Jeff Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, a year or two ago, some local bureaucrat in Oregon shut down a 7-year-old girl's lemonade stand because she had not paid the $120 required to get a restaurant license. The bureaucrat's supervisor defended the action because some government officials will never admit a mistake. Fortunately, elected officials got the action rescinded and let the little girl operate her lemonade stand. I thought about this when I heard that Big Brother had struck once again by not allowing a 4-year-old girl in North Carolina to eat the lunch she had brought to school from home because supposedly it did not meet Federal guidelines. The little girl had brought a very healthy lunch: a turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, chips, and apple juice. Instead, she ate three chicken nuggets apparently okayed by the government, and the school sent a bill for the lunch to her mother. This is the Big Government nanny state run amuck. This was not only ridiculous and excessive, it was cruel to tell a 4-year-old child the lunch her mother had sent was bad or not proper. Plus, the little girl went home hungry. We seem to have, Mr. Speaker, a government of, by, and for the bureaucrats instead of one that is of, by, and for the people.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for his leadership on this issue, not only on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, but also as a leader on the House Energy Action Team, someone that understands that there is no national security without energy security. It's been said many times by not only Members of Congress but by leaders from all across the administration, this administration and past, and so it's something I firmly believe in. Let me remind the American people that just recently the President of the United States decided that he was going to kill the Keystone XL pipeline, a pipeline that would come from our friends to the north in Canada, where technology has allowed them to harvest the oil from the oil sands in Alberta and bring that crude oil down to refining capacity that we have here in this country. That's why the Keystone XL pipeline was so crucial. Not only would we be buying oil from a country that likes us, our largest and best trading partner, Canada, but we would also be bringing oil to the refineries in the Gulf States, the refineries in Oklahoma, the refineries in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas that have the capacity due to the policy of this administration creating a moratorium on expanded offshore drilling in the United States and the moratorium and poor policies that have kept us from harvesting American resources to meet American energy needs. I believe in American energy security and American energy independence and lessening our dependence on foreign sources of oil, lessening our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, a lot of times from countries that don't like us very much; but let me read you the President's own words when he decided that he was going to kill the Keystone XL pipeline, when he was going to kill the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would have been saved and created--true--not only shovel-ready jobs, Mr. Speaker, but jobs that exist today in the refineries in the Gulf Coast States; so not only kill those jobs, but hurt American energy independence. Outside of having American energy independence, why not North American energy independence? Why not trade with Canada? But this is the President's own words. He said: I'm disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. Not reduces our dependence on foreign oil, not reduces our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, but listen clearly, the President said: lessen our dependence on oil. That is the policy of this administration, to end our dependence on oil and promote green energy; to throw your tax dollars at companies like Solyndra instead of relying on the free market to pick the winners and the losers, allowing what works to work and what doesn't to fall by the wayside and allow American ingenuity and American entrepreneurism to chase the things that work and throw their investment dollars, personal investment dollars, into the technologies that they believe in, the free market, the investors believe in. Instead of doing that, he took your tax dollars, America. He decided that he was going to pick winners for you and he was going to invest those dollars in companies like Solyndra and many others. As the weeks unfold, we'll realize that your tax dollars were invested in companies that you wouldn't have invested in yourselves because you would have made smart decisions. America can make smart decisions. That's what makes us great. But his own words said that he wants to reduce our dependence on oil. I go back to Secretary Chu, the Secretary of the Department of Energy, in his own words, that he thinks we ought to be paying the same for gasoline as those in Europe are paying, $8-, $9-a-gallon gasoline. And trust me, we're headed there. Last month was the most expensive January ever for retail gasoline as prices averaged out at $3.37 a gallon, according to the Oil Price Information Service in New Jersey. That's compared with the previous record average for the month of January that was $3.09\1/2\ cents a gallon, and that was set last year. In 2010, January gasoline prices averaged just $2.71 a gallon. It's the policies of this administration and its moratorium on us harvesting American resources. We're not talking just about offshore oil in the deep waters off the Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of Alaska. We're not talking about just ANWR and it being off limits. We're talking about the Bakken oil fields. We're talking about oil reserves on Federal lands that are currently off-limits from American energy development and American energy production. But guess what? That same Bakken oil field spills over into North Dakota. That Bakken oil field is on State-owned and private-owned property. And you know what? North Dakota has a 3 percent or less unemployment rate. It's an energy economy that is booming because it's on State and Federal land. And they said, hey, come harvest our oil resources. North Dakota is thriving on an energy economy, and you'll hear from the gentleman from Texas momentarily. They will show you in Texas and Oklahoma and other States that had energy that you're seeing an energy economy thrive. But that's not the policies of this administration. The policy of this administration is to chase green energy jobs, to chase wind power and solar power and promote it in areas that really it shouldn't be promoted. So, let me just say one other thing, that President Obama is definitely being misleading when he's talking about that 75 percent of our offshore resources are open. The real number should be in acres. Listen to this: of the 1.76 billion acres on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, only 38 million acres, or a mere 2.16 percent, is actually leased for energy development. North America possesses 1.79 trillion barrels in recoverable resources, enough oil to fuel every passenger car in the United States for 430 years; more than six times approved reserves in Saudi Arabia. In the last 30 years we produced over 150 percent of our approved resources. But let me talk just quickly about jobs, because when the attack from the administration is on Big Oil and on the oil industry and natural gas industry that's trying to help with American energy independence, the attack's just not on big oil companies that are harvesting and exploring and producing oil offshore in the western Gulf of Mexico. That image may be conjured up as we talk about that. But it's the attack on the jobs. If you think about an oil platform that's out there drilling for oil, you're thinking about an oil production platform that's out there producing the oil after the oil well's drilled. And we put a moratorium in place, and we