Jeff Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts lending his voice to this debate in favor of it. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I reclaim my time, and I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. MR. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman from Washington is turning this on its head; and standing on your head is dangerous in any circumstances; but in the water, it's bad for your breathing. What we have in the law are individual transferrable quotas. It was written into Magnuson-Stevens, and it does exactly what catch shares are supposed to do, with one difference. The gentleman says Washington is micromanaging. No, it was the National Marine Fisheries Service that twisted the law. The law says they can do this for new ones. The gentleman's right, it doesn't disrupt anything. It allows them to do it subject to a vote of the people in the fishery. I would say to my friend from Maine that may be what they think in Maine. I represent the fishing port in the United States that brings in the most money, and the people there want to be able to vote for themselves. They do not, as does the gentleman from Washington, identify the regional councils as the voice of the fishermen. They have a lot of complaints about that, including the NMFS intervention. So this is the question. It is not whether or not we should have the system that the gentlewoman from Maine mentioned, whether or not you should be able to allocate and come together. There is one point at issue here: should the fishermen themselves have to vote for it. In the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it said you can do any of that new if the fishermen voted it. The NMFS didn't like the notion of a fishermen vote, so they came up with catch shares and said the fishermen don't have to vote. So all of the benefits the gentlewoman from Maine claims, everything else can be done. The difference is the gentleman from Washington apparently thinks the councils are fishermen. The councils do not, in my experience of 20 years of representing a large fishing port, represent the fishermen. The fishermen represent the fishermen. And so the question is not whether or not we allow this kind of allocation in shares, but should it be subject to a vote of the fishermen, as the Magnuson-Stevens Act said, or should this wiggle room that NMFS came up with allow it to go to the council with NMFS people and others sitting on it, State officials sitting on it, as opposed to the fishermen. So the gentleman's amendment is very clear. It will allow those kinds of allocations. It would allow any of those things. It allows everything that you get in catch shares, except it calls them individual transferrable quotas, as it did in the law, not catch shares; and it's subject to a vote of the people in the fisheries. That's the sole issue here in this amendment: should the people who are the fishermen themselves be able to vote on this, or should NMFS be able to tell the council and the council should be able to do it.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of our country's veterans, and I want to begin briefly by mentioning an organization that helps veterans that was recently brought to my attention, Patriot Outreach, a nonprofit organization to assist our military with getting the help they need to deal with the trauma associated with aspects of military service. You can learn more about that at PatriotOutreach.org, and I think they're doing a great service for our veterans. Benjamin Disraeli once said that ``the legacy of heroes is the memory of a great name, and the inheritance of a great example.'' In our country, some of our greatest heroes are veterans, individuals who answered our Nation's call to protect and defend our freedom. Our veterans are one of our Nation's greatest treasures and, as such, our country has given them a firm promise. Because of their willingness to protect us with their service, when their service ends, we promise to take care of them. But, unfortunately, if you talk to veterans today, they don't believe that our government is living up to their promises. When we made the commitment to take care of our troops when they returned home, we never said anything about making them jump through hoops or navigate a complicated bureaucracy. We promised our veterans the Moon and, instead, have failed, in many instances, to provide them with the most basic of care. As of March 16 this year, the Columbia, South Carolina Regional Office of the Veterans Administration had over 21,927 pending cases, with an average wait time of 232 days. Survivor benefits for veterans' spouses can take between 10 and 18 months to be disbursed, and sometimes even longer, depending on the health status of the beneficiary. My office is currently assisting a constituent who contacted us because he has had 12 claims pending before the VA, which date all the way back to 2004. Another constituent has had her claims delayed over 18 months because she's been told by the VA that they don't have medical records. Now, this is despite the fact that she's already sent the VA her medical records twice by certified mail. Unfortunately, claims aren't the only backlog facing the VA. Veterans are also facing delays in seeking medical attention. A lack of doctors and inefficiency in the system have forced some veterans to have to wait months to receive medical care. Mr. Speaker, to put it simply, the VA isn't clicking and ticking. Despite the best intentions of VA