K. Conaway

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, this morning I introduced the Carbon Capture Act, which makes simple changes to the existing section 45Q tax credit that further incentivizes carbon capture and sequestration projects. CCS technology will help reduce carbon emissions while simultaneously creating jobs, bolstering domestic oil production, and providing regulatory relief for our coal industry. Yes. You heard that right. The benefits of CCS are bringing folks who do not traditionally work together to the same table for the betterment of our Nation's energy security. Often people believe they are forced to choose between supporting economic development or environmental stewardship. However, this bill is evidence that that is a false choice. Above all, CCS serves as a testament to the entrepreneurial spirit and gumption found throughout this great country. In Texas District 11, I have seen this innovative spirit daily. These projects will play an important role in west Texas' and our Nation's future energy portfolio. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of Phil Neighbors. Phil was a pillar in the San Angelo community, and I had the pleasure of working with him frequently over the last decade. Phil dedicated his life to three things: to God, his family, and his community. He and his wife, Susan, had two children together, and four grandchildren. It wasn't uncommon for Phil to run straight to a city event from his grandsons' ball games--he seemed to make time for everyone while placing the truly important things in life first. Phil was deeply ingrained in Angelo. A graduate of Angelo State University, he led the San Angelo Chamber of Commerce for the last 10 years. In this role, he strengthened the community and helped Angelo become a better place to live and raise a family. He dedicated his life to this calling, taking on many duties, none of which were too small or large, for the betterment of the community. One example was the bridge he helped build between the Goodfellow Air Force Base and the Angelo community. He established a strong and lasting bond for the betterment of both. He embraced our service- members, and was always willing to support them and our military in any way that he could. As a deacon in the Baptist church, Phil led the church's college program and many mission trips to Mexico. He was a selfless servant, a trait that extended beyond the city, state, and country's borders. Everyone felt and knew Phil's warmness and thoughtfulness of others. His guidance and quiet diligence was reassuring to those around him and helped shape a community that is exemplary in Texas and the nation. Phil had no small part in creating such a community. We lost Phil far too soon, just days after his 64th birthday. His loss will be felt across the community and state, and his service will not be forgotten. Please join me in remembering and celebrating the extraordinary life of our friend Phil Neighbors.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Phil Neighbors. Phil was a pillar in the San Angelo community, and I had the pleasure of working with him frequently over the last 10 years. Phil dedicated his life to three things: to God, to his family, and to his community. He and his wife, Susan, had two children together and four grandchildren. It was not uncommon for Phil to run straight to a city event from his grandsons' ball games. He always made time for both his family and the city of San Angelo. A graduate of Angelo State University, he led the San Angelo Chamber of Commerce for the last 10 years. He was the bridge between the Goodfellow Air Force Base and the San Angelo community, helping to create a strong and lasting bond. He loved our military and was always willing to support our military in any way that he could. As a deacon in the Baptist church, Phil led the church's college program and many mission trips to Mexico. He was a selfless servant, a trait that extended beyond the city's, State's, and country's borders. We lost Phil far too soon, just days after his 64th birthday. San Angelo lost a truly great leader yesterday. Please join me in remembering the extraordinary life of my friend, Phil Neighbors.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 100th anniversary of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA). NASDA is a non-profit, non-partisan organization which represents the commissioners, secretaries, and directors of agriculture from all fifty states and four U.S. territories. The State departments of agriculture have served not only the farmers and ranchers of America, but also American consumers for a significant portion of our nation's history. NASDA is a highly effective association which serves to grow and enhance agriculture by forging partnerships and creating consensus to achieve sound policy outcomes between state departments of agriculture, the federal government, and stakeholders. These partnerships are apparent in the halls of almost every office building in the District of Columbia. I rely on the hard-working men and women in the Texas Department of Agriculture to provide me with perspectives on how federal policy is impacting boots on the ground agriculture. I'm sure my colleagues rely on their state department of agriculture in similar ways. NASDA is an active partner with the United States Department of Agriculture through a longstanding cooperative agreement to employ a nationwide network of enumerators in support of the mission of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). The data