Floor Statements

Madam Chair, amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and

seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue,

but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,

and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the

persons or things to be seized.

Those who choose to trade liberty for security will find they have neither.

I want to thank the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee for his leadership on this issue as well as to thank my friend, Mr. Salmon from Arizona, for his leadership in the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee on this issue because he understands what is at stake.

One thing this bill will do is attract jobs. It will help the United States Government create energy sector jobs. The second thing it will do is help meet our energy needs, and it will help lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy by producing those energy resources here at home. That's a national security issue. By being less dependent on foreign sources of oil, we are less dependent on what goes on in that part of the world. There can be no national security without energy security, and this is a step in the right direction.

We are willing to say that the Obama administration got something right in forming this agreement and signing it. In February of 2012, Secretary Clinton signed this agreement with the Foreign Secretary from Mexico, Patricia Espinosa, to open up this area known as the ``western gap'' in the Gulf of Mexico so that both countries--Mexico and the United States--could explore and start producing oil and natural gas from this area.

What it does is to create a broader legal certainty along that U.S.- Mexico boundary area in order to foster more American energy development and job creation. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement estimates that this area contains as much as 172 million barrels of oil and 34 billion cubic feet of natural gas-- shared resources. Yet they're shared under a common border, a border between the United States Government and Mexico. If you think of a border, think about it out in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. It's a maritime boundary, and these resources lie underneath the Earth's Outer Continental Shelf. Underneath that border, who do they belong do? This agreement addresses that they are shared resources. They belong to both countries, and we ought to utilize this agreement in order to start harvesting those resources.

The gentleman talks about changes to Dodd-Frank and other things, but why is that necessary? Who will benefit? I'll tell you who won't benefit if we don't put this language in there. The people who won't benefit are the American consumers. They are paying almost $4 a gallon for gasoline. They won't benefit because we won't be producing American resources to meet their energy needs.

So why is this necessary? Without the changes to this agreement, the language in the agreement can create an impossible situation for American companies operating on transboundary hydrocarbon resources.

For example, Mexican confidentiality requirements may forbid the disclosure of the very information that the Dodd-Frank rule requires of American companies. This would lead to a situation in which companies that are regulated by the SEC have at the very least uncertainty about compliance with both Mexican and American disclosure laws. This uncertainty and potential disclosure conflict would place foreign state-owned oil companies, which are not regulated under Dodd-Frank or by the SEC, at a competitive advantage to the companies which operate under the United States' agreement and are regulated.

The change in this language will open up competition and allow American companies to actually go to work without the uncertainty as to which laws they need to comply with and which they don't. This is the right thing. The changes to this language will ensure that American energy development will go forward in the transboundary area and that those resources in that area will be harvested to provide the necessary energy for America, which drives our economy.

This is the right thing for America. We are willing to enact this agreement because we want to harvest those resources, and we want America to move toward American energy independence. Ultimately, we want to put Americans to work. We want to create jobs--good paying, long-term, energy sector jobs. We do that by moving toward American energy independence. We do that by enacting this agreement and by opening up 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for energy exploration and development. It's the right thing for America. It's a movement toward an all-American energy policy, utilizing American resources to meet American energy needs and putting Americans to work.

I can only see a win-win for both Democrats and Republicans and for all Americans by moving this agreement forward. We asked, from February 2012 until now, for the United States Department of the Interior to send us the enacting legislation, to send us the enacting ability so that we could vote on something in the last Congress, and they failed to do that. So understanding that we need to do that, the Natural Resources Committee took the bull by the horns and said, We're going to do it. We're going to pass the implementing language to enact that agreement and put Americans to work and provide those resources that are so vital to moving this economy along.

Let's just be clear, America, what we're talking about and where we're talking about.

This chart shows the Western Gap, the only area covered under the transboundary hydrocarbons agreement--the agreement negotiated by the Obama administration--to open up this area; 1.5 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico that's so far away from the shore of Florida that really makes this amendment not applicable.

This is the area we're talking about, this 1.5 million acres that would produce American jobs and American energy resources.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion.

I urge opposition to this motion, Mr. Speaker.

What we have here in this motion to recommit is just the latest attempt by a few on the other side of the aisle to cater to special interests instead of the needs of the American people.

Behind me, I have a copy of the transboundary area that we're talking about, the Western Gap. You'll notice in that map you don't even see the State of Florida.

This bill enacts an agreement between the United States Government and Mexico to open up a million and a half acres to offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, an agreement negotiated by and signed by the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in February 2012.

We want to make sure this agreement will help create American jobs. We want to make sure that we're developing our resources in a safe and responsible way. We want to make sure that this bill puts us on the path toward North American energy independence.

This bill does all of those things, yet the gentleman that offers the motion says he is against the bill. Actually, he said he's for it, but for a lot of different reasons. But this is an attempt to delay the fact that we need to make changes.

The time for delay is over. The time to come together in a bipartisan way to create jobs through energy is at

hand. We want to develop these resources to achieve North American energy independence and end our dependence on Middle Eastern sources of energy, and we want to reduce the cost of fuel for all Americans.

We want this bill to be part of an all-of-the-above, all-American energy strategy. We want to provide the regulatory clarity and the certainty that energy producers need to explore the area, create the jobs, and produce the energy that we need. And for all of you still on the fence about whether or not to support this bill, let us remember that this is the administration's agreement, and we actually want to get it enacted.

So let's get to work creating American jobs while producing American energy. Let's defeat this motion and let's pass this bill to put Americans back to work.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a jobs bill. It creates American jobs, producing American energy. So it's an energy security bill, as well. And there can be no national security without energy security. So this is a national security bill, as well.