personnel to deliver a high level of service and care to our veterans, too many of our former servicemen and -women are falling through the cracks. In the Third District of South Carolina, we recently created an advisory committee composed of retired military veterans to provide insight into some of the problems that they're facing today. Their view is not that the law needs to be changed necessarily, but that the spirit of the law is not being followed. Veterans were promised certain benefits and, in too many cases, they are still waiting to receive them. In addition to the mounting pile of problems regarding veterans services, I'm deeply concerned that veterans will be negatively impacted by the implementation of ObamaCare. The clear goal of the Obama administration's unconditional and unconstitutional health care law is to begin lumping our servicemen and -women into the bureaucracy of ObamaCare. Not only do I think that this breaks a promise made to our veterans, but I'm afraid it will make an already bad situation worse. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we can do better; and for the sake of our living heroes, we must do better. Let us not forget the promises that we've made to our veterans, and let us not just honor our veterans with our words, but let's also honor them with our actions. Thank you. May God bless our troops in the field, those here at home. May God bless those who have served our country in uniform, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 157 I was meeting with students from Clemson University concerning Pell Grant funding during the vote for the Lena Horne Recognition Act. I support recognizing the achievements of Ms. Horne and would have voted in favor of this Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, when President Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, the average nationwide price for a gallon of gasoline was $1.84. The 2012 March nationwide average has been $3.89 or higher, reflecting a 110 percent increase. Keep in mind that every penny increase in the price of gasoline costs the U.S. economy $1 billion and American consumers $4 million per day. Now, last week, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, while testifying in front of a House committee, was asked to grade his performance on American gasoline prices. He graded himself an ``A''--an ``A,'' America--when the price at the pump for American families has gone up over 110 percent. I'm sorry, Secretary Chu, America doesn't grade on a curve. We give your performance and the performance of the administration's handling of energy in America the grade of ``F.''

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. That's an interesting point, because I'm on the Natural Resources Committee. We deal with the EPA and a number of other, what used to be known as the MMS, and now BOEMRE, that makes regulations regarding offshore drilling, and they can't do anything without some public comment period. They can't promulgate a regulation that isn't subject to a public comment period and an appeal process. But from what I hear you saying is this 15-member board can pass something in the dark of the night, in the back room, without transparency, without public input, without public comment period, and it will have the force of law.

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

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I want to thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership on this issue. I just got a text message a minute ago from my wife that said my youngest son, he's 11, hit an in-the-park home run, and I wasn't there. I wasn't there because we're here serving in the United States Congress to try to make America better for my 11-year-old and for children of this generation and future generations. I believe that this particular legislation that was passed by the last Congress should be ruled unconstitutional--for a lot of different reasons. And I think my good friend from Florida (Mr. West) is going to talk momentarily about an article that he wrote, a great op-ed, in a Washington newspaper today. I thought it was spot-on, so I don't want to steal his thunder on that. He talks in there about the Independent Payment Advisory Board, this committee of 15 members that Congress basically divested some of its power, gave some of its power over to a 15-member panel. Now, America needs to realize that this 15-member panel will be making decisions, health care decisions for you and your family. If you're on Medicare, this 15-member panel, IPAB, will be making decisions on what they'll pay for, what treatment you can get, how long you can stay in a nursing facility for rehab, a lot of different things. We're divesting responsibility and decision-making to a panel. This Congress just last week passed the repeal of that Independent Payment Advisory Board, IPAB, as it's known. We sent it to the abyss known as the United States Senate, because under that Democrat leadership under Harry Reid, they fail to take good, commonsense legislation up in the Senate for a vote. But you know what? The last Congress that passed what's now known as ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, they gave some of their power away to this board, and anything that board does becomes law. And the only way Congress can overturn that law is with a majority vote or a supermajority vote in the United States Senate. That's 60 Members that have to vote against something that IPAB does. When I read the United States Constitution, article I, section 1, it's at the very beginning, right after the preamble, this is what it says: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. I don't see in there an Independent Payment Advisory Board at all. I see a United States Congress made up of a House and a Senate. That's what the United States Supreme Court ought to rule automatically unconstitutional in this bill. We can talk about a lot of other things, but that bill was wrong for America. It's going to cost small businesses, it's going to stymie the economy, and we may never recover from what's coming with the full implementation of ObamaCare.