collected through this partnership informs a broad spectrum of legislative and regulatory initiatives, including farm programs under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture which I have the honor to chair. NASDA and its members likewise play a critical role informing Congress and the executive branch regarding the operation of federal and state programs covering everything from animal and plant health, food safety and marketing, nutrition, and literally hundreds of other consumer services. NASDA exists to amplify the unique voice of all state departments of agriculture. NASDA members are able to amplify their national voice by achieving consensus on otherwise contentious issues such as threatened and endangered species, agriculture labor, and water quality. Mr. Speaker, I join the members and stakeholders of NASDA in celebrating their 100th year of advocating for American agriculture. I wish NASDA many more years of public service to American agriculture at the critical nexus of state and federal policy.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 22, a resolution to disapprove the waters of the U.S. rule, a rule that amounts to a massive overreach by the Obama administration's EPA. This rule and the process in which the EPA developed it ignored stakeholders, ignored States, and, as reports have shown, even ignored concerns from the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal agency that was supposed to be co-developing the rule. Through hearings, letters, and public forums, we repeatedly asked the administration to simply start over with a process that works with stakeholders to achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act, rather than act like a schoolyard bully. We all want clean water, and we can and should work together to achieve it. Unfortunately, all of these requests fell on deaf ears, and the administration, in what has become an all-too-common pattern, moved forward to ram this bill through with little regard to the comments or the concerns of Americans. The final rule ignores the spirit and the intent of the law in that EPA has claimed Federal jurisdiction over essentially any body of water, such as a farm pond, or even a ditch that is dry most of the year. America's farmers and ranchers deserve a government that will review and consider their thoughts, not a government that refuses to engage stakeholders and hands down orders from on high. The process of developing the rule was flawed from the get-go, and the final product was right on par with an administration that wants to impose its authoritarian will on every inch of this great land. That is why the House voted overwhelmingly in favor of H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015. That is why I stand before you today to ask my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 22. Americans deserve better.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Army Major Trent Colestock, for his extraordinary dedication and service to the United States of America. Major Colestock will be moving on from his current assignment as an Army Congressional Liaison to the U.S. House of Representatives to Fort Hood, Texas. Army Congressional Liaisons provide an invaluable service to both the Military and Congress. They assist Congressional Members and staff in understanding the Army's policies, actions, operations, and requirements. Their first-hand knowledge of military needs, culture, and tradition is a tremendous benefit to Congress. Raised in Texas, Major Colestock commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the Army's Field Artillery. He has served and commanded in a variety of assignments including service at Fort Drum, Fort Hood, the Pentagon, and in Iraq. Major Colestock was selected for the highly competitive Congressional Fellowship Program in 2011. A few of Major Colestock's military awards include the Combat Action Badge, the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, and the Iraq Campaign Medal. He has also earned both the Parachutist and Air Assault Badges. He holds a Bachelor of Business Administration from Texas Christian University and a Master of Arts in Congressional Affairs from George Washington University. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize the selfless service of Major Colestock as he proceeds to the next chapter in his remarkable career serving our great Nation. On behalf of a grateful Nation, I join my colleagues in recognizing and commending Major Colestock for his dedicated service to our Country. It is my distinct pleasure to join with Trent's family, friends, peers, as they honor the accomplishments of his outstanding ongoing career.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman and Chairman Aderholt for the consideration they gave to our input. They were kind in that consideration, and we certainly appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, we have heard reasons why to vote for this bill: defense spending and lifting the ban on crude oil. Let me add one other aspect, and that is the repeal of the Country of Origin Labeling requirements that are currently in law. By repealing Country of Origin Labeling, we help American producers avoid in excess of $1 billion of retaliatory measures that Mexico and Canada are spring-loading to begin applying against American production. This repeal avoids that. Mr. Speaker, in my view, this adds additional weight to why I am supporting this bill. I would hope that my colleagues would look at the defense spending and look at the crude oil ban, but also look at the repeal of COOL as a reason why to support this bill and move it to the Senate and then to the President's desk. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' as I am. With that, again, I thank the chairman for his consideration during this process. We appreciate being a part of the work, and I look forward to supporting it.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Sgt. Michael Joe Naylor of the Midland County Sheriff's Department. Sadly, Sgt. Naylor was taken from us in the line of duty on October 9, 2014. Sgt. Naylor's life was dedicated to the service of his community and our county. After graduating from high school, Mike enlisted in the United States Air Force, where he served 26 honorable years and earning the rank of Senior Master Sergeant before retiring. After retiring from the military in 1999, Mike joined the Midland County Sheriff's Department. Through the years, Mike rose through the ranks and served as a leader on the police force. He was actively involved in many initiatives within the department, most notably serving as Commander of the Midland County Sheriff's Department Honor Guard. In addition to serving as a Deputy Sheriff, Mike was also an emergency medical technician. Mike's noble duty to always protect others is one of the many reasons that made him special to Midland County. Anybody who knew Mike would say that he was a compassionate and selfless professional that went above and beyond to serve his fellow man. His lifetime of service was recently recognized by the state of Texas with the renaming of State Highway 191 as the ``Sergeant Michael Naylor Memorial Highway''. I had the privilege to be a part of this dedication ceremony and am grateful for that opportunity. On December 27th, we will be celebrating Mike's 48th birthday. Although the wounds of his loss are still fresh in the hearts of many back home, we must all come together and remember all of the good that Mike offered to the world. We are blessed to have individuals like Mike that serve our communities. His service exemplifies every aspect of the American spirit and makes our communities stronger and safer. His life is an example of how one's service can make their home a better place. His legacy will forever be carried on by his wife Denise, the rest of his immediate family, and his family of first responders.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a distinguished citizen in my district, Mr. Charles Thomas Head. Later this month, Tommy will be retiring from banking after 38 years of tremendous service to the Mills County community. Tommy began his career at Mills State Bank as a loan officer on October 1, 1977. He served in this position for nearly ten years before being elected President of Mills County State Bank. As president, his leadership helped the bank grow from $30 million in assets to over $290 million in assets. Tommy's hard work also helped the bank expand from one location to five throughout the area. Although his professional accomplishments are impressive, Tommy's work within the community is even more extraordinary. He has been an active leader in countless community initiatives, including Goldthwaite's Texas Botanical Gardens & Native American Interpretive Center. The Native American Interpretive Center allows many residents of Mills County the opportunity to learn firsthand how generations of Native Americans in Texas have utilized the abundant resources Texas has to offer. The Texas Botanical Gardens is a living museum that offers visitors a look at the native plant species that were utilized by civilizations dating back 10-12,000 years ago. Many of these community initiatives would not be possible had it not been for the hard work, time, and dedication of Tommy Head. In addition, Tommy has also been instrumental in assisting local high school students who have won the Congressional Art Competition. This event is a districtwide art contest where students submit entries to their representative's office. The winner of the competition is recognized with their artwork here in Washington, D.C. Many of these winners have come from Mills County, and Tommy has always voluntarily taken care of the costs associated with this trip for these students and their guardians. For many of these students, this is a trip of a lifetime and it is all possible because of Tommy's generosity. We are blessed to have individuals in our country like Tommy. His selfless qualities exemplify every aspect of the American spirit and make our communities stronger. Tommy's lifetime of service will forever be an example of how people can make their home a better place. On behalf of the 11th District, I am honored to recognize Tommy's distinguished career in serving Mills County. I wish nothing but the best for him and his wife, Wynona, as they embark on a new chapter in their life.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Texas Society of CPAs on their 100th birthday. As a lifetime member of the TSCPA and a past chairman of the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, the TSCPA holds a special place in my heart. While not in plain view and often not recognized, CPAs are a special part of our communities. They do important oversight and regulation work that is integral to the functioning of our society. Bottom line, CPAs are essential for facilitating a thriving commercial system. Some important TSCPA initiatives include financial literacy education and financial preparation in the event of a disaster. Both of these outreach programs are designed to help the general public improve their lives. Simply put, TSCPA is teaching people how to fish. In a complex world, these financial skills will benefit them and their children for the rest of their lives. For 100 years, the TSCPA has been growing the profession, maintaining the profession's integrity, molding leaders, and helping others. Its growth is in the evidence of its success. Since its founding in 1915, the TSCPA has grown to 20 chapters and a membership of nearly 28,000 CPAs. I am a proud member of the profession. I am proud to be a CPA, I am proud of my fellow CPAs, and I am proud of the TSCPA. I wish them happy birthday on their 100th birthday.