say we're not going to do anymore of that; we're going to cancel all the lease sales, and keep in mind, it takes years to plan the next lease sale. I was on the 5-year planning subcommittee that dealt with that, and I know that it's a multi-year process before the first lease sale happens; and when that lease sale happens, oil companies have to drag those rigs out there. They've got to first figure out where that oil might be on that grid square that they just leased, and then they've got to bring the drilling platform out there and they've got to drill that well, ofttimes going many miles down into the Earth's surface to find the oil, and to decide whether it's recoverable, whether there's enough resources there for them to plant a platform and start producing that oil. That's a multi-year process. But set that aside a minute. When we have a moratorium on that process, here's what happens. It's not just Big Oil and the oil companies that are penalized in that. It's the guys that work on those drilling rigs out there in the Gulf of Mexico. It's also the guys that take them supplies, their diesel fuel to run their generators, their food, to transfer the men back and forth that are doing the work from on shore out there to those facilities. It's the companies that manufacture the pipe and the casing that support that industry. And as Jeff Landry will tell you, Louisiana's economy is hurting. It's hurting not because of Big Oil hurting; it's hurting because of the little guys back home that don't get to supply that pipe. They don't get to thread that pipe and fit that pipe. They don't get to weld, and they don't get to service that industry. They don't get the opportunity to go out there and work on those rigs. They don't get to take that drilling mud out there. You know, it takes a lot of effort to go out into the Gulf of Mexico and actually start harvesting those natural resources. And it's the little guy back home that is now bankrupt because his small company that provided the welding necessary for the piping, he doesn't have that work now. And so the Gulf Coast States, due to the President's moratorium out there, not only lost the revenue that they would get from the royalties of offshore drilling that other States would benefit from as well. As a side note, if we allowed more drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf on the eastern coast and off the coast of Alaska. But it's the little guy. Louisiana is not getting the revenue. And then the guys that are being put out of work that are providing the welding and the pipe fitting and the pipe itself and the offshore industries, they're not able to work either. And so they're drawing unemployment benefits, which further cramps the strained budgets of the Gulf Coast States. So they're drawing unemployment benefits. They're not paying taxes, so the State revenues in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas are strained because they're not receiving those tax revenues. They're not receiving the corporate revenues from thriving energy- based companies that are providing jobs and payroll and paying into unemployment and providing corporate tax returns. It is a tremendous trickle-down effect when we stop harvesting resources. It's a tremendous trickle-down effect to those gulf states' economies. But I will tell you, in South Carolina, when my constituents have to pay more and more of their hard-earned dollars to put fuel in their vehicles, whether it's gasoline or diesel fuel in their vehicle to go to work, and they've got to think about that first hour that they're working just went to pay the gas that it took them to get there; when they're digging deeper into that wallet to take out money to buy more and more gasoline just to go earn the money that they're going to turn around and use to buy the gasoline, it's a vicious cycle. We've got the ability, gentleman from Colorado, we've got the ability to lower gas prices in this country. And I simply look at natural gas, and the prices have come down in natural gas because we found an abundance of it in this country. We found new technology that allows us to harvest those natural gas resources, as you'll hear from the gentleman from New York later, when he talks about the Marcellus gas shelf and harvesting natural gas in New York and Pennsylvania. But we also talk about Oklahoma and natural gas there. We have an abundance of natural gas. We've seen the price go down. Even in an adverse regulatory climate, even in an adverse tax climate that we've got in this economy under this administration, natural gas prices have gone down because there's two factors that affect pricing of any commodity: supply and demand. Now, world demand is down. World demand is down on a lot of things because we have a bad economy. But the number one driver for natural gas in this country is supply. The supply is going out the roof. We're an exporter of natural gas. America is sitting on the reserves to be energy independent and to provide other parts of the world with the natural resources that we've been blessed with here in this country. So America needs to realize that the policies of this administration are keeping this country from harvesting its resources and being truly energy independent and providing the good-paying, long-term energy- sector jobs. And if you're looking for a job, America, I recommend you go to one of these energy-producing States, whether it's Oklahoma or Texas or even to North Dakota, where the unemployment rate is 3 percent or less, where you can earn up to $70,000 a year driving a water truck, if that's any indication of the good-paying jobs that are out there. Energy as a segue to job creation is the answer to get us out of this economy.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Madam Chair, I rise today to support H.R. 3581, which will bring better accountability and transparency to our budget process. I would also note, Madam Chair, that many loan programs that are impacted by this legislation have an excellent history of loan repayment, most notably the Rural Utilities Service loans that electric co-ops like the ones in my district have used for years. Some of these loan programs have provided a positive return on the taxpayers investments, making more for the taxpayers than was at risk while allowing rural co-ops the ability to expand services in underserved areas. I hope that while we achieve much greater accountability and transparency for taxpayers as a result of this legislation, especially as it relates to Freddie and Fannie, we ensure that we don't throw the baby out with the bath water and hurt our rural utilities and their customers.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado for allowing me to have a little time to talk about this. Canada is our largest and best trading partner. A good friend of mine was an ambassador to Canada, and I had the opportunity up there to talk with him about this issue and why it's important to the United States. Why Keystone XL pipeline? How about the refining capacity we've got in the gulf? How about the refining jobs that would be provided in a very hard-hit, post-Horizon gulf State economy? The gentleman from Texas was very clear. They understand in Texas, as they do in North Dakota, that energy is a segue to job creation. If you look at the unemployment rate in Texas or in North Dakota, North Dakota has 3 percent unemployment. If you're looking for a job in this country, America, go to North Dakota. There are good-paying energy jobs right there today, and if we can get Keystone XL pipeline to be a reality, we'll have good-paying, long-term jobs in the refineries in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and in all the places that we're going. What I would like to talk about are the President's own words. He said in his statement--and this is from the White House's Web site-- that the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact. Now, how long has this been going on that they've been doing the environmental