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Americans, it's been 1,044 days since the United States Senate has passed a budget for America. Back in 2009, the average American family spent $173.80 a month on gasoline. In 2011, that number had risen to $368.09 a month on gasoline. What could you use that difference, $194, what could you use that money for? I guarantee you, with the policies coming out of this administration, gasoline prices are going up. It will be more than $368 a month for gasoline unless we make changes to American energy policies and be energy independent.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

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

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. The gentleman from Colorado has been a stalwart and a leader in energy, American energy independence, as a leader of the House Energy Action Team. We call it HEAT, H-E-A-T. Let me just tell America, if you want to find out some of these details, some of the facts that we've laid out for you in black and white, you can go to the Web site for House Energy Action Team, under the House GOP Web site, and find this data out. We're putting it out there for you. We're not shying away from it. We're not. We're providing this information for you Americans to make informed decisions to understand that these energy bills we pass through the House, they have merit and they would have results if we could get the Senate to take them up, and let's have a true comprehensive energy policy for this country that focuses on American energy independence, that does things right for you Americans to lessen the price that you're paying at the pump, to lessen the price that you're paying on your electricity bill every month. House Energy Action Team is focused on this. The gentleman from Colorado is a leader on that. Our caucus and our conference is a leader on that.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. That's too much common sense.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I've gotten Facebook posts. I've gotten phone calls in our office encouraging just that, for the President to tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserves to help lessen the price at the pump. But let me just tell America that it was during the 1970s oil embargo that I remember, as a small child, that Congress created this huge 727 million-barrel reserve that was intended for national security emergencies. Before President Obama tapped the SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, back in June of 2011, the reserve had previously only been tapped once for war, the other to combat a natural disaster, and the third time, quite similarly, for political opportunism. And the examples are this: President Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush, the first Bush, used the SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserves, during Operation Desert Storm because we were going to war over there and he was afraid that would disrupt Middle Eastern supplies, and so he tapped those reserves just to make sure Americans didn't suffer because of our actions over there in Operation Desert Storm. And then in 2005 we had, down along the gulf coast, which is a tremendous energy production area, in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, we had a little thing called Hurricane Katrina that came through and really disrupted supplies in the Gulf States and did a lot of damage there. And President George W. Bush opened up the strategic reserves to lessen the price at the pump for Americans because we knew there was going to be some supply disruptions. So we had a natural disaster, and we had a war. But then in 2000, just another example, President Clinton opened up the supply under the Strategic Petroleum Reserve right before a campaign, right before the Bush-Gore campaign. There wasn't any natural disaster. There wasn't a hurricane bearing down on us. We were not going to war. He was trying to stabilize the market to help him in a political game. And then we see President Obama, in June of 2011, do the same thing. Instead of focusing on American jobs and American energy production and a long-term energy policy, they're playing games with tapping the strategic reserves which have an intended purpose, and that intended purpose is not to bring the price down at the pump. It's to stabilize the American economy in case of war or in case of a natural disaster. Now, we've got these reserves sitting there, and we've got a lot of middle eastern unrest with what's going on in Iran and Iran cutting England and Germany or England and France, one of the European countries, off from any oil. It's actually a reverse embargo, where Iran's not going to ship oil to some friendly countries in Europe. And so we're seeing this volatility due to the unrest in Iran. Shouldn't we, as America, keep that oil in reserve just in case there's a problem over there? Maybe--who knows, maybe there's further disruptions, Strait of Hormuz issue. Strategic reserves are there for a stated purpose, not for political gains.