't first prove that our legal immigration system works and that they can enforce the laws that are currently on the books, then why in the world would we believe that adding more stress to the system will improve things? I think visa overstays are low-hanging fruit in the immigration debate. It's the canary in the coal mine. If we can't trust the Federal Government to enforce those existing laws of a list of people whom we know a lot about, then how do we expect the government to do what we're talking about government having to do in the new immigration bill? So I talked about entry/exit. We need to fix that. You need to be aware, America, that we need to know when people come here illegally and we need to know when they leave our country. When they don't leave our country in that allotted time that they're allowed to come in, we grant them permission, then we need to go knock on their door at their last known address--at that university, at that hotel that they put down that they were going to be staying at, at that place of business that they were granted a work visa to come here to work at. We need to pay them a visit. That's low-hanging fruit. We don't have to chase footprints in the desert. We know who these people are. They didn't just come across the border on their own. We know who they are. So that builds trust. I ask people, Mr. King, around my district, what does a secure border really look like? They struggle with that definition of a secure border, what that truly looks like in their mind's eye. I do as well. But the first thing I think of is concrete, steel, and barbed wire, a fully secured border where we control who comes across. We control it through natural ports of entry. But I realize--I've been to the border. I realize that's not feasible. Concrete, steel, and barbed wire doesn't work in a lot of the mountainous areas in Arizona. I get that. But a lot more concrete, steel, and barbed wire, a lot more fencing, vehicle barriers, or whatnot, that will basically push the bad guys, the folks, the smugglers and others who want to come into this country, into corridors. We can more actively enforce those corridors to apprehend those people when they do cross our border illegally. That works. Congress believed it worked in 2006, because in 2006 we passed the Secure Fence Act. We already have a law on the books that decides that we're going to build a secure fence on our southern border. 2006. It's 2013. Seven years ago, we decided we were going to secure our border. What have we done about it? We've got several hundred miles of fencing out of a several-thousand-mile border. We need to build more fencing. And I realize, before the American people, that fencing isn't an answer, but fencing is a great start. So let's do that. Then we need commonsense reform to our current immigration system. I talk to farmers in my district who are concerned about the comprehensive immigration reform package that we're working on. In fact, the farmers in my district work with farmers all over this country to deal with the guest worker program for agriculture, and they were able to get the American Farm Bureau and some of the other farmers to finally agree on some language. I'm all for that. I think we need to expand the legal guest worker programs for this country--that's my personal opinion--to provide legal workers to the necessary industry, whether it's agriculture or others. I'm going to focus on agriculture because that's what's on my mind today. But a legal immigration system that provides the workers--whether it's H-2A or H-2B--some sort of new program that increases the number of legal workers that come here, and we get biometric data, we get a thumbprint from them, and it's not transferable. That paperwork is solid for that individual. You have some sort of tie-in with the employer so the employer has some ownership, so to speak, of that record, that they asked for that employee, that employee is gainfully working with them. And when that employee decides to go to work for somebody else, that employer notifies the government, Hey, he's not working for me anymore, but he did go work for XYZ company. XYZ company says, Yes, he's a worker in my facility. Let's continue that. These are commonsense approaches that we need to talk about in this country before we grant amnesty, before we grant citizenship rights to folks who broke our laws. And that word ``amnesty,'' Mr. King, is thrown around way too much up here, and it gets watered down in the eyes of the Americans. But what it means, it means that everything that you're granted in the United States Constitution as a citizen of this country, what it means to be an American citizen, gets watered down when we give those citizenship rights away to people who broke our laws coming here. That's what it means. We need to remember that in this debate about immigration reform that, No amnesty, guys, no amnesty; and then let's approach a secure border. Let's talk about the low-hanging fruit of the illegals that are here that we granted them permission. Let's deal with those issues. That's half the problem right off the bat. We stem the flow of others coming here so we're not adding to those numbers, and then that other 50 percent that aren't visa holders we can start dealing with at that point in time. These are simple things, Mr. King, that we have got to deal with. Every time we've granted amnesty in the past, we've regretted it as a Nation. We've regretted it. We've truly regretted it because we've failed to truly secure our borders. We've failed to truly reform the system. And every amnesty that's happened before--rewarding lawlessness and those who break the laws--has only encouraged more lawlessness and more illegal immigration. It's time to stop that cycle.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with heavy heart to honor a military hero and one of my constituents, and a casualty of war. Private First Class Barrett L. Austin died on April 21 after being a casualty, I believe, of an IED while serving his country in Afghanistan. Barrett Austin was just 20 years old. He was assigned to A Company, 4th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division, out of Fort Stewart, Georgia. Private First Class Austin was a beloved son, husband, friend, and soldier from the Dacusville-Easley, Pickens County area of South Carolina. My heart goes out to his wife, his parents, and all of those who called Barrett a friend. This true American hero has made the true sacrifice in defense of our great Nation, and we owe him our eternal gratitude. This Nation remains the greatest on Earth because of people like Barrett Austin, and we must never forget the true cost of the freedoms that we enjoy. So on behalf of the Third District of South Carolina and the entire Nation, we thank you, Barrett, for your sacrifice. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the entire Austin family. May God bless them, and may God continue to bless America.