impact assessment that you talked so brilliantly about? I came to Congress last year. This was going on well before I came here. A rushed assessment? Under the Obama administration, with an $800 billion stimulus package and an unprecedented growth in government, don't you think that we had the personnel in the Department of Energy to deal with this and to do the assessment in a timely manner in order to approve a pipeline that would provide, not only American energy independence, but North American energy independence? This would be buying oil and natural gas from our largest and best trading partner, our friends in Canada, and providing good-paying jobs in America. I want America to listen to what the President also said in his own statement. He said that he was disappointed that Republicans focused on this decision. We should focus on this decision. This is about American energy independence, and it's about jobs. Yet he goes on to say, But it does not change my mind, and this administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs--and listen closely--and reduces our dependence on oil. Period. It's not reducing our dependence on foreign oil; it's not reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and on oil from countries that oftentimes don't like us very much. It's the lessening of our dependence on oil. Period. That is the dynamic that is driving this administration's policies, and America needs to know that. These resources don't belong to President Obama. They belong to the American people, and it's time we step up to the plate and we use energy as a segue to job creation in this country. We trade with trading partners that like us, friendly trading partners within our own hemisphere. It's North American energy independence, and the Keystone XL pipeline is the answer to putting Americans back to work.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, all around the Hill today, you will see Members of Congress wearing a red button, ``1,000 Days,'' a reminder that it has been 1,000 days since the United States Senate has passed a budget for the United States of America; 1,000 days of acting irresponsibly. I want to pause and tell you that last year on January 8, just 3 days after being sworn in as a new United States Congressman, we were informed of the tragic incident that happened in Arizona; and I want to let the gentlewoman from Arizona, Gabby Giffords, know that I'm going to be honored that she will be on the floor with us today. The prayers of my family and of the members of the South Carolina delegation and our State go out to her and her family and the folks in Arizona that she represents every day, and we will continue to do that long after her service to this country. Mr. Speaker, this week is National School Choice Week. All across our country, students and families are rallying for National School Choice Week, a grassroots campaign dedicated to the idea that all students, regardless of background, should have the opportunity to choose the school that most effectively motivates them to learn. For too long, we have made increases in spending and new standards from Washington our focus, which have, sadly, strangled our parents' and teachers' ability to help our students succeed. Now, with that, I want to give a shout-out to the Nation's teachers who have to deal every day with complying with the mandates that come from Washington, D.C., while they struggle to educate the children of our country. Instead of propelling them to success, the United States has fallen to 14th in the world in reading, 17th in science, and 25th in math, compared to other countries, according to the 2009 edition of the Program for International Student Assessment. Those numbers are astonishing. As proud Americans, we will not accept the consequences of failure, of letting our children fall behind the rest of the world. Parents are demanding results in education for their children; and Washington should listen to their message, which is, simply: We know how to reform education in our States; get Washington out of the way and watch us succeed. Education should be returned to the States, the local communities, and to parents, just where our Founding Fathers left it when they designed this great government. This is the reality we face: Our country, the United States of America, stormed the beaches of Normandy. We raised the flag over Iwo Jima. We fought for and won the freedom of other nations all around the globe. We ventured into space and landed the human race on the Moon. We inspired the collapse of the Berlin Wall. But before all of this, we invented the lightbulb, the automobile, the television, the telephone, discovered the art and science of flying. Our inventions, though, are not as much the reason for our greatness as they are the result of it, because at the very beginning, at our founding, we declared to the world this belief: ``that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'' The truth in that Declaration reminds us that our people will succeed and prosper, and our students will learn and achieve when we preserve the liberty of every parent to choose the educational environment that's best for their children. And if we do so, imagine how our children will lead the world through another century marked by the rise of freedom and the innovation that freedom inspires. With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to end by echoing the words of Mr. Jones from earlier when he said: May God bless the men and women in uniform, may God bless their families, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 98 denying this President the trillion-dollar draw on the Nation's line of credit. You know, just because you've got the credit limit that you've asked for doesn't mean you have to max out the credit card. How dare this President come back for another increase in the Nation's debt after the failure of the supercommittee. How dare he. This President did everything he could and successfully stopped the committee from producing any kind of cut to the size and scope of government, and now he wants to kick the can further down the road yet again. Another year, another trillion dollars in debt, Mr. Speaker. What has this administration done to stop the deficit spending that fuels the debt and brings about the need for an increase in the debt ceiling? Nothing. Mr. Speaker, this administration has done absolutely nothing to rein in this Federal Government. This is the same President whose party controls the other body. And on Tuesday, the United States Senate will mark 1,000 days since they last passed a budget, the same day the President delivers his State of the Union address. What an embarrassment, to continuously ask for more debt without even pretending to know how you've budgeted. If this were a private business, it would be bankrupt. This President and, sadly, this Congress continues to mortgage the futures of our children and grandchildren, drowning them in a sea of debt. After the failed policy of the President's stimulus package, we are swimming in deficit spending of this President's making. Mr. Speaker, our country stands over $15 trillion in debt, and after this increase we'll be over $16 trillion in the red. Congratulations. We've now joined the club of nations whose national debt is larger than our annual national economic output. This is simply an unsustainable position, and the only way we will get our debt under control is to stop the insanity of trillion dollar a year deficit spending. This must stop, and we in this House must be the responsible adults in the room to stop it. Now is not the time to go get another increase in the limit. Now is the time for us to cut up the credit card and buckle down, like millions of American families are doing across this great land. In an economy this difficult, American families have had to tighten their belts, get back to basics, and cut things from their budget. Surely now is the time for the Federal Government to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I understand the politics here. We'll thump our chests and we'll pass this resolution and we'll say we've done all we can to stop this increase. The other body, led by a party bent on destroying the American dream and taking us down the path of economic ruin to ever-greater government dependency, will table this. In the end, the President will get his increase. And we'll spend yet another trillion dollars that our children do not have. But the bill is coming due, Mr. Speaker, and sooner or later we're going to have to stop this debt train from derailing our country. God bless America.