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Before do you that, can I just remind you that Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along that same line, said, there can be no national security without energy security. There can be no national security without energy security. That's a wake-up call, America.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. You're exactly right. You know, we had a tragic accident. Nobody is running from the fact that Deepwater Horizon was very tragic in the Gulf of Mexico, and we'll learn from that. The oil companies, energy production companies will learn from that. But during that moratorium under the Obama administration--and then later he said he lifted the moratorium, but there was a de facto moratorium because they were failing to issue leases and permits for continued drilling out there. For companies that already invested billions of dollars in purchasing the rights to those lease areas to explore for energy and produce energy, they were languishing out there, waiting on the drilling permits to come back from Washington. The Department of Energy and the Department of the Interior were slow-walking these permits. And so at some point in time those energy companies said, you know what, we're going to drag those drilling platforms out of the Gulf of Mexico. They towed them to the shore offshore of Brazil, to the seas offshore Brazil and the seas offshore of Africa. Today, they are drilling for energy in other countries. And we had them here in the Gulf of Mexico producing American energy to lower the price at the pump for American consumers. It's very expensive to get those drilling platforms back to the gulf. And so, as tragic as Horizon was, we learned from it. The Obama administration issued a moratorium to stop that drilling. Then they said, well, we're going to end the moratorium. But then when they failed to issue the leases, it's really a moratorium, it's instituting their policies. And it's going to be very difficult for us to get that production level back in the Gulf of Mexico because it's expensive for those companies to bring those rigs back.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. A Band-Aid, so to speak.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Energy production might be up in this country, but it has nothing to do with the policies of this administration. It goes back to the previous administration that said, you know what, we're going to open up Bakken because the geological survey found a ton of oil reserves there. In your home State, the oil shale in the Rocky Mountains, Colorado, could be the next Saudi Arabia if we were to allow onshore production for oil shale in the Rocky Mountains. I know the gentleman from Colorado probably wants to talk about the oil shales of Colorado.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. You're exactly right. These are about American jobs going overseas and American tax dollars going overseas, and American-earned income. Because, as I mentioned earlier, you're digging deeper into your wallet, taking out--instead of a $20 bill to fill up a gas tank, taking out a $100 bill. Americans know what they could do with the rest of that money, the difference there. I get a little passionate about this issue, and I apologize to the ladies here in the Chamber that have to record what I say, but I'm not alone in this. America is passionate about this as well because they know we have the resources here and they know we can be energy independent and we wouldn't be giving money to Middle Eastern countries, who a lot of times don't like us maybe as well as the Canadians and other countries closer to home like us. I spouted off some things about Federal land and State land and North Dakota and Montana a minute ago, so let me just tell you: in 2000, Federal oil production accounted for 32 percent of the total U.S. energy production. In 2010, after 2 years of the job-destroying Obama administration policies that I mentioned earlier, Federal production only accounts for 19 percent of the total U.S. oil production. That's an 11 percent decrease. When I think about the year 2000, I think about some of our friends on the other side of the building, and John Kerry and some of these guys that said, you know what, if we decided to drill today and open up new lease areas and do energy exploration, whether it's the Outer Continental Shelf, it won't have any effect on the price at the pump for Americans because it takes about 10 years for that to come online and start producing oil. But, hey guys, that was 10 years ago. What impact would those policies of drilling in ANWR or off the Outer Continental Shelf or more onshore production, what impact would that have had on the price you pay at the pump today? I think we've got to get serious about American energy exploration and production here. The journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. We need to take that step today. I'll tell you, the House Republicans have done that with numerous job-creating, energy- production bills that have passed out of this Chamber that are languishing in the abyss known as the United States Senate--that's failed to pass a budget for our country in 1,036 days, that's failed to take up American energy-independence