Virginians get it, South Carolinians get it and Americans get it. The first domino is the jobs that are created on the offshore rigs. But if you ride on Highway 90 from Lafayette, Louisiana, down toward New Iberia and Houma, Louisiana, you're going to see on both sides of the road business after business after business that is supporting the offshore industries. These are pipe welders, pipefitters, mechanics and the service industry.

You know what? Those guys contribute to the Chamber of Commerce and the United Way, and they go to church, they tithe and they eat at the local restaurants. This is a true job creator, and the first domino is the domino of putting Americans to work offshore, and that's what this bill does by opening up more areas on the Outer Continental Shelf. And with the trickle down, all the other dominos fall that provide money to the economies that desperately need it in this country in all the offshore areas.

We want it in South Carolina. They want it in Virginia. And Americans want us to meet our energy needs with their own resources. That's why I urge the passage of this legislation, and I thank the chairman for his leadership.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to commend the gentleman from Louisiana for his amendment. I think it is the right thing. I thing the Gulf Coast States are treated unfairly with the cap. This raises the cap. It's the right thing.

I was talking with a gentleman from an ACC school--I know you're an LSU guy--but he was from Virginia Tech. He said, Go Hokies. I didn't like that, but he understands that Louisiana is treated unfairly when you compare to what is going on in Wyoming where they got a billion dollars last year in revenue.

My State of South Carolina is included in this bill, and they want the revenue-sharing as well. It is the right thing for the States that help produce America's energy. So I commend the gentleman. Let's raise that cap, and let's treat those Gulf Coast States fairly because they are the producers of American energy. And so I commend the gentleman.

I rise today in support of two of the bills that are under this rule, H.R. 1613, the Outer Continental Shelf Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreements Authorization Act, and H.R. 2231, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act. Both these bills do three things-- they provide for jobs; they provide for energy security; and they provide for national security.

Let's put Americans to work harvesting the resources that we have here in this country, and let's meet our energy needs. Because as Admiral Mullen said, there can be no national security without energy security. Let me repeat that: there can be no national security without energy security.

Let's open up these offshore areas that we have resources under and let's produce American energy here at home, putting Americans to work to provide for our energy needs.

I specifically rise to talk about H.R. 1613, which implements the Obama administration's own agreement, an agreement signed in Los Cabos by Secretary Clinton and Foreign Minister Espinosa from Mexico that says: Do you know what? There are resources under that shared boundary out in the Gulf of Mexico, the boundary shared between the United States and the country of Mexico; resources that can be explored and produced to meet our energy needs here at home working with our southern neighbor--Mexico--to share those resources and share the revenues.

Let's do it the right way. Let's do it with the American safety standards and American environmental standards that currently apply to American energy companies producing in the Gulf of Mexico. Let's require those Mexican companies to comply with those standards and then let's share those revenues. This is the right thing.

H.R. 1613 will implement that agreement, but it will do something else. It will remove the uncertainty and provide for American competitiveness when you're competing with foreign countries such as Mexico. This is the right thing for America. Put Americans to work, meet energy needs, and meet our national security needs. That's why House Republicans have focused on an all-of-the-above American energy strategy, and these bills are part of that.

I thank the gentleman.

I have stood on the floor many times in my short service in the United States Congress to talk about this very topic, and that's American energy independence.

We hear terms like all-of-the-above energy approach and energy policy. I like to think about an all-American energy policy where we utilize American resources to meet our energy needs in this country.

I applaud the House Republicans, and specifically the House Energy Action Team, for focusing on three things--jobs, energy security, and national security. And they go hand in hand.

By pursuing an all-American energy policy, we're putting Americans to work. Whether you're talking about voting the Keystone pipeline or talking about offshore drilling, putting Americans to work is what's important.

I think about North Dakota and an energy-driven economy in North Dakota, your great State. They give you a job when you get off an airplane up there whether you need one or not; that's how many jobs they have available. If you're looking for work, America, go to North Dakota. But let me tell you, that's a microcosm of what we could be in this great Nation if we truly pursued an energy policy utilizing American resources, putting Americans to work. That's really what it's about. And that's one thing that I think the House Energy Action Team is focused on.

The second thing is energy security: lessening our dependence on foreign sources of energy, utilizing the resources that we have in this country. God blessed the United States of America with the resources that we have here: oil, natural gas and coal.

We heard just this week that the Obama administration is going to wage a war on coal--not that they haven't already been waging a war on coal. But I think they're waging a war on American energy independence. Because by utilizing the resources that we have in this country, we could lessen our dependence on foreign sources and make certain parts of the world that seem hostile to American interests not so important. So American energy independence is the second thing.

The third thing segues right into that, and that's national security. In fact, I think it was Admiral Mullen that said there is no national security without energy security. Think about that for a minute. Energy security means that we do have national security, that we can meet our energy needs, not just to drive our economy and the engines of our economy, but also fuel the engines of our United States defense. Putting those airplanes in the air and the ships in the oceans and the tanks in the desert or in the forest, that takes energy. If we can meet our needs through American resources, then we do have true American independence. An all-American energy strategy is the right thing for this country.

Just this week, we're going to take up two very, very important bills. One of them deals with opening up all of the Outer Continental Shelf areas that are currently off-limits under the Obama administration moratorium--the moratorium that George Bush lifted. He said, you know what, we need to be energy independent; we're going to lift the moratorium for offshore drilling, and we're going to open up those areas for more utilization. And so we're going to do that.

Off the coast of my State, South Carolina, and Virginia and other places, we're going to go after those resources that we believe to be there. We're going to allow exploration. We're going to allow production. And we're also going to allow revenue-sharing back to those States whose economies are struggling now just like the U.S. economy when we're $17 trillion in debt.