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. There are but two points I want to bring up in support of the bill before us today. Thomas Jefferson said this: ``A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.'' I believe that America works better when hardworking Americans keep more of the money that they earn, keep more of their paycheck. That's why I support the payroll tax cut provision in this bill. The second point, Mr. Speaker, is this: the administration can be for jobs, or the administration can support a radical environmentalist policy. Mr. Speaker, I believe that they are mutually exclusive and you cannot support both. The Keystone pipeline is a segue to job creation in this Nation. You remember the jobs created in the 1970s with the Alaskan pipeline? I do. The Keystone pipeline will create both construction jobs and long-term jobs as our Nation refines the hydrocarbons into energy products here in American refineries. Failure not to do this means the possibility that this Canadian oil will be refined in and used by China. Today, we can pursue North American energy independence by partnering with our closest ally and largest trading partner, Canada. Or we can continue the same failed policies of this administration which lead to higher prices at the pump for Americans and the continuation of sending dollars overseas for Middle Eastern oil. This bill cuts taxes, it reduces spending, it ends the regulatory quagmire for American businesses and provides a path forward for American energy security. I support its passage, and I ask that God will continue to bless America.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I joined millions of Americans in celebrating Thanksgiving with friends and family. As Americans, each of us has so much to be thankful for this holiday season. America is the greatest, most free country in the history of the world. As a Nation, we can do anything we set out to accomplish. We have built the world's most free and successful Republic right here in America. We've used innovation to cure disease, fight hunger, and spread the message of freedom all across the globe. We've changed the way societies interact by inventing things like the telephone, the automobile, and the airplane. We've built some of the finest schools and universities in the history of the planet. We've changed our world for the better, but none of it would have been possible without the grace and blessing of our Almighty God. That's why I was both surprised and disappointed that President Obama failed to make a single reference to God during his Thanksgiving address to the Nation. Since the President has a history of doing this sort of thing, it's hard to believe that this was simply an oversight on his part. Perhaps this glaring omission was an attempt at being politically correct. But regardless of the intention, there is no excuse for once again leaving out the One on whom the foundation of our liberties rest. What did our Founding Fathers say in the Declaration of Independence? Not that our rights come from governments, but rather that our rights come directly from God. As the Apostle Paul said, ``In everything give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.'' We should never pass up an opportunity to thank the Lord for the blessings he has bestowed upon our great Nation. I know the specter of political correctness looms over our country more than ever before. There's a lot of pressure from elements within our society to censor public comments about faith in Jesus Christ. Groups like the ACLU seek to drive God out of our schools and our classrooms. Universities are discouraged from praying before graduation and athletic events. Some shopping malls and radio stations would rather play Christmas music only about Santa Claus, and never mention the reason for the season, Jesus Christ. Seeking guidance from the Lord through prayer and thanking Him for the blessings He has given our Nation is something our country should do more of, not less. Praying and giving thanks to God for all blessing was the example set for us by the first settlers who came to America for religious freedom. Times were tough for them. They endured bitterly cold winters, food shortages, and plagues. The early settlers faced insurmountable odds, but they kept the faith, persevered, and later thrived, leading to the formation of this great Nation. General George Washington, who went on to become our first President, was known for frequently stopping whatever he was doing and getting down on one knee to seek guidance from the Lord, and to praise Him for the blessings that were given his troops. Here in this building there's a chapel where Members of Congress can go to pray for our country. And in that chapel there is a beautiful stained glass window, depicting our first President, George Washington, in his colonial uniform, frozen, kneeling in prayer. That chapel should be a reminder for all of us that our country's faith should be nothing to hide, but rather something to embrace and protect. And that image of George Washington in prayer should be a reminder that our leaders need to seek wisdom of the Lord whenever possible. For the past several weeks, former Heisman Trophy winner and current starting quarterback of the Denver Broncos, Tim Tebow, has come under fire for publicly professing his faith. Facing mounting criticism from the media, from sports commentators, and even some of his own teammates, Tim Tebow gave the following response to reporters, a response that I believe perfectly explains how our country should recognize God. Quarterback Tebow said this: ``If you're married and you really love your wife, is it good enough only to say to your wife 'I love her' the day you get married? Or should you tell her every single day when you wake up and every opportunity? ``My relationship with Jesus Christ is the most important thing in my life. So any time I get the opportunity to tell Him that I love Him, or given the opportunity to shout Him out on national TV, I'm going to take that opportunity. And so I look at it as a relationship that I have with Him that I want to give Him the honor and the glory any time I have the opportunity.'' Tim Tebow's brave comments are an excellent reminder that we need to look for every opportunity to thank the Lord for our blessings of liberty that He's bestowed upon this great country. May God forgive this Nation of its sins, may He overlook the times we forget to thank Him for His gifts, may our people turn to Him for guidance and salvation, and may He continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I simply ask: Are you better off today than you were $4 trillion ago? I say not. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to discuss the most important issue that we will take up this year, and that is a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. For much too long, Congress has allowed mountains of debt to pile upon our children and our grandchildren. We are in debt to the tune of $15 trillion, and we continue to spend each year in excess of $1 trillion more than we are bringing in. In the short time that I have been a Member of Congress, it is evident to me that Washington will never voluntarily make the significant cuts to spending. That's why we need to pass a balanced budget amendment, which would force Washington to do what families and small businesses do each and every year: live within their means and stop the spending insanity. It's common sense not spending more than you have; but maybe that's too simple for those who gain some sort of power by providing services that our Nation cannot afford and by spending money that we don't have. A balanced budget amendment: the right bill at the right time for America to regain control of its finances.