bills, job-creating bills that we passed out of this Chamber. So energy production is down on Federal lands, and the Obama administration is taking credit for increased production and saying we've opened up new offshore areas. But the data I have says there's less offshore acreage open for energy exploration and production now than when President Obama took office when nearly 100 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf was opened up under the Bush administration. They lifted the moratorium for energy exploration, let alone production. Listen, I served for 18 months on what was known then, under the Mineral Mining Services of the Department of the Interior, the OCS, or Outer Continental Shelf, 5-year Planning Subcommittee where we looked at the next 5-year plan for this country on what areas we were going to open up offshore. What areas were available for us to even talk about were small grid squares in the western Gulf of Mexico, nothing in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, nothing in the Atlantic Ocean, nothing off the coast of California, nothing off the coast of Alaska except for another small square. This was prior to the latter years of the Bush administration when he decided, you know what, American energy independence means we need to open up the Outer Continental Shelf and really see what's out there and begin energy production. But the 5-year plan we looked at looked at these grid squares, and we were going to recommend a lease/sell, where we were going to offer leases to those areas, to the energy companies so they could go out there and explore and produce those resources. Well, the Obama administration has taken a lot of that off the table. They haven't created a new 5-year plan. They're going to say they just came out with a new one, but I believe it's just all for looks. The total onshore acreage--I was talking about offshore--but the total onshore acreage leased under the Obama administration in 2009 and 2010 is the lowest in over two decades. We're not talking about ultra- Deep Horizon accident-type offshore production.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Gentleman from Colorado, that's a great example. I've never heard him talk about that. The administration talks about the exact opposite. They want us to pay for what Europeans pay for oil and natural gas. They want to see us move toward a green energy economy, and they want to create policies, tax policy and regulatory policies, that are going to force you, as Americans, to buy what they want you to buy, and that is an electric car.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Well, let me thank the gentleman from Colorado for his dedicated service to not only the State of Colorado but to our Nation. We have been coming to the floor talking about the increasing prices of energy across America. Since we came back in January, we have taken to this floor to talk about the very poor policies coming out of the administration. And just to give you an example of that, on Inauguration Day of President Obama, AAA said the gasoline prices in America averaged $1.84 a gallon. Today, gasoline prices are averaging across this great land $3.73 a gallon. That is a 102 percent increase during the Obama administration. But yet he will claim, the administration will claim, that they have increased domestic energy production. They've increased onshore and offshore drilling, and apparently oil and natural gas are just bubbling up out of the ground and providing this. But, America, that's not the case. That's not the case. Gas prices are going up simply due to two factors--supply and demand. Those are the things that contribute to the price of a barrel of oil in the world. Supply and demand. Now, I admit that world demand is up even while United States demand is lower than it was in 2008. World demand is up. So that's one factor. But the supply factor. Americans know that we are tremendously dependent on Middle Eastern oil. We've got the resources here in this country. If this administration will just get out of the way and allow us to harvest our natural resources, we would be energy independent. But let me tell you what the administration apparently has as a policy goal, and this comes from the White House statement on the Keystone pipeline. The gentleman from Colorado has heard me say this--I think this is the fourth time--but America needs to hear it again because President Obama said this. He said: Decisions here in Congress to force the decision on Keystone pipeline do ``not change my administration's commitment''--this is from the White House Web site, and I recommend you go look at it for yourself-- ``it does not change my administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs''--and listen closely--``and reduces our dependence on oil.'' Now, at one time he was talking about these abundant supplies, this increased onshore and offshore drilling and production in this country. But yet his own words say ``commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil.'' Now, when you first heard that, you thought, I agree with that. He wants to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and Middle Eastern oil, but no, no, no. That's not what he said. He said lessen our dependence on oil, period. Not foreign oil, not Middle Eastern oil, lessen our dependence on oil. So you take that with his Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu. Steven Chu, before he was appointed as Secretary of Energy in this country, said