Our State economies are struggling as well, But we can utilize and bring back revenue to the States through revenue-sharing. An example is Wyoming gets $1 billion a year in revenue-sharing for production on Federal lands. The Gulf Coast States get revenue back to those States. South Carolina would love to benefit from that as well.

The second thing--and I'll end with this--is a bill that I have on the floor that I authored that would implement an agreement that was signed by the Obama administration. Hillary Clinton--Secretary Clinton at the time--entered into this agreement with Foreign Minister Espinosa of Mexico that said, you know what, we have a maritime border, a border between the United States and Mexico. Out in the Gulf of Mexico in the water is a maritime border and, guess what, there are resources underneath that border. Who owns those? Does Mexico own those resources? Do we own those resources? They're shared resources.

So they entered into this agreement and said we're going to go after those in the Western Gap, not over near Cuba, but closer to the western side of the gulf. We're going to go after those resources, and we're going to allow exploration of those resources, production of those resources. And we're going to share those revenues with each country because we are co-owners of those resources.

They got this one right with this agreement. We're going to implement that because we waited a year on Ken Salazar with the Department of the Interior to send us the implementing language so that we can go forward with a lease in that area of the Western Gap, but he failed to do that. So we took the bull by the horns in the United States Congress, and we authored this legislation and said we think this is important to American energy security; we think this is important to national security; and we're going to work with our southern neighbor in Mexico, and we're going to develop those resources in that transboundary area with a hydrocarbon agreement, and we're going to go forward with implementing that. That's what this bill does.

America understands that we've got the resources. America understands we can work with Mexico and safely and soundly harvest those resources using American safety standards and regulation standards. It is the right thing for America, and that's H.R. 1613. I look forward to passage of that.

I thank the gentleman from North Dakota for his leadership on the House Energy Action Team.

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the pleasure of spending time with first responders and public safety personnel in my district. I toured facilities in seven counties, meeting with the men and women who are the first line of defense, the ones who go into danger rather than run away from it, the folks who are so critical to the safety of our citizens.

I believe it's important for our first responders to know that their hard work and sacrifice are appreciated. As one final step of this tour, I'd like to extend my deepest appreciation and gratitude to all those whom I did not get to personally speak with last week. On behalf of South Carolina's Third District, and Americans all across the country, we thank you for everything that you do.

Mr. Speaker, it is also with great sadness that I rise today in honor of the fallen first responders, many of whom are volunteers, who gave their lives in Houston, Texas, and West, Texas, recently. May the Members of this House honor the memory and heroism of every first responder who has lost their life serving this great Nation.

May God bless the families of the fallen. And I ask every American to remember them in your thoughts and prayers.

May God continue to bless the United States of America with heroes such as these.

I thank Chairman Denham for yielding me this time, and I want to commend Chairman Shuster and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for bringing this bill to the floor at this time.

This is a very important bill. As Speaker Boehner said on the floor yesterday, it would create 20,000 direct jobs and about 100,000 indirect jobs. The State Department estimated 42,100 direct jobs, and these are American jobs. We have millions of people--too many millions--who are unemployed, Mr. Chairman, and many millions more who are underemployed, who are having to work at jobs far below their skills, talents, and abilities. This will create good American jobs. There would be 830,000 barrels of oil a day being piped down. By itself, maybe it wouldn't bring down gas prices, but it certainly would keep OPEC and some of these other foreign energy producers from raising their prices as fast as they surely would like to and have done in the past.

I can tell you that, if we don't pass this bill and similar bills to increase energy production in this country, all we're going to be doing is helping OPEC and other foreign energy producers. It's time we start putting our own people, our own workers first, start putting our own country first again; and we need to pass this bill to help in that process.

I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa for his comments and his dedication to immigration reform in this country.

When I was running for Congress, I remember Congressman King coming to South Carolina and attending some of my events where we talked about immigration and we talked about the border. So I applaud the gentleman for his past work on that. I look forward to continuing our efforts.

The past 2 weeks, the discussion in Washington has been about trust. It's been about trust, whether we're talking about the false and misleading talking points that were used by the administration in Benghazi, the wiretapping of reporters, specifically the AP, by the Justice Department or the IRS illegally targeting conservative groups, and the public trust in our government is rightfully at an all-time low.

So when we're debating immigration reform, obviously trust is the number one issue on people's minds because

they know that the government often promises to do things but never follows through. And that is the case when we're talking about immigration. We're talking about the laws that are already on the books that I'll talk about in just a few minutes. But people have made it very, very clear, Americans have made it very clear that they want two main things. They want us to secure our border--primarily we're talking about our southern borders where the issue seems to be at hand today-- but they want our borders secured, and they don't want amnesty.

They don't want to give away citizenship rights to folks who have broken the laws to come here because what happens is you water down what it means to be a United States citizen when you just carte blanche give those citizenship rights away to folks that are lawbreakers, that have broken the law to come here, regardless of how honorable and well intentioned their reasons for coming here are. They still broke the sovereign laws of the United States of America by crossing that border without permission and without legal immigration paperwork. They have broken the United States law.

What's interesting is that currently almost half the people in the United States who are here illegally didn't walk across a southern border or they didn't walk across a northern border. They came here legally. They applied in their host country, their home country, at a United States consulate or a United States embassy, and they asked permission to come to the United States either as a tourist here on vacation, or they asked to come here to attend one of our fine universities in this country under an F-1 student visa, or they came here on some sort of work visa. They probably flew into this country through an airport or got off a ship.

