Jeff Duncan

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. The same American greatness that the gentleman from Ohio was talking about, where innovation meets a need. We have a need for energy independence, and innovation is meeting that need by creating a brand new company and technology to put gasoline in America's cars and trucks and tractors. And what an amazing story coming out of Oklahoma. Hydraulic fracturing is something that I think is next on the table for this Congress to address because we are seeing a lot of misinformation out there about hydraulic fracturing contaminating drinking water. Folks, that is just wrong. There hasn't been a single instance where a hydraulic fracturing operation has contaminated drinking water. From my understanding, most of the natural gas shales, such as Marcellus or the ones out in Oklahoma and Texas, are 10,000 feet to 6,000 feet deep in the earth. And most wells where we get our drinking water are 300 feet to 1,000 feet. A thousand feet would be a deep well, a very expensive well for Americans. That's why they don't go that far. They look somewhere else for water. The fracking takes place much deeper, so there hasn't been a single instance. The misinformation out there has been refuted by you many times in Oklahoma when you say, I repeat, Come drink our water in Oklahoma. I appreciate that. A key Republican energy proposal is the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act that will cut through bureaucratic red tape and unlock the full potential of energy resources in the Alaskan Natural Petroleum Reserve by ensuring that oil and natural gas are developed and transported in a timely and efficient manner. But there are delays in accessing that from this administration. And whether these delays are the result of government incompetence or ideological vendettas, the fact of the matter is that these regulations are costing American jobs and raising energy prices. The House has offered a clear path on job creation and economic recovery. That path is less taxation, less regulation, less government intervention, and more economic certainty in the marketplace. The folks from Kansas have talked to me numerous times about energy, and so I would like to take an opportunity to yield to Mr. Huelskamp from Kansas to talk about what is going on out there and that great American State's focus on American energy independence.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Thank you, the gentleman from Kansas. You hit on something. Obama's Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, before he was nominated to be the Secretary of Energy, wanted to figure out how to boost the price of a gallon of gasoline in this country to the levels in Europe. At the time he made that statement, gasoline in Europe cost around $7 to $8 a gallon. That's what the administration's Secretary of Energy really expects and wants the American people to pay for a gallon of gasoline. When fuel prices got to be $4 a gallon-- $4.35, $4.50 a gallon--in August of 2008, I know what that meant for my small business, and we only had two trucks on the road. Americans can't afford that when we've got the resources here in this country to meet our energy needs. I know that the gentlewoman from North Carolina fully understands that we've got the resources to meet our needs and that we've got to expand that and put Americans back to work through harvesting American resources. So I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas. He comes from an energy background--supplying parts to the energy production field.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. We're about out of time. I just wanted to thank my colleagues for understanding and expressing very clearly that we have the resources in this country to meet our energy needs. We need to put America back to work, harvesting those as a segue to job creation. The House Energy Action Team, the committees charged with this, have passed the bills to the Senate. The Senate needs to act. Let's put America back to work solving our energy needs. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the last Congress was known as the Congress of bailouts, takeovers, taxation, and regulation. This Congress is working to be the Congress of free markets, achieving American energy independence, and job creation. Back in May, the House passed three sweeping pieces of energy legislation designed to help end our country's dependence on Middle Eastern oil and help create American jobs by allowing deep sea energy exploration and production. Tonight we are going to talk about American energy independence and how energy is a segue into job creation, how we can put Americans back to work. As a proud member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, we passed three I think very, very strong bills that would put America back to work, especially in the Gulf of Mexico. We passed H.R. 1229. This is the Putting the Gulf Back to Work Act. It would end the Obama administration's de facto moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico in a safe, responsible, transparent manner by setting firm timelines for considering permits to drill, which will provide certainty and allow employers and workers to get back on the job. I don't know how many Members of Congress have been out in the Gulf of Mexico like me and looked at offshore drilling and offshore energy production. There is a difference between drilling and production. Drilling is finding the oil, drilling that well. Then they move a production platform in there to start producing that. And I talk with my colleagues from Louisiana and Mississippi and Texas that understand that the Gulf States are hurting because it's not the Big Oil companies that are out of work. It's the folks that work on those rigs out in the gulf, doing the day-to-day labor of tapping that American energy resource. But it's also the folks back on the beach that are providing the service industry, the ones that go out and provide the food and the transportation to the workers going back and forth. It's the ships that pull the anchors when the drilling platform wants to move somewhere else. It's the pipefitters and welders