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership allowing me to visit with you about something that is near and dear to my heart. I hope we spend the better part of the next hour discussing a bill tomorrow that will be before this body, which is H.R. 702, which would lift the 40-year-old, decades-old ban on exporting a domestic product, a domestic commodity, called crude oil. As you look at the things that America buys and sells around the world, the only commodity that we produce here in the United States that we cannot export is crude oil. It harkens back to 40 years ago, and I will talk about it in a second. There are no restrictions on imports. You could import all the crude oil that you would like, but we have a restriction on exporting that crude oil. Now, the administration recently signaled a bit of a change in that in that they licensed a swap of certain number of barrels of heavy crude from Mexico for light sweet crude coming to the United States. So there was at least one opportunity recently where the Department of Commerce authorized that swap and, in effect, began to export some of this crude that we produce every single day. Forty years ago the Arab oil embargo and all the things that happened with that--most of the folks in this Chamber, except maybe you and I, don't necessarily recall the long lines at the gas station and the rationing and the way that even-numbered license plates were okay one day and odd-numbered license plates were okay the next day to buy gasoline. I can remember living in Dallas at the time. I would have to get up at 5 o'clock in the morning and go sit in line at a gas station in order to fill up the car so that I could make it downtown and back and forth. It was somewhat disruptive to our quiet lives. The price of oil went from $3 a barrel to $12 a gallon, a fourfold increase. That shock hammered the economy with a lot of things that were going on. As a part of that response, in addition to the response, just before the Arab oil embargo in the 1973-1974 timeframe, the United States had, through a secret study, determined that American crude oil production may have peaked in 1970 and that the wells in the United States that were then producing and the new ones that were going to be drilled and brought online--that the daily production in the United States would slowly decline from that point on and that that scarce resource of strategic value needed to stay here in the United States. So while we were even a net importer at that point in time, the wisdom of this House, the Senate, and the President at the time was: Let's just don't export any U.S. crude. Let's use all of it here. And then we will buy from other folks the crude oil that we need to make up the difference in our refinery loads. That held true for 35 years. Then something pretty stunning happened, and that was this incredible renaissance in the oil and gas business that has occurred over the last 5 years. When history writes about this era of the oil and gas business, it will talk about these incredible breakthroughs in technology and the science associated with it and the risk taking of the private sector. The current President likes to brag about the oil and increased production. Quite frankly, this has all come in the private sector, private lands, and private initiatives, where this has happened. Permitting on public property, public lands, has slowed down, and actual production off our Federal lands has shrunk from where it has been. So for 35 years it was a policy that was out there. It was never an issue because we didn't produce enough every day to export. Then about 5 years ago this process of increased production was driven by the shale oil play in the Bakken, the shale oil play in west Texas, and the shale oil play in the Eagle Ford shale in south Texas, big frac jobs, technologies that broke the rock up or allowed the oil to escape out of that rock in quantities heretofore not really contemplated or known. The oil was in the rock. Everyone knew that. They just didn't know how to get it out of the rock. This wonderful renaissance began to occur, and U.S. production began to increase every day to the point now that the estimates, had the price not dropped, were that, by 2020, we would be the largest exporter and that we would have an excess. So we already had a bit of an excess of crude oil in the United States because it had to go through U.S. refineries. U.S. refineries are set up to process heavy crude, which is not what is produced out of this oil shale. That is light, sweet crude. So, consequently, we had more light sweet. We are still importing crude every day from Venezuela and other countries that feed heavy crude into our refineries. So it got on everybody's radar screen that we need to figure out a way to unlock this market and eliminate the inefficiencies associated with not being able to export U.S. crude. As a result of