this: ``Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.'' Now Europeans in England and Germany and France, they're paying $7, $8, $9 a gallon for gasoline. America, under these policies, that's where we're headed. Under the words of Steven Chu, the Energy Secretary, he said: ``Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.'' It shouldn't surprise you that's what they want to do--lessen our dependence on oil, period. And that's propagating policies and giving money away to companies that supported him in his election campaign, companies like Solyndra, $535 million, gone, America, your tax dollars that I know you're working hard for every day. In South Carolina, my constituents, they go to work every day. And they earn the hard-earned dollars. They go to work, and they're thinking when they're filling up their gas tank at $3.75 a gallon, $4 a gallon diesel fuel--I drive a diesel, so last week I couldn't fill my truck up, because I'm hurting just like other Americans, and how much I have to take out of my wallet to fill up my truck, and what I could use that money for in other ways, whether it's to take my family out to dinner or pay off some debt or do some things that we normally would do with that money, but now we're having to take more dollars out of our pockets to put fuel in our car to drive to work. And so Americans are thinking: How many hours of my workday on my job am I working just to pay for the gasoline I just paid to get to work and to get home? Four dollars a gallon gasoline for diesel fuel, and America, think about this: Think about the farmers that are putting diesel fuel in their tractors to plant the food that you're going to buy at the grocery store. Input cost. Input cost on the front end affects the price on the back end. Mr. Chu, the Secretary of Energy, said this. He's calling for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over the next 15 years to coax consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work. This European model where we'll all live close in town and we can walk to work or bicycle. That's the optimal thing in their eyes. We don't live that way here in America. We like our freedom. We like to get in our cars and drive ourselves to work. The policy of this administration is affecting what you pay at the pumps, and it's very clear using the President's own words about gasoline and about oil. So we are seeing rising gasoline prices, and we've got the power to do something about that here in America. We have the capacity, the resources in this country that far exceed what's found in Saudi Arabia. Far exceed by hundreds of billions of barrels of oil more than what exists in the Saudi oil reserves here in this country. We've got them. We're buying a lot of oil from Canada. We talked about the Keystone pipeline. The gentleman from Colorado and I have talked about this numerous times. But instead of pursuing American energy independence, beyond that why can't we pursue maybe North American energy independence and buy from our largest and best trading partner, Canada, if our policies are going to keep us from drilling off our coast in South Carolina, or off the coast of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, places where there are proven reserves, and we've been pumping oil for a long time? Or going onshore. North Dakota. North Dakota has an energy-driven economy. Their unemployment rate is 3 percent or less. They're pumping oil out of the Bakken oil fields there in North Dakota. President Obama is taking credit for increased oil production in North Dakota, but back up, because the oil that's being pumped out of the ground in North Dakota isn't on Federal land, and it isn't because of any policies of this administration. The permits were issued during the last administration and the one before that, and we're producing oil on State and private lands in North Dakota. It's not Federal lands; it's State lands. It's private lands. Unemployment is 3 percent. Good paying, long-term jobs, energy-driven economy in North Dakota. But guess what? The Bakken oil field extends beyond the borders of North Dakota, and it goes into Montana and other States. Well, if you go across that artificial border between North Dakota and Montana into the same oil field known as Bakken, you're not going to find any energy production over in Montana. You know why? It's because it's on Federal land. And that Federal land has been off the table for energy production and energy exploration. But over where it's on State and private land, it's gangbusters. It's going gangbusters, 3 percent unemployment in North Dakota. That's a telling sign, America, on what you do when you go after your own resources and you produce American resources to meet our American energy needs. I heard the gentleman from Colorado talk about an all-of-the-above energy strategy, and I've heard the President here at the State of the Union say the same thing. But, you know, in my opinion an all-of-the- above energy strategy says (a) first, we're going to take care of a proven technology of oil and natural gas to meet our immediate energy needs. And then we're going to continue to expand nuclear power in this country because it's proven, it's tried, and we can expand that. I applaud the new permit in Georgia for a new reactor. We're going to have one very soon in my home State. It'll be the second in about 30 years where we've permitted a nuclear power plant to provide electricity to this country. But the President, he likes this global