back on shore that are providing the necessary service to that industry. We want to put the gulf back to work. We urge the Senate to pass H.R. 1229 that we sent over in May. And let's put the Gulf of Mexico back to work. In a few minutes I'm going to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana, who is going to talk more about that. Then we passed the Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act, which would require the Obama administration to move forward and promptly conduct offshore lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. I served on the Outer Continental Shelf 5-year Planning Subcommittee that looked at oil and natural gas leases on the Outer Continental Shelf all around the United States. And I know what a convoluted, long process it is to have a lease sale. The administration is failing America by not having lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, or off the coast of Alaska, or really anywhere else on the Outer Continental Shelf. It's time to restart that leasing program so that we can tap the American resources that we have in this country. H.R. 1230 is another bill we passed out on May 5. The Senate needs to act on that one, Mr. Speaker. We passed it with a bipartisan vote of 266-149. The third bill that came out, Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act, H.R. 1231, another one the Senate has failed to act on. This would lift the President's ban on new offshore drilling by requiring the administration to move forward on the 2012 to 2017 lease plan with energy production in the areas containing the most oil and natural gas resources. We know where those resources are. They are off the coast of Mississippi and Alabama and Texas and the western Gulf of Mexico. They are also off the coast of South Carolina and Virginia on the Outer Continental Shelf. They are in the Alaskan Sea and off the coast of Alaska, where recently we saw the EPA deny Shell Oil Company an air quality permit. Now, Americans need to listen. This isn't an oil drilling permit. They were ready to go. They had their drilling permit. But the EPA denied them an air quality permit. And a drilling platform does flare off the gas that sometimes seeps through when they are drilling for oil, and they flare that gas off to keep from having a dangerous explosion like we saw in Deepwater Horizon. Flare gas, natural gas that's flared off. They are denied an air quality permit because 70 miles away on the coast, 70 miles away is an indigenous village of 250 people. So this administration's going to keep us from harvesting our natural resources in Alaska by not denying a drilling permit, but by denying an air quality permit to a drilling platform in the Alaskan Sea because it might impact a small village in Alaska. That's the kind of administration policies that we're dealing with and we're fighting here in this Congress. Folks, we want to put America back to work. Energy is a segue to job creation. Think about it. The refining capacity that needs to be expanded as we expand the harvesting of oil and natural gas. New refineries in this country. It's been over 30 years, I believe, since we've had a new refinery permit in this country. We often think about energy, we think about fossil fuels, hydrocarbons, oil and natural gas. But when I talk about energy, I think about expanded nuclear power and how one nuclear power plant can put 5,000 people to work, 10,000 people to work in my area with new construction jobs. And then once the construction phase is over with, we've got long-term, good paying jobs like we have at the Oconee nuclear power plant in Seneca, South Carolina. I believe in nuclear power as a stable, reliable source of energy in this country. We've got to expand nuclear power. We've got to look at modularization and miniaturization. At any given time, folks, we've got over 100 small nuclear reactors floating around the seas of the world in the United States Navy. And you know what? We haven't had a single mishap. Small, modularized nuclear reactors that work. Thinking outside the box, do we do that for small communities, neighborhoods, or small cities with smaller nuclear reactors like we have on aircraft carriers and submarines? Recent studies from the American Petroleum Institute showed the United States is poised to create thousands of new jobs next year only if the Federal Government stops blocking the permitting process. There is a study that says that in Alaska alone--this was conducted by the University of Alaska--over 54,000 jobs could be created and sustained with deep sea production in Alaska. I am going to yield in a little while to the gentleman from North Dakota, who will tell you that North Dakota's got one of the lowest, if not the lowest, unemployment rate in the United States, 3.2 percent. It's because of the energy jobs that are being created in the Bakken oil field in North Dakota. He is going to tell you more about that because it is a wonderful success story on how energy-related jobs expand the economy and put Americans back to work. At this time, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Washington State, who knows that putting Americans back to work can happen if we harvest the natural resources that we've got in this great country.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I was out in Washington State with the gentlewoman from Washington several years ago, looking at nuclear power, looking at the Hanford site, talking about reprocessing of nuclear, spent nuclear fuel rods and how reprocessing can deal with some of the waste byproduct but can also provide an energy source for our nuclear power reactors, and I know you are interested in that as well. So thank you for your comments. I next want to introduce and yield to the gentleman from Ohio, who understands that these are resources that we are talking about here in America. All the natural gas resources don't belong to President Obama; they belong to the American people. And it's time that the American people speak loudly that we want to put Americans back to work, providing American solutions for American energy issues.