that, there are two sets of prices in the world markets. There is a Brent price of crude, which is North Sea crude, and there is also a West Texas Intermediate price that is in the markets. There has been for a long time now a differential between those two prices. The West Texas Intermediate price, which is what our local American producers get, was less than the Brent crude. That differential was driven by the fact that we had no market for U.S. crude, other than U.S. refineries, given the laws and the restrictions that were in place. So the movement began to explore the opportunity for lifting this decades-long ban on crude oil. Throughout the years that Harry Reid was in charge of the Senate, it was a nonstarter because it was not likely we could get a bill like we are going to vote on tomorrow in the House through the Senate. With the Republican victory last November and control in the Senate by Republicans, it then became an opportunity for us to examine this policy and see if it makes sense. Just to set the record straight, even without the bad deal the President has foisted on us, we treat Iran better than we treat American producers. Because even before the sanctions are lifted in Iran, they can produce and export about a million barrels of crude oil a day. The U.S. is zero. So as you step back to look at the big picture, we treat Iran--with all the mischief they do and the bad actor they are and the threat to world peace that they are, they get better treatment than domestic producers, and that makes no sense whatsoever when you look at the overall issue. So we are at a point now where, with this drop in prices to almost half of what it was, we have begun to see that crude oil production will probably tail off here in the United States this quarter. But the oil is there. We know how to get it. The science is available. It is just simply driven by the price. Recovering the drilling and completion costs is what is causing the current decline in production, but we know where it is and how to go get it. When a well comes online, from day one, it will begin to produce less oil today than it did yesterday. That process, that decline, will move forward throughout the life of that well until it reaches its economic limit. The economic limit of a producing well is driven by the price versus how much it costs you to get it out of the ground, the taxes associated with the barrel, the royalties associated with it. Those have got to be in positive circumstances or it doesn't make any sense to produce that crude oil. In the drilling and the completion of a well, you have got to be able to recover that investment from the total number of barrels that you expect to produce out of that well. When you know those fixed costs going in, there are very few of those costs that are recoverable once you drill a well. Your only return is to sell the crude oil. And given how much you think that each well will produce, it has got to be at a price where you can recover that investment as well as cover your incremental costs each day of producing that crude oil. So there are some sound economic reasons why, at current prices of crude oil, there is less drilling going on and certainly less completions going on in the market. That oil is not going anywhere. That shale is just the way it was when the prices were a lot higher. So if prices were to recover and it made sense, then our American domestic producers could go back to producing more and would then reset that decline on an upward slope so that we are, in fact, producing more oil each day than we did yesterday because we are bringing on more wells every single day to offset the natural decline that each well will experience. While we have got this window of opportunity, it is time now to lift this crude oil ban. Mr. Speaker, I am joined by my neighbor, who represents the southern two-thirds of New Mexico. More importantly, he represents my three grandsons who live in Las Cruces, New Mexico. So I watch him like a hawk to make sure he is doing a good job representing my grandsons. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for his thoughts and comments. He and I are blessed to share a group of people who work across that State line between Texas and New Mexico-- our districts are contiguous with each other--who live in one State, work in the other, vice versa, some of the hardest working, most dedicated, patriotic folks on the face of the Earth, like his dad and his mom who have built wealth, raised a family, protected that family, and produced a U.S. Congressman. It makes them easy to talk about and easy to defend. I want to flush out this idea of the geopolitical aspects of lifting the ban. I was recently in a Baltic country in conversations with one of the top two leaders, and I had the chance to ask a question of the Prime Minister. I said: Mr. Prime Minister, if you could buy crude oil directly from the United States, would it make your issues with Putin and all the mischief and things he is up to less difficult to deal with? He lit up like a Christmas tree. He said: Oh, absolutely, absolutely. We would love to buy U.S. crude and not spend that money with Putin and Russia and help lift the boot--the Russian boot off their neck--that is driven by crude oil and natural gas. If they could supply to these countries that can't supply themselves, then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that they shouldn't be running our light sweet crude through their refineries at this point in time. Steve talked about his dad. My dad was the same way in the