warming cap-and-trade scheme. And he says that under his plan of a cap- and-trade system, ``electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' Electricity rates are going to skyrocket. Well, we've got the ability to build more nuclear power plants and permit those that are underway and provide good, stable electricity in this country. So all of the above includes oil and natural gas, energy exploration, offshore, onshore, where we have those resources, and expanding nuclear power plants in this country, looking at the things that are tried and true and allowing the free market, not your tax dollars, America, but the free market to determine the winners and losers with regard to green energy. If it works, if it can be successful, I guarantee you, there are American investors and worldwide investors that would invest their own hard-earned dollars at their own personal choice to invest in that technology, and they will pick a winner because on the back side they're going to make a profit. But that's not what's happening. This administration is taking your tax dollars, and they're making your investment decisions for you in companies like Solyndra. They're picking the winners. They're picking the losers. It's wrong. It's got to stop.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an exceptional group of students, teachers, and parents of the Bell Street Middle School Science Olympiad Team, which just won its 10th consecutive Science Olympiad State Championship. Let me repeat that: 10th consecutive Science Olympiad Championship. The Science Olympiad program is one of the premiere science competitions in the Nation, providing rigorous standards-based challenges to nearly 6,200 teams in 50 States. Science Olympiad's continuously changing event lineup exposes students to a variety of career choices and gives them an opportunity to meet participating and practicing scientists, as well as the opportunity to have life-changing mentors. Science Olympiad was founded in 1982, and Bell Street Middle School, there in Clinton, South Carolina, began competing in that in 1986. The Science Olympiad Team at Bell Street was formed by three very inspirational teachers: Rosemary Wicker; Dr. David O'Shields, who is a close personal friend; and Michael Mack. Mr. Mack and Dr. O'Shields still work in the school district in Clinton today. Michael Mack is a member of the science faculty at Clinton High School, and Dr. David O'Shields is currently the superintendent of Lawrence County School District 56. Both continue to be active event coaches for the incredibly successful Bell Street Science Olympiad Team. Many of the Bell Street Middle School's Science Olympiad alumni have gone on to become extremely successful in the areas of science and technology. One examples is the gentleman Dedric Carter. Dedric was a former member of the Bell Street Middle School Science Olympiad Team who went on to enroll at MIT for college. He later became MIT's assistant dean for engineering and a lecturer in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. He is currently the senior adviser for strategic initiatives to the Director of the National Science Foundation. Another one, Jarrett Campbell, is also an alum of Bell Street Middle School's Science Olympiad Team. After competing in the Science Olympiad teams in middle and high school, Jarrett went on to complete a doctorate degree in chemical engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. Jarrett worked for Advanced Micro Devices, where he was awarded over 25 patents in the area of semiconductor technology. Today, Jarrett works as a global energy management specialist for a U.S. company in Paris, France. When he was asked about his experience with the Science Olympiad, Dr. Campbell said this: Not only did the teacher, coaches, and parent volunteers pique my interest in science and math, they continually challenged me to expand my knowledge by competing in new disciplines. Looking back, I see how important the camaraderie, teamwork, and constant desire to excel, along with the examples set by these role models leading the team, was exceptional in setting the stage for my career in engineering and energy management. I believe this statement sums up how valuable this program is to our Nation's youth. Finally, I would like to take time to congratulate all of the coaches and the members of this year's State championship Science Olympiad Team from District 56's Bell Street Middle School. This year's team included: Mike Beasley, Stephanie Braswell, Jalen Carter, Lawrence Coleman, Terry Craig, Andrew Gann, Karl Gustafson, Dalton Langston, Beth Meadors, Zack Ray, Jonathan Shiflet, Kyle Smith, Bowen Tiller, Nathan Vondergeest, Clay Wright, Triston Moon, Daniel Moore, Luke Ragin, Jacob Wesson, Audrey Atkinson, Chris Cannon, Justin Easter, Dawson Green, Jack Harkins, Tara Hiller, Ami Meadors, Jill Meadors, Olivia Moore, Brianna Motte, Jakob Pountain, Michael Richey, Justin Shockley, Dillon Snead, and Bailey Stephens. Those are the students, but the teachers and the parents that volunteer need to be singled out as well. I don't have them by name, but let them know that we certainly appreciate their efforts. These are the future scientists. These are the new innovators coming along. I'm excited that at middle school they're challenging these students to be the best they can. May God continue to bless those students, teachers, and parents. May God continue to bless Bell Street Middle School, and may God continue to bless America.