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about our Constitution and the specific role that it grants this Congress. My constituents back in the Third Congressional District of South Carolina know that I carry a United States Constitution with me every day, and the first time I spoke on this floor, it was to read a portion of this great document. Specifically, I read the article that we're talking about today, Article I, section 8, clause 11, the enumerated power of Congress and of Congress, alone, to declare war. Our Founders did not give that right to the executive branch. They invested that responsibility with us. Now, previous Congresses have delegated some of that responsibility with the War Powers Resolution. That's what's being used by this President. But I think the time has come for us to have the debate about the wisdom of that and the constitutional obligation our Founders defined for Congress. Over the past few years, our country has seen a renewed appreciation for the Constitution, a recognition of the wisdom and divine guidance our Founding Fathers had when they crafted this sacred document. The Constitution lists our rights, these rights which were given us directly by God, but also contains the mechanisms to protect our rights from being trampled upon by man. Among the most important of these protections is the separation of powers. Seeing firsthand the tyranny that can arise from a corrupt centralized power, our Founding Fathers sought to divide the power of government into three independent branches that serve as checks on one another. Mr. Speaker, we in the Congress need to know: What is the national interest at stake in Libya? The President cites humanitarian needs, regional stability, and supporting the international community as his justification. I do not believe that these reasons suffice as national security interests. We did not go into Libya with a clear, attainable objective. The risks and costs do not appear to be fully analyzed. As the President said, we would only be in Libya for days, not months. We've been there days. As a matter of fact, we've been there 73 days. Seventy-three days after we've gotten involved, we still don't have that answer. We don't know who we're supporting. We don't know whether we have a viable end game, and we don't have a congressional declaration of war or an authorization of force. And yet this President chooses to continue to risk American lives, American servicemen and -women, and he continues to spend American treasure at the whims of the United Nations. This President should not be able to simply have wars of choice. He said this action in Libya would be limited. Our troops have, once again, as always, performed admirably and done the job the President gave them to do. But we now have to do ours. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is very clear. Only Congress has the power to declare war. If this Congress allows our President to make wars of choice without the rule of law to guide him, we will be just as guilty in not upholding our constitutional obligations.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. First, I thank my colleagues for taking this time to talk about an issue that--I cannot believe we are even having this discussion. We have seen a lot since we have been here in Washington on January 5, but I never thought that I would see the day when the NLRB and our government would sue a company over creating jobs in South Carolina. I may have experienced that in another country, say the Soviet Union back in the eighties, but to think that we have got a government here in America that is suing a company for making a business decision, a decision that would affect their bottom line, to go where their labor costs are cheaper, to come to a great State like South Carolina and locate in a wonderful city like North Charleston where they were already operating an operation that made the fuselages. This was a decision not to locate a whole other operation, but to bring the rest of the components to South Carolina, to assemble the complete aircraft there. And since they made that decision to come to South Carolina, they have added an additional 2,000 jobs in the State of Washington. And so for the NLRB to say that Boeing made a decision to punish a union in Washington is ludicrous. It is ludicrous. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli said that NLRB's action against Boeing is a threat to every right-to-work State. And I agree with him because if this suit is successful against Boeing, we are not going to have the conversation in this country about whether a business is going to locate in a right-to-work State or a union State. The conversation is going to turn, Mr. Gowdy, to a conversation about whether to locate in America or to locate that operation overseas. That ought to scare every one of us, not just those in the right-to-work State, but every American who understands capitalism, who understands that government doesn't create jobs, businesses do. Looking at the NLRB's decision and examining the recent electoral map, it is not difficult to see a policy that clearly rewards blue States while severely punishing red ones. South Carolina is a red State, and we are proud of that fact. We shouldn't be punished for Boeing locating in South Carolina. And this is the second attempt by NLRB to punish South Carolina. Right before this, they decided to sue South Carolina, South Dakota, Arizona, and Utah over the right to a secret ballot. Back in November, Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of South Carolinians voted in a referendum that we liked the right to a secret ballot when it comes to union elections, that we don't want card check, a method where union bosses can come to employees and say: You know, we really want to unionize here, and we would love to have your name, and through fear and intimidation get them to agree to go along and unionize after a majority of those people in that business have said, under intimidation usually, that they would go along with the union. We like the right to a secret ballot, that free Americans can go into the voting booth, whether it is at a union or anywhere else, and cast a ballot in secret without fear of intimidation, go in there