We know something about them. America, these visa overstays, people that came here legally, they had those interviews, we know who they are, we have their name, we have what they were coming here to do, and usually we have a last known address for that person. Folks, this is low-hanging fruit. And if we're going to talk about addressing illegal immigration in this country, we ought to first address the visa overstays. We ought to first address, America, the folks that came in this country legally, they asked permission to come here, and we granted them that permission. And then they just decided--and I understand their deciding because this is a great country--but they just decided they liked it so much they decided to stay.

How do we know that? Well, we really don't know that they either have or have not left the country because this Nation has a failed exit system. We have an entry system where we know when they come into this country from another country under a visa where we granted them permission, but we really don't know when they leave. Japan knows when you leave that country if you're there as an immigrant or you're there as a tourist. Other countries do, as well.

Currently over half or almost half of all our illegal aliens in this country came here legally. And we're not doing enough about it. We're not enforcing the laws that are on the books, and that doesn't do anything to build what I talked about in the beginning, and that is the people's trust.

And then you throw in the fact that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement--ICE, we call it--they just released thousands of detainees, people that they had detained for immigration violation. They just opened the door and let them go, many of whom had criminal records. This was a pre-response to the sequester.

Before the sequester actually kicked in, across-the-board budget cuts, our immigration enforcement officials decided, You know what? We're going to go ahead and apply sequester because we don't want to do our jobs. We don't want to detain these people. We're going to open the doggone jail cells and we're going to let them go. Take that, guys in Congress. We're doing the sequester the way we want to do it. And they let these people go, many of whom, Americans, have criminal records, and they're on the streets now. That doesn't do anything to build the people's trust, not a thing. We're talking about trust.

We've got to secure our border. We've got to enforce the current immigration laws that we have. We don't need some comprehensive immigration reform package. We already have the laws on the books that deal with immigration issues in this country, and we are not enforcing those. So why are we going to create a whole other set of laws and then fail also to enforce those? If our government can't first prove that our legal immigration system works and that they can enforce the laws that are currently on the books, then why in the world would we believe that adding more stress to the system will improve things?

I think visa overstays are low-hanging fruit in the immigration debate. It's the canary in the coal mine. If we can't trust the Federal Government to enforce those existing laws of a list of people whom we know a lot about, then how do we expect the government to do what we're talking about government having to do in the new immigration bill?

So I talked about entry/exit. We need to fix that. You need to be aware, America, that we need to know when people come here illegally and we need to know when they leave our country. When they don't leave our country in that allotted time that they're allowed to come in, we grant them permission, then we need to go knock on their door at their last known address--at that university, at that hotel that they put down that they were going to be staying at, at that place of business that they were granted a work visa to come here to work at. We need to pay them a visit. That's low-hanging fruit.

We don't have to chase footprints in the desert. We know who these people are. They didn't just come across the border on their own. We know who they are. So that builds trust.

I ask people, Mr. King, around my district, what does a secure border really look like? They struggle with that definition of a secure border, what that truly looks like in their mind's eye. I do as well. But the first thing I think of is concrete, steel, and barbed wire, a fully secured border where we control who comes across. We control it through natural ports of entry.

But I realize--I've been to the border. I realize that's not feasible. Concrete, steel, and barbed wire doesn't work in a lot of the mountainous areas in Arizona. I get that. But a lot more concrete, steel, and barbed wire, a lot more fencing, vehicle barriers, or whatnot, that will basically push the bad guys, the folks, the smugglers and others who want to come into this country, into corridors. We can more actively enforce those corridors to apprehend those people when they do cross our border illegally. That works.

Congress believed it worked in 2006, because in 2006 we passed the Secure Fence Act. We already have a law on the books that decides that we're going to build a secure fence on our southern border. 2006. It's 2013. Seven years ago, we decided we were going to secure our border. What have we done about it? We've got several hundred miles of fencing out of a several-thousand-mile border. We need to build more fencing. And I realize, before the American people, that fencing isn't an answer, but fencing is a great start. So let's do that.

Then we need commonsense reform to our current immigration system. I talk to farmers in my district who are concerned about the comprehensive immigration reform package that we're working on. In fact, the farmers in my district work with farmers all over this country to deal with the guest worker program for agriculture, and they were able to get the American Farm Bureau and some of the other farmers to finally agree on some language. I'm all for that.

I think we need to expand the legal guest worker programs for this country--that's my personal opinion--to provide legal workers to the necessary industry, whether it's agriculture or others. I'm going to focus on agriculture because that's what's on my mind today. But a legal immigration system that provides the workers--whether it's H-2A or H-2B--some sort of new program that increases the number of legal workers that come here, and we get biometric data, we get a thumbprint from them, and it's not transferable. That paperwork is solid for that individual. You have some sort

of tie-in with the employer so the employer has some ownership, so to speak, of that record, that they asked for that employee, that employee is gainfully working with them. And when that employee decides to go to work for somebody else, that employer notifies the government, Hey, he's not working for me anymore, but he did go work for XYZ company. XYZ company says, Yes, he's a worker in my facility.

Let's continue that. These are commonsense approaches that we need to talk about in this country before we grant amnesty, before we grant citizenship rights to folks who broke our laws.

And that word ``amnesty,'' Mr. King, is thrown around way too much up here, and it gets watered down in the eyes of the Americans. But what it means, it means that everything that you're granted in the United States Constitution as a citizen of this country, what it means to be an American citizen, gets watered down when we give those citizenship rights away to people who broke our laws coming here. That's what it means. We need to remember that in this debate about immigration reform that, No amnesty, guys, no amnesty; and then let's approach a secure border.

Let's talk about the low-hanging fruit of the illegals that are here that we granted them permission. Let's deal with those issues. That's half the problem right off the bat. We stem the flow of others coming here so we're not adding to those numbers, and then that other 50 percent that aren't visa holders we can start dealing with at that point in time. These are simple things, Mr. King, that we have got to deal with.