sense that if rigs--he was a roughneck, and roughnecks are that hardy group of individuals who work on a drilling rig. It is dangerous. It is hard. It is 24 hours a day. They work 8-hour shifts. My dad would pull doubles in order to get the extra time and a half so the cash flow to the family would be enough to feed my brother, sister, me, and my mom. He lost a part of a finger as a part of that experience. If the rigs were running in Borger, Texas--we lived in Borger, Texas, where I was born. If the rigs were running in Odessa, Texas, we moved to Odessa, Texas, because my dad thought it was more important to have a job than necessarily where we lived because that was key. In the early 1990s, I was part of a group that did a needs assessment in Midland, Texas. And we sometimes lose sight of why jobs are important because we talk a lot about it. But that needs assessment did a scientifically sound, statistically sound survey of Midland, asking folks what are the issues within your home, what are the issues within your neighborhood, what are the issues within your community that have a problem, that create this problem? We then winnowed those down to the top 10. If you looked at that list of top 10 needs of Midland, Texas, at the time, 9 of those would have been positively impacted by somebody having a job. Whatever that need was, it was less of a problem if a family had a job than if they didn't have a job. The jobs that this will create, jobs that this will protect and maintain are important. The unemployment rate in Midland, Texas, is still in the 3, 2 range, and Odessa is the lower 4. That hides some other issues associated with this problem; and that is, before the drop in the price of oil, not only were there a lot of jobs, but a lot of those jobs were providing some 10, 15, 20 hours of overtime each week to the people that were working. Overtime is a real boost because it is time and a half. Now, then, these folks still have a job, and with the decreased activity, the decreased drilling and all the other activity associated with the crude oil business, that overtime has evaporated. These folks still have a job, but they built commitments and bought trucks and other things based on that overtime, and they are now not getting it. So while they still have a job, the cash flow to their families is impacted. I had another opportunity to see the impact of that recently when I toured our local food bank and was discussing with them what was going on. They said that the elderly population coming to the food bank had dramatically increased over the last 4 or 5 months as a result of this drop in prices. I asked, Well, why is that? They said that many of these adults, these elderly adults, their families had been helping them with their monthly bills. Because they had this extra overtime, they had extra money that they were able to help their families with, and now that that has evaporated, that trickle-down effect is impacting these elderly who are on fixed incomes and are having to now go to the food bank. Creating jobs, you just can't overstate how important that is. I have now been joined by my fellow Texan from the Dallas area, Pete Sessions, current chairman of the Committee on Rules. I yield to my good friend.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules, Pete Sessions, for his kind words and also his support tomorrow. I think the bill that went through the Committee on Energy and Commerce that started life as a Joe Barton bill will be the one that makes it to the floor tomorrow. We are expecting to have a really solid, bipartisan vote, by the way. This is not a partisan issue, per se, but the White House might try to make it that. This is a bipartisan issue. I yield to my colleague from Arkansas, French Hill. French.

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his comments and opinions on this issue. I hope his support draws Members of the other side of the aisle to our arguments and to make this happen. The gentleman mentioned the price he paid in Arkansas recently. I dare say, there is not another commodity in America that we don't check the price on more often than gasoline. You may not buy gas every day, but every time you drive by a gasoline station, you check the price because it is right there for everybody to see. We don't put the price of bread and milk up like that, but we do put the price of gasoline up. I have got a district that has 29 counties and is 300 miles wide and 200-plus miles north to south. We do a lot of driving. My district director and I are always looking for that better gasoline price deal in the district as we are moving around, because hardwired into most all of us that drive very much is to check those prices. This increased production in the United States will also help protect consumers from price shocks. I mentioned that in 1974, the price of crude oil went from $3 a barrel to $12 a barrel, a fourfold increase. The more production you have from a stable environment like the United States, the less whipsaw you will get in the market from disruptions in supplies from places and part of the world where it is not quite as stable, such as the Middle East and others. So, this increased U.S. production will also help protect American consumers from being whipsawed by dramatic increases in the price of crude oil because we have got that supply. I now yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), who is from another State benefitting from the shale play and someone that is probably more familiar with the Bakken Shale than anybody else.