and cast a vote on how they feel on whether they want to collectively bargain, whether they want to unionize, or whether they like the right to come to work and negotiate with their employer for their best interest and for the best interest of the company, for the best interest of the company. And so NLRB said nope, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Arizona; we determine how you are going to unionize. We determine what methods you are going to use. And if we say that you have to use card check as a method of unionization, that is what you have to use. And just because you in South Carolina, just because 80 percent of your voters like the right to a secret ballot, that doesn't matter. That is off the table because NLRB is saying they have the last word, they are the only voice. And you know what? That is wrong, because it is a States' rights issue. The Constitution I carry says Congress--and I am going to get a little passionate on this issue because I feel NLRB has overstepped its bounds on this--it says that no power not specifically outlined in that document as belonging to the Federal Government, nor prohibited by that document to the States, is reserved for the States or the people. It doesn't say that the NLRB has the right to determine how we can unionize in South Carolina or any other right-to-work State. I think States do have rights. And I think we have to stand up, and I applaud my colleagues tonight for standing on this floor and championing States' rights, championing the Constitution of the United States, championing the 10th Amendment, and pointing out the rightful place of the States in this country that freely joined the Republic. So after the NLRB decided to sue these four States, they came in and decided to sue a private business, to sue a business that made a business decision to affect the bottom line, shareholder value, looking after profit, which others want to demonize in this country but which made this country great, capitalists going out and investing their hard-earned dollars, convincing others to invest their money in their stock, to grow a business, create a product that folks around the world would want to buy. And folks like buying Boeing products. I applaud Boeing for wanting to come to South Carolina, to invest their billions of dollars in our State, their idea of staying there for 100 years, their love for South Carolina workers, the climate and the pro-business climate we have in our State, the pro-business climate they have in North Charleston, the effort that South Carolina had to step up to the plate to help Boeing in the deal to come to South Carolina. I look forward to flying on the Boeing manufactured aircraft the Dreamliner. What a great name. We're talking about the shattering of American dreams by the NLRB suing Boeing, which is chasing the American Dream. Yet they're chasing it to form an airliner called the Dreamliner. Is that not irony? I can't believe we're having this discussion, but I'll tell you what. We're doing the right thing, and this Congress needs to get behind defunding the NLRB's ability to sue South Carolina, to sue Boeing. We need to get behind that. Mr. Gowdy, thank you for having this.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. They said they'd talk with Attorney General Wilson and the other attorneys general, but they said, We're going to do it in secret. We're going to do it in secret. They demanded secret meetings, made threats, and they attacked the right to the secret ballot. That doesn't exactly look like a good track record. Have you heard about that?

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I just have to ask myself, listening to my colleagues here, thinking about this issue, since when did America stop becoming and being the land of the free? The land of the free that we sing about all the time? Do we just want to say that we're a free Nation, or do we want to be a free Nation? Our freedom is under attack, guys. Our freedom is under attack across this Nation, through suits like the NLRB suing the States, NLRB suing a private business for making a business decision. But in America? I can't believe we're witnessing this. It's not just NLRB, it's the EPA. When they deny an air quality permit for a drilling platform in the Alaskan Sea, where the closest impacted town is over 70 miles away, with only 250 indigenous people there. I've been out to a deepwater drilling platform. I've been to a production platform. The only air impact that I've seen was the flare gas, where they flare off and burn off the gas that comes through the natural drilling activities. Usually it's natural gas. Some proponents of that side of the debate think that natural gas is and say--and I believe that, too--it's probably cleaner burning. But we've got the EPA denying an air quality permit, not a drilling permit this time, so we're not able to meet America's energy needs by domestic production. We've got NLRB suing the State of South Carolina, the State of Utah, the State of Arizona, and the State of South Dakota. Then we've got them suing a fine American company named Boeing. We've got the EPA going after drilling, denying to issue air quality permits. We've got them changing the air quality standards that will affect economic development in my district and around the State of South Carolina. This is a power grab. This is a power grab by this administration to keep us from being free people, to keep us from being able to make business decisions and creating jobs, putting America back to work. America needs to wake up and see that your freedoms are being eroded day by day. It's hard to believe that January 5 we were elected into Congress and had high optimism for changing the way Washington does business, and then we see this continuation of these policies, which I labeled on the campaign ``POR policies.'' I called it Pelosi, Obama and Reid policies that were bankrupting this country, and they're continuing today. They're continuing today because they are affecting private businesses that are out creating jobs in States like South Carolina. So I applaud my colleagues and, like you said, those that aren't here, those that may be taking the