Every time we've granted amnesty in the past, we've regretted it as a Nation. We've regretted it. We've truly regretted it because we've failed to truly secure our borders. We've failed to truly reform the system. And every amnesty that's happened before--rewarding lawlessness and those who break the laws--has only encouraged more lawlessness and more illegal immigration. It's time to stop that cycle.

You mentioned the folks that are coming from Mexico. I was recently down at the King Ranch in Texas, which is eastern Texas--830 acres, a larger ranch than the whole State of Rhode Island. They own their own security force, Mr. King. I was talking with the security force about the illegals that are coming into this country that travel. They traverse the King Ranch.

One thing he said, a term that he used, was OTM. I had to ask him what that was. And he said, Other than Mexicans. And I said, Well, I thought that was a little bit harsh. And he said, Well, what that means is they're not Mexican, they're not Honduran, they're not Nicaraguan, they're not Guatemalan. They are African, Middle Eastern, and Asian. And I said, you're kidding me? He said, No. He said, Congressman, we have apprehended folks that were Middle Eastern that didn't speak Spanish or English, that spoke Farsi--Africans or Orientals or Asians that were here that have come across.

And it took me aback, because I started to think, well, I know that the Latin Americans, the Hispanics that are coming, are generally coming for work to provide for their families. I've been to Guatemala; I've been to Mexico. I understand that desire to come to America and chase that American Dream that I'm living today and try to make a reality and future for your children. But these were people other than that.

And so being on the Homeland Security Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee, I'm concerned that we've got others coming here from those parts of the world--Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. What are they coming here for?

And I'm reminded that Iran and its special Revolutionary Guard Quds Force hatched a plan to deal with the drug cartels to help them assist them to come across our southern border into this country into this very town to assassinate the Ambassador from Saudi Arabia at a restaurant in Washington. They were trying to utilize connections with the drug cartel in Mexico to come across our poor southern border.

And so when I hear that we've got Africans or Middle Easterners or Asians coming into this country, I have to remember as an American, understanding the homeland security nature, I have to wonder what they're coming for. And I also wonder if we had a truly secure border, would we be seeing that.

So I thank the gentleman for mentioning that other than Mexicans, others that are coming or may be coming into this country. I believe they are coming into this country. What are they coming for? We need to ask ourselves that question.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with heavy heart to honor a military hero and one of my constituents, and a casualty of war. Private First Class Barrett L. Austin died on April 21 after being a casualty, I believe, of an IED while serving his country in Afghanistan. Barrett Austin was just 20 years old. He was assigned to A Company, 4th Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division, out of Fort Stewart, Georgia. Private First Class Austin was a beloved son, husband, friend, and soldier from the Dacusville-Easley, Pickens County area of South Carolina.

My heart goes out to his wife, his parents, and all of those who called Barrett a friend. This true American hero has made the true sacrifice in defense of our great Nation, and we owe him our eternal gratitude. This Nation remains the greatest on Earth because of people like Barrett Austin, and we must never forget the true cost of the freedoms that we enjoy.

So on behalf of the Third District of South Carolina and the entire Nation, we thank you, Barrett, for your sacrifice. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the entire Austin family. May God bless them, and may God continue to bless America.

Folks in South Carolina are concerned about where we are with energy in this country. Energy independence is something that's on the minds of folks back home.

You know, I drive a diesel truck, and the gentleman from Ohio was talking about diesel fuel just recently. When I was at the fuel pump recently fueling my truck with diesel fuel, I was paying about $3.85 a gallon. It dawned on me, as I watched the 18-wheelers roll by coming from the pumps where they filled up, that if we were able to really achieve American energy independence and we were able to lower the cost at the pump for America's truckers and all of America's families--but I use trucking as an example. If we could truly lower the cost of diesel fuel for America's truckers by just $1, if we could produce enough American energy resources to lower diesel fuel from that $3.85 a gallon that I was paying down to $2.85 a gallon--those 18-wheelers that were rolling by I believe had 400-gallon diesel tanks.

Think about that, America. Think about if that truck or that trucking company was able to save $400 per fill-up for that 18-wheeler, and think about the number of trucks you pass on America's interstates and highway systems. If we could save that, think about the trickle-down effect that that would have for consumer products.

We're not just talking about gasoline and diesel fuel. The American hydrocarbons that are produced when they're refined, they're refined into a lot of different products. And I would ask folks to research what a barrel of hydrocarbon or fossil fuel, oil, when you put that under extreme pressure, the heat created, how it separates out and all the different products that come from a barrel of oil. It's an amazing component that God has given us.

In South Carolina, we understand that the Nation can achieve American energy independence; but we also understand that if we can't have American energy independence, why not an all-American energy strategy where we work with our neighbors to the north, our largest and best trading partner, the Canadians, or we work with the Mexicans and the folks to the south with a transboundary agreement; allow that area where the boundary between Mexico and the United States is, that we can drill in that area and we have an agreement for revenue sharing on the oil produced there.

But let's go back to our neighbors in the north, our largest and best trading partner. The former speaker of the house from South Carolina, David Wilkins, was Ambassador to Canada under the Bush administration. I spent a lot of time with Speaker Wilkins, Ambassador Wilkins, and we talked about Canada and we talked about the oil sands. This was before the Keystone XL pipeline.

But let's focus on the Keystone XL pipeline to bring that Canadian oil to American refineries that are sitting there with the capacity to refine that Canadian oil. What do I mean by capacity? It's idle capacity. It's capacity that could be utilized to refine American resources or Canadian resources coming down to those refineries, refining that into the products that we enjoy as America.