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota, clearly, a State that is a major player in this oil and gas renaissance that has occurred over the last 5 years. I would also like to point out that the oil and gas business, per se, is an incredibly fertile ground for small business development. And my dad, I mentioned earlier, was a great example of this. There are lots of narrow-focused aspects of the service side of the business. We all think of the drilling rigs and the big investments there, but there are various aspects, whether it is hauling things or mud or whatever is the deal, where entrepreneurs, men and women who want to take a little risk, can put a little capital together, put some tools together, and begin servicing an aspect of the business that is there. So it is incredibly fertile in terms of setting up new businesses. I have got one group in Eastland, Texas, that, just as the renaissance was beginning to start, they thought it was a good idea to get into some aspect of the fracking business and, over a very short period of time, built that business into a multi-billion-dollar deal and sold it. So incredible wealth was created as a result of small businesses turning into a medium-sized business, turning into a big business, and then, ultimately, sold to another bigger business for an awful lot of money. And every time that happens there are jobs created associated with that and wealth created with that that benefits not only those individual communities, but all of us that are involved. We failed to mention that there is no ban on exporting product. Crude oil that is refined, turned into gasoline, turned into diesel, there is no ban on that. So refiners today can take that heavy crude that they use and the little bit of light, sweet crude that they use, turn that into a product that they then can sell into the world market, and the same folks can sell it back into our communities for us to use in our cars and in our trucks. That gasoline, in the main, particularly by folks, individuals, is bought with after-tax dollars. That means they have had to earn a buck, pay the taxes on it, and then take what is left out of that dollar to actually buy gasoline. As we have seen over the last several months, these lower gasoline prices have been a big boon to folks in our country that have to drive a car to get to work or take their kids to school, whatever it might be. So if you have got a $1 or a $2 drop in the price of gasoline and you are buying 15 gallons a week or 15 gallons every so often, that is $15 to $30 of after-tax dollars that you can then spend somewhere else to benefit you and your family. Another aspect of what is happening is not related to what will go into the bill tomorrow, but it is something we have talked about on this floor ad nauseam, and that is the XL Pipeline. This pipeline is designed to haul Canadian oil sand oil, bitumen oil, that is, in effect, heavy crude south to the United States. This is the kind of crude that could run our refineries and our refineries would desperately like to have rather than buying the heavy crude from Venezuela and other places where the recipients of our checks when we buy that crude oil aren't necessarily friends of ours, aren't necessarily on the same geopolitical page that we are on. So having that pipeline would be another aspect of freeing up this market. The more efficient you can make markets, the less artificial restraints, the less goofy things you have got in there, then the better pricing mechanisms you get, the better and the more efficient those markets are, and then everybody up and down that chain benefits from that. As I mentioned earlier, we have got this odd circumstance where the producers in the United States sell on the West Texas Intermediate number to a refinery. That refinery then turns it into gasoline, and they sell it based on the Brent crude. So there is a differential being made by somebody, and shrinking that differential is what will keep the price of gasoline and diesel from increasing. One of the arguments for folks who don't represent producing provinces is: Why would I be in favor of something that would increase the folks I represent gasoline and diesel prices? Every study has shown that that will not happen. Now, the price of gasoline and diesel will go up by the world market. But as a result of lifting this export ban, it will, in fact, not increase the price of gasoline as we produce it. This is a win on every level. It is a win for consumers, as I have mentioned, it is a win for taxpayers, and it is a win for taxing entities. My colleagues from North Dakota and from Arkansas mentioned that reserves in the ground are valued for property tax purposes, and those property taxes that are generated from that then support our schools and other county, city, and State functions. As that developed crude oil is explored and those producing wells come online, that creates a property tax base that benefits all of the taxpayers in those particular entities. So it is a win across the world. It is a win for our allies and the geopolitical issues that we have talked about. So it is good for this country. It is good for jobs. And it is something that I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle can thoroughly look at. They have had plenty of time to do it. As was mentioned, it went through regular order, several hearings on the issue, actual legislation went through the subcommittee and the committee, the normal regular order, as we like to say around here, and everyone has had a chance to weigh in. Tomorrow there will be some amendments made in order under the rule. Folks will be able to weigh in. Some of those I will support. Some of those I will be against. But they were all presented as a way to get someone else's idea about this issue to the floor to have us debate it. I think that is a healthy thing, that we will be able to do that tomorrow. Some of those will perhaps pass, and some of them won't. But whatever happens, I have got great confidence that the bill that we will pass tomorrow with a big bipartisan vote can then go to the Senate and move the ball and move the initiative over there. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas, whose work on this issue started his career in this business and has just joined us and is the lead sponsor on the bill that we will be voting on tomorrow. We have got probably 4 or 5 minutes left. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), my chairman emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Dean of the Texas delegation, for whatever thoughts he might care to share with us.