floor on the other side of the Chamber in the United States Senate, those that had obligations, other places tonight that feel the way we do, that South Carolina is a great State to do business. Boeing made the decision to come there. They made the decision about their bottom line, about profitability, shareholder value, about creating something great, creating American jobs, manufacturing in this country that the gentleman from Georgia talked about. Well, they're doing it. And they're going to do it in South Carolina because I believe they're going to win this lawsuit. I believe they are going to win because it's the right thing, it's the American way, it's unconstitutional, un-American for the NLRB to be suing Boeing. I believe with my heart that they are going to win. They're going to put those thousands of workers to work in South Carolina, they're going to invest their money, and they're going to be there 100 years from now.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. The gentleman from Georgia just a few minutes ago in the last hour was over there talking about us not manufacturing anything in this country anymore, talking about bringing manufacturing back. I don't know if y'all heard that. I sat there and listened, and I thought about the irony there, that here we are, we have the NLRB that's suing a business who is operating in this country, who has numerous manufacturing facilities, not just in Washington and South Carolina, who's creating a wonderful product that's sought all around the world. They're manufacturing it here in this country. They're creating jobs in South Carolina. We are manufacturing here. And so to that gentleman, Mr. Scott from Georgia, the message is clear: They are, and they'll continue to do so as long as we have a pro-business economy, as long as we have a pro-business climate. Like I said earlier, if NLRB wins this suit, we're going to see decisions made about not whether to locate in a right-to-work State like South Carolina or Utah or Arizona or South Dakota or even Virginia or many, many others in this country, we're not going to see that argument about whether to locate in a right-to-work State or a union State, we're going to see truly what he was talking about, the decision being made about whether to locate in the United States of America and put Americans to work or locate in another country. That's the question that's going to be asked.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. You have to wonder why the NLRB is doing this. What is their ultimate gain? I think it's to force a private industry to make a decision that the government tells it to. That's like a government takeover, a government's telling a private business what to do or not to do. The American people are tired of the spending and the borrowing and the bailouts and the takeovers. We saw it with General Motors. We've seen it with other businesses. We've seen the government takeover of health care. Now we're seeing the government sue a private business for making a business decision to locate in South Carolina. Because we come from the great Palmetto State, we know why they wanted to locate in South Carolina. We know about the work ethic. We know about the wonderful business climate, and we know about the wonderful climate, period. I know why they chose Charleston. What a great location. It's not just because the airbase is there; that it's close to the port is probably one of the biggest reasons. It's the wonderful port that we've got in Charleston. The reason South Carolina is great is because of the Port of Charleston. While I'm on that, let me just applaud my colleagues across the building there for their help in securing the money that was necessary for deepening and widening the Port of Charleston. It was the right decision for the Corps of Engineers to make. It's the right decision for the business climate in South Carolina, and it's the right decision for our State. It's going to be a perfect business example for South Carolina and for the east coast.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I object.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my point of order while rising in opposition to the motion.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. This Democrat motion is just one more example of congressional Democrats attempting to obstruct a bill that will increase access to American energy resources. This motion is already the law. The law says the President has an authority to restrict foreign sales, and ``use it or lose it'' is already the law of the land. If my friends want to reduce the nonproducing leases, then we need to get this administration to issue permits in a timely manner. This motion is trying to deflect criticism from the policies that have been perpetrated that block American energy production, cost jobs and raise prices. It is simply a distraction from the real work that needs to be done to increase the supply of American energy. The bill we're voting on today represents a real choice, Mr. Speaker, on the future of American energy: a choice between using American energy resources or remaining dependent on an OPEC cartel; a choice between creating jobs in America or creating jobs offshore of Brazil. With this motion, the party opposite is standing for a ``drill there and not here'' policy. Mr. Speaker, that is not a strategy that will work to create American jobs. The underlying bill will create these jobs. Finally, this is a choice between strengthening our energy security in the face of $4 a gallon gasoline or being held hostage to the whims of volatile foreign regimes. Mr. Speaker, there can be no national security without energy security. As a small business man, I know what the pressure of $5 a gallon diesel fuel did to my business back in 2008, and we only had two trucks on the road. Now think about what this is going to do to every household, every trucking business, every shipper, and every farmer in our country. The Nation's families are hurting, Mr. Speaker. They're trying to decide between putting fuel in their cars to go to work or putting food on their tables to feed their children. We must act to increase the supply of American energy, and Mr. Speaker, this bill will get us moving in the right direction. This is a commonsense, free market solution that can help us restore America's greatness. Congress took bipartisan action in 2008 to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling and exploration. Yet this administration has unilaterally defied the will of this Congress and the will of the American people by effectively reinstating a moratorium. The energy resources don't belong to President Obama. They belong to the American people, and they should be used to create American jobs, to generate revenue, to reduce gasoline prices, and to strengthen our national security. I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion. Let's pass this bill to return these American energy resources back to where they belong, and that is to the American people. May God continue to bless America.