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that Washington isn't very popular right now, and a big reason why is that too often our leaders make decisions that lack common sense. When we need to cut spending, Washington finds a way to spend more. When we need to create jobs, Washington piles on new regulations that put Americans out of work. When we spend billions of dollars to create a safe, permanent storage facility for our country's nuclear waste, politics gets in the way, and that facility is shut down. Like millions of Americans across the country, I'm tired that politics is getting in the way, and I'm looking to bring some common sense back to this Republic. And as you know, Mr. Speaker, there's no better example of putting politics before country than the case of Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain is a multibillion-dollar project that was supposed to be the solution for storing our country's nuclear materials. Ratepayers in States like South Carolina, ratepayers like my constituents, have poured billions of dollars into the development of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear repository. Mr. Speaker, this administration needs to understand that America runs by the rule of law, and depositing our nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is the law of the land. This administration does not get to make willy-nilly decisions to benefit supporters without congressional approval. And when Congress spoke, in the National Waste Policy Act, it made Yucca Mountain the law of the land. I was deeply disappointed when the Presidential candidates were recently asked about Yucca Mountain. I was astonished that these good folks would echo the failed rhetoric of Senator Harry Reid. And I would remind all the Presidential candidates of the Federal Government's promise to construct a long-term storage facility for the legacy weapons materials temporarily being stored in South Carolina. And I would remind them that this is the law of the land. I suspect that many South Carolina voters, including myself, will expect to hear the Presidential candidates' plan to solve this problem during their next visit to the Palmetto State. But let's talk about the states' rights aspect of this. Where is South Carolina's right to be rid of this waste? This is a federally created problem, the residual waste of our Cold War weapons programs. Whole towns in my district were relocated by the Federal Government to create the Savannah River site. I'm not saying that we don't want the Savannah River site to continue the important nuclear nonproliferation work of the Nation. And I commend NNSA's recent announcement concerning the conversion of some of the plutonium material into mixed oxide fuel for commercial reactors. What I am saying is that the Nation needs to do right by South Carolina and fulfill the promise to take care of the radioactive waste and get it out of our State. Yucca Mountain is a geologically stable location; it's the right location for the job. It doesn't get much rain, it's in the middle of nowhere; and when it does rain, the arid climate evaporates the water. But let's take, for instance, that it may rain a lot one day. For leakage to happen at Yucca Mountain would require that little bit of water that doesn't evaporate to transpose through a thousand feet of granite-like rock. And then it's going to get to our concrete vault, and inside that concrete vault are stainless steel canisters. So the water erodes and transfers through a thousand feet of granite rock, through the concrete, through the stainless steel, and it comes in contact with radioactive glass, glassified material that it's got to erode. And then the water has to transfer that material through more stainless steel, through more concrete, through another thousand feet of nonporous rock, down to an aquifer that is a closed system. This is why Yucca Mountain is the right place to do the job. No one thinks that rolling fields next to a river that is a water source for two States, as it is at Savannah River site, is a long-term answer to nuclear waste disposal. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can deal with the real problem. Now the Department of Energy's blue ribbon commission is circulating a draft report on the future of America's nuclear waste, including the nuclear waste currently being temporarily stored at the Savannah River site. The Savannah River site can only be a short-term home for this waste. The best long-term outlook for the waste of this sort is in a deep geological site, hence the need for Yucca Mountain. The waste stored at Savannah River site can be processed for a number of purposes, but ultimately this waste needs to go deep underground. Mr. Speaker, I urge representative Lee Hamilton and General Brent Scowcroft, the cochairs of the blue ribbon commission, to reconsider their draft report to include Yucca Mountain as the long-term disposal site that Congress mandated. Americans have already given billions of dollars to the State of Nevada for the construction of a safe, long-term storage site for nuclear material. President Obama and Senator Reid shouldn't be able to have it both ways; Nevada must either rebate the billions of dollars already spent on Yucca Mountain or stand out of the way and allow the facility to open for business. It would create jobs in the State of Nevada. South Carolina has unfairly carried the burden for storing nuclear material for decades already. It's time for this waste to move on. May God continue to bless America.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have prepared remarks today, but I want to talk about Yucca Mountain. We've heard a lot of talk this week about the Presidential candidates and Yucca Mountain. America needs to realize that South Carolina, on the Savannah riverside, is currently holding all of the legacy weapons product material that came out of the Nonproliferation Treaty-- plutonium, sitting in my State, in my district, that is slated to go, under past agreements, to Yucca Mountain. It's the right place. America needs to bring Yucca Mountain back online. And let's take the legacy weapons products out of South Carolina and put them in a long- term storage facility.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Yesterday the President revealed that he had raised $70 million for his campaign. If our President spent as much effort freeing job creators from excessive regulations as he spent raising campaign donations from environmental extremists, far more Americans would be able to find work today.