That's why the Keystone XL pipeline is so important. Let's put Americans to work. We hear a lot about job creation and putting Americans to work. Well, this truly would. Mr. Speaker, this Keystone XL pipeline would put Americans to work in those refineries, refining that oil into all the chemicals and gasoline products and everything that we use out of a barrel of hydrocarbons or a barrel of oil. The Keystone pipeline is something that should happen in this country.

The opponents on the other side say: Well, that oil is just going to flow from Canada. It's going to flow through the United States. It's going to go to our refineries. But those contracts have been let, and that oil and those gasoline products are going to be used in other markets. It will not do anything to affect the price at the pump here.

That's what the other side says.

Here's a simple economic example:

It's supply and demand. Global demand is high right now, and the supply is low. The supply is low for a lot of reasons: the OPEC cartel and other things. Policies, moratoriums, and other things from this administration keep global supply down.

Let's assume that the oil from Canada does flow through the United States, refined at our refineries, and does flow out of this country. So what? That increased supply will meet the increased demand. And by meeting that demand, that will drive the price down, not only for Americans, but for everyone across the globe.

It's the right thing to do to put Americans to work to refine that oil into those products at American refineries. It's true job creation.

While we're on the subject of job creation, Mr. Speaker, and the gentleman that's heading up the House Energy Action Team, which is focused on an all-American energy strategy and American energy independence, while we're talking about job creation, let's talk about my State of South Carolina.

We've been excluded in the next 5-year plan, the plan that would allow offshore drilling off our coast on the Outer Continental Shelf. Right now, folks, the whole Atlantic shelf is off limits to drilling, with the exception of a very proactive State of Virginia, which has been able to include Virginia's offshore area in the next 5-year plan. We'll see if that comes to fruition.

But South Carolina is sitting there saying, with a lot of the other Atlantic States, We believe we have some resources off our coast. We believe there's natural gas off the coast of South Carolina. Let's allow South Carolina's offshore area to be included in the next 5-year plan.

What does that mean? Does that mean we're going to rush right out there and punch a hole in the Earth and start producing? Maybe; maybe not. What it does mean is that it allows that exploration. It allows those energy companies to say: You know what? That area is going to be opened up. We haven't explored out there in 30 years. It was 30-year- old technology when we went out there before. Let's go out there with new technology. Let's find out what sort of resources might be off the coast of South Carolina on the Outer Continental Shelf of the Atlantic seaboard. Let's go out there. Let's find out what might be there, and let's start producing that.

You know what happens when we do start producing? I just ask you to drive down to Louisiana and get on Highway 90 from Lafayette down to New Iberia and down to Houma and Thibodaux and those areas. You get on that four-lane highway, Mr. Johnson, and you ride down that highway, on both sides of the four-lane highway, business after business after business after business after business--and I could go on and on. These are businesses that aren't out there actually doing the drilling because those lease sales were to ExxonMobil or Halliburton or some of those companies. These are the service companies that are servicing offshore drilling.

Think about this for a minute. Think about the guys that are using the barges and the offshore boats that carry the service boats that are taking the drilling mud and the casing and the piping and the diesel fuel for the generators and the food and the personnel and everything else that goes offshore out to the platform. Then think about this: they're companies on shore. They're running trucks up and down the road that need truck repair; they need body repair. We need pipe welders and pipe fitters.

Like I said, business after business after business there in Louisiana is helping the offshore industry.

And South Carolina is sitting there going, Well, you know what? If we allowed drilling offshore and we allowed this to happen on the Outer Continental Shelf, then maybe those businesses would come to South Carolina--the service boats, the drilling mud, the providers of the onshore pipe fitters and pipe boilers. And you know what? Those guys have to eat. And so they fill up the local restaurants and they shop at the local Piggly Wiggly. And guess what. They give to the United Way and they give to the local church, and it's a trickle-down economy when you've got people working and you've people creating businesses and providing income to an economy.

When we think about an all-American, energy-independent energy structure, we need to think about all of the jobs that are created through that American energy independence; and it's not just the guys that are doing the offshore drilling, and it's not just the guys that are doing the hydraulic fracturing here. That is a tremendous component, and it's working in Pennsylvania, and should be working in southern New York. It's working in Ohio. It's producing resources.

When we talk about energy, we focus a lot right now on North Dakota. North Dakota, my gosh, it's a microcosm of what we could be in this country if we truly pursued an American energy policy. North Dakota, 3 percent unemployment or less. Some say it's a negative unemployment. I say, when you get off an airplane in North Dakota, they give you a job whether you need one or not. You talk about a lack of housing; they don't have housing for people coming up there to take the jobs. If you need a job in America and you're willing to travel to North Dakota, you can go up and get $70,000 a year driving a water truck. Jobs are created.

North Dakota, a microcosm of what we could be in this country if we truly pursued an all-American energy policy, and that includes hydraulic fracturing. That includes drilling on Federal land that is currently off-limits to energy exploration, energy production, but it's also off-limits to wind and solar. Federal land that you own--America. The American taxpayers own this Federal land, and it ought to be utilized to the maximum benefit for American taxpayers.

Folks, we can reduce our fuel prices at the pump. We can reduce your prices for electricity at home, and that's through an American energy policy that's truly all of the above.

And so I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio leading this leadership hour, giving me an opportunity to speak about something that I am very passionate about, and that is an all-American energy policy that produces resources here, lessens our dependence on the Middle East, lessens our dependence on the OPEC cartel, truly trades with our neighbors to the north and the south, and approaches true independence.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this Nation's debt now stands in excess of $16 trillion. This is an amount of debt greater than our Nation's economy, exceeding our GDP, and yet, Madam Chair, we have on the floor today legislation which piles upon our children and grandchildren even greater burdens of debt.