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. You know, you hit a point that seniors are thinking about. They're thinking that they're on a fixed income. They're looking at rising prices, whether it's at the gas pump--we talked today about solving American energy issues, but they're thinking about the rising commodity prices. I brought with me a bank note, this is an official currency note from the Bank of Zimbabwe. If you look at it, and I know it's going to be difficult, but it's a $100 trillion bank note. A Wall Street Journal article said, How to turn $100 trillion into $5 and feel good about it. It's worth about $5 on eBay. They quit printing them in 2009. It drives home the point that the policies of this administration are increasing the cost of commodities, the cost of fuel, devaluing our currency, and that applies to health care as well. Seniors are concerned. They've got every right to be concerned. One thing about the Republican budget, and one thing that the gentleman from Arkansas is trying to point out, that we're trying to solve the problems of this Nation here in this body. This Republican freshman class is taking the bull by the horns to bring home the issue to the American people and let them know we're trying to solve these problems. So I commend him.

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

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the recent unprecedented action by the National Labor Relations Board is simply the latest example of this administration putting politics before the needs of the American people. I honestly never thought I would see the day when our government sued a company over creating jobs in South Carolina or anywhere in the United States. The NLRB's position violates States' 10th Amendment liberties and attempts to roll back worker protections for the purpose of satisfying special interests and union bosses. The NLRB was created to protect workers' rights, but now the worker is left out of the equation in favor of big unions. I ask, what about the workers in South Carolina who lose out in this action? Where have their rights been considered in all of this nonsense? In fact, the National Labor Relations Act says in section 1 that the purpose of the NLRA is ``to promote the full flow of commerce, to prescribe the legitimate rights of both employees and employers in their relations affecting commerce, to provide orderly and peaceful procedures for preventing the interference by either with the legitimate rights of the other, to protect the rights of individual employees in their relations with labor organizations whose activities affect commerce, to define and proscribe practices on the part of labor and management which affect commerce and are inimical to the general welfare, and to protect the rights of the public in connection with labor disputes affecting commerce.'' The NLRB's ruling comes on the heels of previous threats by this radically out-of-touch panel to sue States like South Carolina for constitutionally protecting one of America's most universal freedoms, the right to a secret ballot. Fear that the Federal Government might take away that fundamental principle prompted voters in South Carolina, Arizona, South Dakota, and Utah to overwhelmingly support adding secret ballot protection to their State constitutions. If the NLRB hadn't already made a big enough mockery of individual freedom, they even refused to come to the negotiation table and talk about their concerns with States' attorneys general unless they were willing to first sign a nondisclosure agreement preventing them from sharing what was discussed during the meetings. Demanding secret meetings, threats, and attacking the right to a secret ballot doesn't exactly create a good track record for the National Labor Relations Board. That's what prompted me to introduce House Resolution 1047, the State Right to Vote Act, which would stop the NLRB from suing States whose voters took a stand against union thuggery for secret elections. And if the NLRB doesn't change the course quickly, I know there will be many in this body, including myself, who will call for the panel's removal altogether. But, Mr. Speaker, this latest outrage is a unique power grab. Against constitutional and Supreme Court precedents, the NLRB's actions are a clear attack on our State. Think about the context: This administration has spent our Nation into oblivion, doubling the national debt in 2 short years, running over businesses both large and small, mounting takeover after takeover, and reducing the size and scope of our economy in the process. South Carolina's unemployment rate finally dips below 10 percent, and what does this administration do? It sues one of the largest prospective employers in our State just as that company begins to hire workers, potentially costing South Carolina thousands of new jobs. Mr. Speaker, I may be new to Washington, but I promise you I was not born yesterday. Looking at the NLRB's policy and examining recent electoral maps, it's not difficult to see a policy that clearly rewards blue States while severely punishing red ones. Under the NLRB's interpretation of the law, a company with a union workforce anchored in a blue State could not expand or relocate to a red State. Limiting where companies can conduct business sounds