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act. As I see it, the three main problems facing the American economy today are the uncertainties coming from taxation, regulation, and litigation. This tone-deaf administration continues to propose new forms of taxation on American job creators to the detriment of our workers and our economy. The administration continues the threat of litigation in the form of the unprecedented and unconstitutional attacks by the National Labor Relations Board against my home State of South Carolina. And we see the EPA creating costly regulations that are forcing businesses not to make decisions on an annual or quarterly basis, but having to make decisions to comply day to day. Fortunately, the House has worked to turn back some of these actions, but there is much work left to be done. The House recently passed two bills, H.R. 2681 and H.R. 2250. These bills seek to prevent a pair of excessive regulations from going into effect that would put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work. One EPA regulation, the Boiler MACT rule, is expected to cost businesses and consumers around $14 billion, resulting in a loss of over 220,000 American jobs. Today we begin discussing the administration's EPA regulation of coal ash that will drive up electricity costs for millions of Americans, as well as construction costs for roads and homes all around the country. From 1999 to 2009, American industries successfully recycled 519 tons of coal ash, some 38 percent of the 1.35 billion tons of coal ash produced. Recycling coal ash keeps electricity costs low, provides for low-cost durable construction materials, and reduces the amount of waste going into the landfills. In other words, continuing to recycle coal ash is good for our economy and it's good for the environment. Yet the administration continues this headlong rush to destroy American jobs and wreck the American engineering sector. The EPA is considering treating coal ash as a hazardous waste. This is simply the latest bureaucratic overreach from this administration on behalf of their friends from the left-wing fringe and environmental movement. The impact of this government overreach would be nothing short of disastrous, with an estimated impact of $110 billion over the next 20 years and around 300,000 jobs lost. The bill we are debating today would end that nonsense before it can start. Keep in mind, America, it allows that coal ash to be regulated not by the left-wing zealots at the EPA, but by the States. Our Founding Fathers included the 10th Amendment in the Constitution so that these issues could be handled by the States, not a burdensome Federal agency with a political agenda and an axe to grind.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R. 3080, the Korean Free Trade Agreement. Earlier today, I voted to support free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama because I recognize the value of promoting trade with our neighbors. Unfortunately, the Korean trade agreement that we're debating right now is deeply flawed, poorly negotiated, and will cost American jobs by picking winners and losers in the market place. The textile provisions alone in the agreement will cost Americans nearly 40,000 jobs over the next 7 years. Sadly, many of those jobs will be lost in my own state of South Carolina. While this agreement gives South Korean goods duty-free entry into the U.S. market, American exports to South Korea will still be subjected to a 10 percent Tax. That amounts to an automatic 10 percent tariff on certain US goods, putting our manufacturers at an immediate competitive disadvantage. Additionally, this agreement opens US markets to Korean goods, but doesn't guarantee the Korean market will be open for US goods. Finally, I'm concerned about this agreement's impact on our national security as it relates to the extended domestic supply chain for industrial and military applications. These include fuel cells, oil booms, rapidly deployable shelters and tents, radar covers, Kevlar body armor for our troops, and many more advanced applications. This trade agreement could have a major negative impact on the private sector's ability to innovate and supply our military. I strongly urge my colleagues to send this trade agreement back to drawing board. For the sake of our economic and military security, I urge a NO vote. Thank you, and may God Bless America. January 20, 2011. Dear Representative, As representatives of the domestic textile and apparel sector and its nearly 600,000 workers, we strongly urge you to oppose the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS). In regards to textiles and apparel, the FTA is seriously flawed and will result in the continued outsourcing of valuable textile, apparel and other manufacturing jobs. With our nation struggling through one of the worst economic periods in its history, we believe the current agreement sends the wrong message to our workers and to American voters. During the past forty years, Korea has developed a sophisticated industrial and apparel fabrics sector and, as a consequence, is the second largest exporter of textile yarns and fabrics to the United States. Although the U.S. textile sector is one of the most efficient and quality-driven producers in the world, the Korean economy presents virtually no export opportunities to Korea for U.S. textile producers. As a measure of this one-way trading relationship, the U.S. trade deficit in textiles and apparel totaled $708 million in 2009. As a result, the textile industry asked the Obama Administration to make three fixes to the KORUS agreement in order to ensure that U.S. textile, apparel and fiber jobs were not outsourced to Korea and China. These fixes concerned (a) loopholes in the enforcement portions of the agreement that benefit China, (b) a tariff schedule that gives Korean exporters better terms than U.S. companies and (c) the exclusion of textile components in the agreement's rules-of-origin that advantage non-signatories to the agreement such as China. These mistakes not only hurt our manufacturing workers but also damage our industry's ability to supply our military with essential goods for our men and women in uniform. In particular, Korea's producers get longer phase-out schedules than U.S. producers on a number of sensitive product lines that include products that are needed by the U.S. military. Damaging surges by Korean producers because of this inequitable arrangement will hurt U.S. companies that the military depends on for a number of important products. Unfortunately, the Administration chose not to address the concerns of textile workers in your districts, and we are concerned that their jobs are now in jeopardy. Polls have shown a rising concern by the American voter regarding the outsourcing of American jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs, and the decline of the U.S. as an economic power. Recent Wall Street Journal and Pew polls show voter dissatisfaction regarding badly written trade agreements is at a record high. An analysis by the Economic Policy Institute estimates that 159,000 good paying American jobs will be destroyed if the KORUS agreement in its present form passes Congress. Of that total, we estimate that between 9,300 and 12,300 jobs will be lost specifically in the U.S. textile and apparel sector as a result of legal KORUS trade. U.S. government figures show that approximately three additional jobs are lost to the U.S. economy for each textile job that is eliminated. In addition, U.S. job losses from illegal Chinese exports are not included and these would be significant. Total U.S. job losses because of the flawed KORUS textile text are expected to be at least 40,000 jobs. With job creation a central concern in the country, we do not believe that this agreement meets that goal. We continue to urge that the textile portions of the agreement be renegotiated in order to ensure that textile jobs are not imperiled. Until that time, we ask you to stand firm on behalf of textile workers in your district and oppose the Korean FTA when it comes before a vote in Congress. Sincerely, Auggie Tantillo, Executive Director, American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition. Karl Spilhaus, President, National Textile Association. Paul O'Day, President, American Fiber Manufacturers Association. Cass Johnson, President, National Council of Textile Organizations. Ruth Stephens, Executive Director, U.S. Industrial Fabrics Institute.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, with the U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York this week and with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic of Iran giving his usual anti-American rant yesterday, I would like to make a few points about my concerns over Iran's strategic aims in the Middle East and here in the Western Hemisphere. My friends at Kronos Advisory, including Medal of Honor winner Major General James Livingston of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, released their Al Qaeda-Qods Force Nexus report in April, the text of which I ask to be inserted into the Record. Their report goes to the heart of the matter detailing that ``Iran has quietly forged a strong working relationship with core al Qaeda leaders.'' I am greatly concerned about Iran's growing influence in Latin America. The Treasury Department has stated that Hezbollah's operating center is in the tri-border region of Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay. Hezbollah's state sponsor, Iran, has opened six embassies in South America over the last 5 years. When the lives of Americans could face threats from Iran's growing reach through Hezbollah, why would this administration even consider giving President Ahmadinejad a visa to attend the United Nations General Assembly meeting? [From Kronos] The Al-Qa'ida-Qods Force Nexus