Madam Chair, it's time to end the credit card economics. We simply cannot afford to continue to spend money that we're borrowing from countries like China on line items that we don't need and that Congress isn't constitutionally authorized to spend.

Madam Chair, my amendment strips one such line item out of this bill. This is really low hanging fruit. You see, this Sandy relief effort was plussed up, or increased, by $1 million to boost Legal Services Corporation, funding masquerading as disaster relief. And I thought we had a ban on earmarks in this Congress.

Why is a bailout for New York lawyers emergency hurricane relief? Even if you believe this is a legitimate government program--which I don't, by the way--but how can you argue with a straight face that spending on lawyers is legitimate emergency spending?

Madam Chair, let me say again, we're $16 trillion in debt. We're $16 trillion in debt, America. We simply cannot afford to continue like this. We cannot keep spending money that we don't have on things that we can't afford and all the while sending our children and our grandchildren the bill.

What part of $16 trillion in debt do you all not understand?

I sincerely hope that my colleagues will take this opportunity to start to get serious about reining in our spending addiction. This amendment is a tiny step in that direction. It's only $1 million. A million dollars is brushed off as not a lot of money to haggle over here in Congress, but let me tell you, $1 million is a lot of money to the average American. But in this House, that's barely a blip on the radar screen.

This amendment will cut 6 percent of 1 percent of 1 percent of 1 percent of the Federal debt. It isn't that much, but at least it's a start. The journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step, Madam Chair, and we need to take that step today.

This is a program that should no longer exist with Federal dollars. This program hasn't been reauthorized by the U.S. Congress since 1980; 33 years--33 years--of unauthorized appropriations, Madam Chair. Are we going to continue like it's business as usual?

The GAO has criticized LSC over its internal controls and lack of accountability in their financial reporting processes and systems, yet, year after year, we keep throwing money at them. We cannot keep doing things the same way and expect anything other than the same result: deeper and deeper in debt, with a bill that my sons and their children and--hopefully--my grandchildren and maybe their children will get stuck with. Today, let's at least not throw more good money after bad by wasting another $1 million on an unauthorized giveaway to attorneys.

Please support my amendment. It will strip $1 million from this bill and prevent any ``emergency spending'' to pay for attorneys that should be paid for by private citizens in the private sector.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

``Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States; but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.''

Let me first say how proud we are that the Governor of South Carolina appointed one of our colleagues, Tim Scott, to the United States Senate yesterday. We wish him well.

I want to thank Madam Chairman for her leadership on this issue and her leadership on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I also want to thank Chairman Royce, the new chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for his leadership on this as this bill came through the TNT Subcommittee. I want to thank the folks on the other side of the aisle that worked with us in a bipartisan fashion to pass this unanimously through the committee. It passed the House unanimously. I thank the Senate for taking up this very important issue. Furthermore, I want to thank Chairman Mike McCaul, the new chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, for leading a codel specifically focused on this issue this past summer to South America.

We're all aware of the Iranian threat or their proxies' activity here in this hemisphere. Whether it's the thwarted assassination attempt last year where the Quds Force operatives of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard were trying to use Mexican drug cartel connections to enter the United States to assassinate the Ambassador from Saudi Arabia, or the fact that it has recently been revealed that Hezbollah had a terrorist training camp or a training camp of some origin in Nicaragua here in this hemisphere, we know that Iran is active here.

Last week, the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Europe and the Americas visited Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Uruguay. This follows Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's frequent trips to the region. Most recently, Iranian naval commanders have expressed their intent to extend Iran's maritime presence into the Atlantic Ocean, closer to the coastlines of the U.S.

With this piece of legislation, we seek to protect U.S. citizens from threats from Iran and defend American interests and assets here in this hemisphere. It requires the Secretary of State to conduct an assessment and develop a coordinated and targeted strategy, working together with our allies and partners here in the region, to address Iran's growing hostile presence and activity in the Western Hemisphere. With this, it establishes a strong U.S. posture, policy, and most important, a relationship with Latin American countries. It requires a plan to define and outline the presence, activities, and operations of Iran, the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force, Hezbollah, and any of their proxy organizations or transnational criminal organizations linked to Iran that may be present here. We require a plan to protect U.S. interests and assets here in the Western Hemisphere, including our embassies, consulates, businesses, energy pipelines, and cultural organizations, including threats to U.S. allies.

Iran's actions here in our neighborhood represent a real threat to our safety and security, and I urge my colleagues to concur in the Senate amendment so that this legislation may pass the House and be sent to the desk of the President of the United States.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your leadership on this very important issue.

I want to pause to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins) for his leadership on the other side of the aisle.

Last week, Congress took a rare break from our work here and from partisanship. We came together to remember those who died on 9/11 and during the war on terrorism. We stood together on the Capitol steps, and we pledged that we would never forget the heartbreaking events of that fateful day. One of the ways we can honor the memory of those who lost their lives is to be prepared so that our country will never again experience such a tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, that's why I'm standing before you today, thanking you and the Members of the body for putting partisanship aside and for working together to keep our families and our communities safe from new and emerging threats to our Nation.

We are all aware of the Iranian nuclear threat in the Middle East and globally, but there is another potential threat from Iran and its proxies that is closer to home. That threat is an emerging Iranian- backed terror network here in the Western Hemisphere. What we already know is very alarming.

We know about last October's foiled Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the U.S. here on American soil.

We know that Iran has vastly expanded its diplomatic and economic footprint in Latin America. For example, we know about the Department of Defense's 2012 Annual Report on Iran that stated:

During the past three decades, Iran has methodically

cultivated a network of sponsored terrorist surrogates

capable of targeting U.S. and Israeli interests.