like something that would take place in China or the old Soviet Union, not here in the United States. Since when did America stop being the land of the free? Let me give this message to anyone looking to start a company in America. Choose your location well. If this action by NLRB is upheld, trust me when I say that we won't be talking about companies making decisions over moving to a right-to-work state versus a union state. We will see decisions made in the context of locating in America or another country. And what this outrageous action by the NLRB tells you is that you're stuck with very few options. Give into the union's demands, close up your shop, or take your production outside of the United States. The NLRB's actions say build your companies somewhere else, but not in America. So much for the American dream. Mr. Speaker, this action by the NLRB is unconstitutional and illegal. I call on my colleagues in the Education and Workforce Committee to hold hearings into this bureaucratic atrocity. My South Carolina colleagues and I have introduced legislation to defund this latest lawsuit. I ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to rescue the American dream and sign on to this legislation. I also ask the American people, pay attention to this problem. Our Founding Fathers would be appalled by this bureaucratic tyranny. It's time to hold our elected officials accountable. Do we want to just say that we're a free nation, or do we really want to be a free nation? Our freedom is under attack. It's time we take a stand. May God continue to bless America.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this issue. Our friends across the aisle here want us to use this debate today to demagogue this issue and demonize American energy producers. Let us refocus on what this debate is really about today. Mr. Chairman, this administration's policy of drill there, not here, has helped produce the record gas prices that we are facing today. Rather than fueling our economy with American energy independence, this administration has fueled overseas oil producers by shutting off domestic exploration. And now, today, we hear the other party tell us that raising taxes on American energy production will somehow make prices go down. This is insane, Mr. Chairman, as any economist can tell you. We need to end the de facto moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico on the permits there. We need to reopen the West to exploration. We need to open up ANWR for exploration. We need to allow American entrepreneurs to do the work of the free market and get this economy moving again. Energy production is a segue to job creation. This bill will begin the process of releasing the potential of American energy. This means tens of thousands of American jobs producing American energy for American households and businesses. I urge my colleagues to help this economy. Pass this bill, and let's put Americans back to work producing American energy. God bless you. God bless America.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. This isn't about oil company profits. This is about supply and demand. We don't have the supply necessary to meet the energy needs in this country. But the American people know that we've got the resources here in this country, whether it's offshore, on the Outer Continental Shelf, or on Federal lands that have currently under this administration been taken off the table for energy production. Supply and demand drives the price. We are reliant on foreign sources of oil, and a foreign group known as OPEC determines the price of that oil they sell to us. We've got the resource in this country. This legislation will put the gulf back to work, meeting the energy needs for the American people. I'm a small business owner. I doubt many people that serve in this body have ever run a business, met a payroll, and tried to meet their overhead. I can tell you what $4.85 a gallon in August of 2008 meant to my small business only running two trucks on the road. I can only imagine what the loggers, what the truckers, what the farmers, and the other industries in the Third Congressional District of South Carolina are feeling today with the experience of rising oil prices. The gentlelady from Florida said that in the summer, prices go up. We're not in summer yet. Prices are going up because of supply and demand. We have the opportunity to meet our demand right here by harvesting American resources for our American energy needs.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, folks, no prepared remarks, no fancy speeches. I brought with me a financial calculator. And regardless of how you calculate the numbers, America is spending too much money. You know, for 3 years in a row we spent over a trillion dollars more than we were bringing in as a Nation. We are over $14 trillion in debt. This budget puts us on a very clear path to paying back the national debt, to reducing and ending deficits in a very timely manner, to protecting the future for our children and our grandchildren, our most precious resource as Americans. I urge my colleagues to get behind this budget, vote for it, and let's put the American spending in priority. Let's stop the spending insanity here in Washington, D.C., and let's do what we tell the folks back home we are going to do, and let's get our fiscal house in order.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1081.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. On this day in 1743, our Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, was born. But I rise today to talk about the National Auctioneers Association celebrating National Auction Week. I'm proud, as an auctioneer for over 16 years, to serve with fellow auctioneer in our Auction Caucus here in Congress, Representative Billy Long from Missouri. Auction and auctioneers help families and businesses all over this great land sell trillions of dollars worth of assets every year. And so I will leave you with this thought: Hey, now, wouldya give 25 now, 35--sold. And we sell it every day.