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, when the health care bill known as ObamaCare was being debated in this Congress, Republicans said the bill would bankrupt our country, ration care for seniors, and cost Americans jobs. Well, that's exactly what will be happening if the new provision of the law goes into effect next week. Unelected Washington bureaucrats have ignored calls from Congress asking for a delay in Medicare cuts to skilled nursing facilities and rehab centers. My colleagues know that I have a reputation for being one of the more fiscally conservative Members of Congress. I understand the need for cuts. But as one medical professional recently said: ``If I'm told I need an amputation, I'd like to know what limb is being cut off.'' The administration is proposing a reckless cut of nearly 13 percent to skilled nursing facilities and rehab centers. Eighty percent of the overhead at these facilities is staffed, meaning the people who take care of our seniors will be the first to lose their jobs. Receiving a lower quality of care at rehab centers means there's a greater chance that patients will spend more time at a costly hospital, resulting in higher overall costs. Madam Speaker, this isn't common sense. This policy isn't thinking smart. Our seniors deserve better, and I strongly urge the administration to reconsider their position.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Ladies and gentlemen, I rise today in support of H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act, that would end the funding for the NLRB's lawsuit against Boeing. I'm an original cosponsor of this legislation because I believe that what the NLRB has done to Boeing and to the people of South Carolina is one of the most egregious bureaucratic abuses of power that this administration has perpetrated. And with this administration, honestly, that's saying something. Earlier this year, the NLRB decided that it had the power to tell a company where it could move, what it could build, and how much. Whatever you think of the NLRB, whatever stance you have on Big Labor and labor unions, would you ever think that our government would consider such an unconstitutional power grab? In the midst of this Great Recession, when our number one focus should be on creating jobs, the NLRB is trying to stop an American company from building American airplanes with American workers, South Carolinians, right here in America. During a recent Congressional hearing, one of my colleagues from South Carolina, he asked the head lawyer for NLRB if he knew of a single union worker who had lost their job because Boeing decided to expand production in South Carolina. NLRB's lawyer did not have an answer. But if NLRB wins this lawsuit--listen clearly, America: If NLRB wins this lawsuit, the decision will be made, not whether to locate in a union State or a right-to-work State, the decision American companies will make will be about whether to continue production in the United States of America or take those jobs and that manufacturing process to another country. That is the hard reality of what NLRB is doing today. I ask my colleagues to join the South Carolina delegation, and America, today in standing up for freedom, standing up for the right to start a business, standing up for American jobs, standing up to the bullying tactics of an out-of-control bureaucracy. Mr. Speaker, let's pass this bill. Let's pass it right away. This is an actual jobs bill that you can go and read. And this is one that we can pass right now. We can pass this bill today, and we can get Americans back to work.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I want to thank my colleague from Arizona for taking on this very important issue. What a great evening to talk about America living within its means. We are $14.3 trillion in debt, and we're spending $1.5 trillion more than we are bringing in as a Nation. The piece of legislation that we passed this evening and is now residing over in the Senate includes what I think is the most important language within that legislation, and that is a vote on a balanced budget amendment. I was a small business owner for 16 years. When I did my budget every year, I had to think about what my revenues were for the past year and what my revenues were going to be for the coming year, and I had to set a budget based on that. I couldn't just hope that there was a money tree out in the backyard and continue spending money that I didn't have. Americans have been engaged in this process of the debt ceiling debate, and we are urging them to get involved in this process of a balanced budget amendment. Once that requirement and that amendment does pass both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, it will be sent to the States to be ratified. At that point in time, Americans from all across the land will be able to rally their State legislatures, their general assemblies, to take up and ratify this important amendment to the United States Constitution. Many of my constituents--the gentleman from Arizona doesn't know this. Many of my constituents know that I carry a United States Constitution with me in my pocket. In fact, I read from that very podium in the well. On the second day as a Member of this 112th Congress, I read from the United States Constitution, something I don't take lightly. But in order for this government to survive, and survive fiscally, is to get our fiscal house in order. And the secret to doing that is really to pass a balanced budget amendment, to require Washington to live within its means the way families and small businesses and large businesses have to do all across this great land. You know, when I was a small business owner, occasionally I had to go borrow money. But I had to put a plan together for that banker on how I was going to pay that back. Hopefully, we have begun to do that through this week of debate. But a balanced budget amendment, a requirement for the United States Government to balance its checkbook. The most, I guess, simplest thing that American families and small businesses do is sit down with that checkbook register and make sure that they haven't spent too much money, to make sure that they live within their means. So we have got that opportunity. I am proud that this was included. I am proud that I stand with 87 members of our freshman class that really helped, I think, leadership see that this was a vital component to this piece of legislation. I commend the House leadership for including it. I commend the House leadership for making sure that its inclusion in this bill that we sent over to the Senate this evening was there. So I want to urge the American people to get behind this, to contact your Senators, contact your House Members. As we heard recently from the gentleman from the Atlanta area of Georgia say, this vote will take place sometime between October and the end of the year. So during that process and leading up to that process, contact your Senators and contact your House Members and say: Government should have to live the way I operate my household, the way my wife and I have to sit