Just this month, the Brazilian journal Veja and others reported on a police seizure in Bolivia of 2 tons of minerals believed initially to contain uranium but more likely tantalum, which is the mineral that is in demand for, among other things, nuclear reactors and missile parts.

We know that 2 weeks ago an Israeli news organization revealed that Iran has established a Hezbollah terrorist training base in northern Nicaragua with operatives ``being trained at the base to attack Israeli and U.S. targets in the event of a raid on Iranian nuclear installations.''

And we know that just last week, press reports revealed that three suspected Hezbollah members were arrested just south of our border in Mexico.

None of this should come as a surprise. Iran has publicly stated that increasing their presence and ties to Latin America is one of their top foreign policy objectives; however, we must have the capabilities to defend ourselves from potential Iranian attacks here on the homeland. We must be able to clearly identify this emerging threat and develop strategies which include working with our neighbors here in this hemisphere to prevent Iran from being a danger to our country here at home.

Mr. Speaker, that's why this bill, H.R. 3783, establishes a strong U.S. posture, policy, and relationship with Latin American countries. It protects U.S. interests and assets in the Western Hemisphere, such as embassies, consulates, energy pipelines, and cultural organizations, including threats to U.S. allies. It addresses the vital national security interests of the United States by ensuring that energy supplies from the Western Hemisphere are

free from the influence of any foreign government that would attempt to manipulate or disrupt global energy markets.

This bill requires a secure U.S. border with the U.S. working in coordination with the governments of Mexico and Canada to prevent Iranian operatives from entering the United States. This bill counters the efforts by foreign persons, entities, and governments in the region which may assist Iran in evading U.S. and international sanctions.

Mr. Speaker and Madam Chairwoman, I urge that Members of this body come together and vote for this very important issue, H.R. 3783.

Last week marked the 11th anniversary of al Qaeda's attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Al Qaeda, responsible for the tragic deaths of nearly 3,000 people on 9/11, has long operated with extensive ties to the Government of Iran. The 9/11 Commission documented that al Qaeda operatives traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives in the 1990s, that ``Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.'' This past February, the Treasury Department designated the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security for its support of terrorist groups including al Qaeda.

Today, the Iranian regime continues pursuing nuclear weapons against U.S. and international sanctions. It warns of striking U.S. military bases with its ballistic missiles in the event of an attack on Iran. It bullies the global energy market with its threats to block the Strait of Hormuz. Last October's foiled Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. revealed, as DNI Director Clapper stated, a change in ``calculus'' and a willingness ``to conduct an attack in the United States.'' This year alone, a string of assassination attempts by Iran and Hezbollah in Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Thailand, Georgia, and Kenya have only intensified this drumbeat.

Add to these dangers a growing Iranian presence in the Western Hemisphere and we have a serious security threat that demands a U.S. response. Since 2005, Iran has increased its embassies from 6 to 11 and built 17 cultural centers in Latin America. Iran's diplomacy has led to soaring trade with Latin American countries. Brazil increased its exports to Iran seven-fold over the past decade to an annual level of $2.12 billion. Iranian trade with Argentina and Ecuador has grown, and economic contracts between Iran and Venezuela have exploded to more than $20 billion in trade and cooperation agreements.

Iran has also boosted its military ties with Latin America. The Defense Department assesses ``with high confidence that during the past three decades Iran has methodically cultivated a network of sponsored terrorist surrogates capable of targeting U.S. and Israeli interests.'' The U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute has labeled this threat tied to the explosion of relationships between transnational crime and criminalized states in Latin America an ``emerging tier-one national security priority.'' Two weeks ago, an Israeli news organization published a story that ``Iran has established a Hizbullah terrorist training base in northern Nicaragua'' with operatives ``being trained at the base to attack Israeli and U.S. targets in the event of a raid on Iranian nuclear installations.'' Last week, press reports revealed that three suspected Hezbollah members were arrested in Mexico.

None of this should come as any surprise to us. Iran has publicly stated that ``the promotion of all-out cooperation with Latin American countries is among the top priorities of the Islamic Republic's foreign policy.'' A 2009 dossier by Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs put it bluntly: ``since Ahmadinejad's rise to power, Tehran has been promoting an aggressive policy aimed at bolstering its ties with Latin American countries with the declared goal of `bringing America to its knees.'

The U.S. must have the capabilities to defend itself from a potential Iranian attack on the homeland. We must have a strong posture in our region and deepening relationships with our neighbors, so we can protect U.S. interests and keep the Western Hemisphere free from hostile agents of foreign influence. We must have secure borders to prevent Iranian operatives from entering the U.S. It is unconscionable that we should let Iran use Latin American countries as a base to prepare for potential attacks against the U.S. homeland. Iran poses an incalculable risk to the safety of the U.S. homeland. Our duty is to ensure we provide for the defense of this country, and the American people expect no less. I ask for your support of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I give thanks to the Natural Resources Committee for their hard work on this issue.

As my good friend, Jeff Landry, the Congressman from Louisiana reminds us, drilling equals jobs. And Republicans have a plan for job creation in America, and it begins not with a government takeover of our health care industry like the Democrats thought would create jobs. It begins with America pursuing energy independence, utilizing the resources that we are blessed with in this country, primarily right now in the offshore areas. We do this by expanding the areas of our Outer Continental Shelf that are included in our Nation's plan for exploration over the next 5 years. It seems simple to the average American, and that's what frustrates them so much, that we would refuse to at least explore our reserves and meet our energy needs in this country.

With a 9.4 percent unemployment rate in South Carolina, South Carolina understands that drilling equals jobs. Jobs we want, and that is why the Palmetto State offshore area is included in this bill.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this American Jobs and Energy initiative by passing H.R. 6082.