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, every evening across this great land, after homework is finished and the supper dishes are cleared and the children are put to bed, Mom and Dad sit down at the kitchen table, they sharpen their pencils, and they take out a pad of paper, and they struggle to make ends meet. Whether their budgeting technique is different than the house next door, they know, without a doubt, that they cannot have their monthly bills exceed their monthly take-home pay. If the bills are higher than the monthly pay, they have to make changes. So bill by bill they discuss what they have to pay. They discuss things like the power bill and the rent and the mortgage, the car loan, the credit card payments. Mom and Dad cut out the things that they can do without. Maybe it's the golf membership for Dad. Maybe it's the weekly pedicure for Mom. Whatever it is, they know they have to make tough and real decisions. It's time to stop the spending insanity here in Washington, D.C. America, your Nation is broke. We cannot continue to borrow 42 cents of every dollar we spend. We cannot continue to spend a trillion dollars more each year than we're bringing in; and we definitely cannot do that year after year, raking up over $14 trillion in debt that our children must one day pay. And your Congress is struggling with cutting a paltry $61 billion from a $3.8 trillion spending plan. It's like we're arguing over what station the radio is on while the car is going off the cliff. In the American kitchen, Dad looks at Mom at this point, and he says, Honey, something's got to change. Your House of Representatives, folks, they've passed a spending plan. The Senate has failed to act. They haven't even come across with even their best-case-scenario spending plan. Even if it's the status quo of spending a trillion and a half dollars more than we are bringing in this year, they haven't brought anything across the aisle. So how do you negotiate if one body has brought their best plan and the other body hasn't done anything? Yesterday, I was proud to vote to provide military pay for the guys and gals across this great land that are standing on the wall defending the liberties that we have. They deserve to be paid. They don't deserve to stand on that wall and wonder if back home Mom is wondering if the power is going to stay on, if she's going to be able to pay the rent, or if she's going to be able to put food on the table for her children. That's the American way, to take care of the military. I was no prouder than to stand on the steps of the United States Senate yesterday and implore, encourage, ask, beg the majority leader in the Senate to get to work, to come to the table with a real solution, because I don't want to be with my colleagues many years from now dying in our beds waiting for one chance, hoping for one chance, to trade every day from this day to that for another chance to come back here and do what we should do as Americans, and that's fund our government, get our spending under control, and protect the future for our children.

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina

Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 471, the Scholarship Opportunity and Results Act, and against the Norton amendment. Coming from South Carolina, for 8 years in the general assembly, we debated the positive benefits of school choice. I have heard every argument. But what I have seen prior to 2009 is that here, in D.C., school choice was a model for the Nation as a very successful program. We have seen the positive impact of injecting free market principles into the education system here in Washington, D.C. We have seen thousands of students' lives changed. We have seen them line up for a chance at a better life because they could escape a failing school and have the opportunity to reach their full potential. Because all students learn differently, it is imperative that we empower parents. And that is what it is about, empowering parents to make choices for the education of their children; give them the ability to choose the best educational experience for their child, whether it is public, charter, private, or home school. Neither the State nor the Federal Government knows what is best for our children. We do as parents. Parents know what is best for their children, and parents and teachers should have the freedom to work together to find and create motivating learning environments that are necessary for every child to succeed. This bill restores to the parents the ability to make the right choices that this administration and the previous Congress stripped away, and it provides an escape from the failed bureaucratic system of the District of Columbia. Without question, when students are placed in a learning environment that best fits their individual needs, our educational system will become exceptional. This bill brings more transparency and accountability to the program, raises the scholarship amounts for both elementary school and high school students, as my colleague from South Carolina said, and caps the administrative costs. This bill takes a successful program and makes it even better, and does so without spending new taxpayer dollars or growing the size of government. In fact, school choice saves the government money while providing a better education for the children. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that other States will follow suit. Even as parental school choice is working for American students and families in Washington, D.C., we have also seen its effectiveness in States like Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Florida, where the achievement gap between white students and minorities is disappearing. My home State of South Carolina is debating school choice right now in their legislative session, creating a bill that would expand educational choice opportunities for all children across my home State. And I urge my fellow colleagues in South Carolina to get the job done and pass that legislation. Let me thank the Speaker of the House for introducing this bill. I thank him for his leadership of parental choice on behalf of Washington, D.C.'s families and students who demand effective schools. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Norton amendment and ``yes'' on the SOAR Act.