down at our kitchen table and balance our budget. Balance Washington's budget. Let's get our spending under control. The time is now. I brought my little boy, Parker Duncan, who is 10 years old. He is sitting on the House floor with me today because I teach them, my children, the value of not spending more than you bring in. And they say: Dad, can we have that baseball? Can we have that item? I say: Son, we don't have the money in our budget this week or this month to purchase that. But let me make plans so that we can purchase that in the future. We live within our means. Am I perfect? No. I have debt, but we have a plan to pay back that debt. The future of our children and our grandchildren is at stake. America knows. America got engaged in this, they got engaged in the last election cycle, and they know that Washington cannot keep spending more than it has. So I commend my colleague from Arizona for taking on this very, very important issue to make Washington live within its means, to live within its means, not to spend money that it doesn't have. Let's rein in our fiscal house. Let's get our house in order, and let's create a way to start paying back that enormous debt. We can do that with a balanced budget amendment. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask the American people to listen closely to these words: ``The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. ``Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that `the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and our grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.'' These were remarks by Senator Barack Obama, March 2006. Mr. Speaker, the President's hypocrisy could not be more clear. God bless America.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, one problem that I see from my colleagues across the aisle and the President is that many of them have never signed the front of a paycheck. They have only signed the back of a paycheck. I was a small-town banker for 8\1/2\ years. I practice the five Cs of credit: character, capacity, capital, collateral, and cash flow. If our country was held to these same standards, President Obama would never get the loan that he's asking for. I have struggled on this vote because of the $14 trillion of debt that our Nation faces. President Obama has yet to come up with a plan that changes our spending trajectory, but this House has. Cut, Cap, and Balance--it's not just any plan, but it's revolutionarily reformed the way Congress spends money. We aren't $14 trillion in debt because we tax Americans too little. We're in debt because Congress has spent too much money. We don't have a revenue problem, folks. We have a spending problem.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for that. Folks, reforms like a balanced budget amendment, coupled with spending caps and significant spending cuts, are the types of revolutionary reforms that can prevent our children and grandchildren from inheriting mountains of debt. Passing off the debt problem to them may be the easy way. But it is not the American way, and it's definitely not the Christian way. As President Reagan said, ``You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but only for a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a Nation, we're not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow.''

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I, too, believe in America's greatness. And I stood here and heard her talk about the world is looking to America to be great again. This is an area that we can be great in. I've traveled around my district recently and asked folks about rising gas prices and the impact that they were having on the family budget, how they were having to reach deeper into their wallet and not take out the $20 bill, but take out the $100 bill to fill up their tank for their family for their normal commute, grocery shopping and other things they do. Americans are hurting. The gentleman from Ohio is on the Natural Resources Committee. And when we passed those bills out to this floor and passed those bills out from this floor to the Senate, you saw an immediate reaction by the administration, saying that we need to harvest American resources and increase domestic energy. The action of this Congress, we saw a reduction in fuel prices the next week, I think a 15-cent per gallon reduction, in my district. That's the kind of impact, that's the kind of signals we can send to the market by doing the right thing for the American people and focusing on domestic production and putting Americans back to work. The gentleman from Louisiana came from the oil and natural gas industry. He and I have had numerous conversations about the impact that the moratorium and the de facto moratorium has had on the economies in the Gulf States. And it's not only the loss of jobs and the income taxes that are associated with that, but it's the loss of revenue to the States from the royalties that they get from the oil and natural gas production. But in this country, at a time when we are hurting economically from loss of jobs and the lessening of income revenue to this country, keep in mind that I believe second only to--well, actually third only--to income tax revenue and corporate income tax and other revenue and borrowing. The revenue this country receives from oil and natural gas royalties is third only to those two things. So I would like to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana, because he has got a unique story to tell.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. What would happen if we had a hurricane? We're in hurricane season, and we've released 30 billion gallons from the reserve. Wasn't that there for that purpose?

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I tell you what, you've hit on something that I think we need to talk more about in this Congress, and that is the administration taking the easy road, trying to lessen fuel prices at the pump for Americans. But it was a short-term, short-lived impact, if it had any impact at all. I appreciate your comments on the administration having a ``drill there and not here'' policy, encouraging exploration and drilling off the coast of Brazil when we've got the resources right here in this country. The Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of my State or off the coast of Virginia, where they have an energy policy that wants to tap those resources. In the Alaskan Sea off the coast, where we know there is proven oil and natural gas resources. An expansion in deepwater in the Gulf of Mexico. So I appreciate your comments. The gentleman from North Dakota knows all too well what energy production means for jobs. The Bakken oil formation in North Dakota, Montana, and up into Canada even, has tremendous resources that can be harvested. There's an estimated 12 billion barrels of oil in North Dakota alone in the Bakken formation. I hope he will talk about the impact that jobs created in North Dakota have on that unemployment rate. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I thank the gentleman. The time is now. The time is now to stop the policies of this administration of taking Federal land off the table when it comes to wind, solar, and hydrogen. The wind farms. There's a bill in our committee that deals with NOAA's obstacles to wind farms off the coast. To the Federal land in the West that's off the table for solar, land that's owned by you, the taxpayer, that is not available for new solar panels and solar technology and wind farms and expansion of the power grid and power cables and transmission lines. The folks in Oklahoma have known energy production for a long time. I was talking with a gentleman from Oklahoma earlier about a new technology to lessen our dependence on Middle Eastern oil by using the gray matter that God gave us to create new technologies. I now yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma to share some exciting news with us coming out of his great State.