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman. I want to brag on the House for having conducted this business with respect to this bill the way it has. If you go back to your grade school or your junior high civics classes, I'm a bill on Capitol Hill trying to become a law, this is exactly what happened with this deal. It went through the process the way it is supposed to, kind of the old-fashioned deal. We hope to see tomorrow a big bipartisan vote so the American people can at least in this one glimmer look and say, hey, the House of Representatives functioned the way that the Founding Fathers intended it to and moved an important piece of legislation forward. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a big vote tomorrow. I yield back the balance of time.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2051) to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to extend the livestock mandatory price reporting requirements, and for other purposes.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 2051, the Agriculture Reauthorizations Act of 2015. Mr. Speaker, on June 9, the House passed three individual bills: the Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 2015; the United States Grain Standards Reauthorization Act of 2015; and the National Forest Foundation Reauthorization Act of 2015. For each of these, the Committee on Agriculture held hearings and business meetings, and the House acted in a timely manner to ensure the continuation of these critical programs. I am proud of the fact that the House worked its will in a bipartisan manner following regular order throughout. Just last week the other body worked its will, combining these three bills into a single bill before us. Though modifications were made that I do not agree with, it is imperative that the House pass this legislation in advance of the authority for price reporting and grain inspection expiring on Wednesday evening. Failure to enact this legislation today will have devastating impacts on our Nation's meat industries and grain exporters. I urge the House to adopt this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2051, a bill to reauthorize the Mandatory Price Reporting Act, the United States Grain Standards Act, and the National Forest Foundation Act. Legislative language to reauthorize each of these was introduced, reported by the House Agriculture Committee, and passed by the House on voice vote as standalone measures on June 10th of this year. The first two, the Mandatory Price Reporting Act and the Grain Standards Act authorities are set to expire in just a few days. As passed by the House, each of these measures enjoyed wide bipartisan support from Members as well as support from each of the impacted industries. Unfortunately, after passing through the other chamber, we are left with bill language that is somewhat less than ideal, but at least maintains these critical program authorities for 5 more years. In the development of the Mandatory Price Reporting Act and with each of its subsequent reauthorizations, we have asked the impacted industries to work together in a cooperative spirit to develop their legislative proposals and submit only those that are unanimously supported. The meat and livestock industries did just that this past spring. Those proposals were reviewed in a hearing in the Subcommittee on Livestock and Foreign Agriculture on April 22nd, bill language was introduced in the House, a business meeting was held, and the House unanimously passed the bill. Unfortunately, a demand was made in the other body that the bill be modified to remove language of critical importance to our constituents. Thus, we have before us today a bill that is less than what our constituents requested. Yet if we fail to act, a program of critical importance to the meat and livestock industries would expire leaving these industries in a quandary. It is a shame that politics must interfere with policy on even the simplest measures, but we must move forward. The United States Grain Standards Act reauthorization faced similar challenges in the other body. As my colleagues will recall, last summer amid an ongoing labor dispute, the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) discontinued mandatory grain weighing and grading services. In statements issued at the time, WSDA acknowledged that they withheld inspection services because of their belief that the ``continued provision of inspections services appears to have been unhelpful in leading to any foreseeable resolution'' of the labor dispute. Instead of fulfilling their statutory obligation, the leadership of the U.S. Department of Agriculture politicized this situation when the agency declined to fulfill its statutory responsibility to resume inspection and weighing services. Services were eventually restored, but not before significant costs accrued to all parties involved. We have worked hard to gain access to overseas markets. We are shooting ourselves in the foot when we cannot ship our products to these markets because State and Federal agencies are unable or unwilling to comply with their obligations. To not be able to ship our grain because there are no inspectors at a facility does a disservice to our farmers, and it harms our economy. To address this situation, the House could have been punitive. In fact, there were some in the industry that would have preferred that. But that is not what we were interested in doing. We simply wanted to develop a safeguard mechanism to avoid this situation being repeated. To do that, we worked with the Washington State delegation, the Washington State Department of Agriculture, labor unions, industry and even the USDA. What we developed was bipartisan consensus on a workable safeguard provision. Nevertheless, the bill as adopted in the other body provides little safeguard against future abuses of discretion. I cannot emphasize this enough--it is imperative that these inspection and weighing services are provided in a reliable, uninterrupted, consistent and cost-effective manner. To ensure that we fulfill this obligation, we must learn the lessons of history or it is doomed to repeat itself. To this end, the Secretary of Agriculture is instructed to take prompt action to provide for restoration of official grain inspection service as soon as he receives notice or otherwise learns about the impending disruption from a delegated State agency. In this regard, as a way of not allowing the Secretary to sit on his hands after learning that a disruption in official service was imminent, the Secretary is required to: 1. Immediately take such actions as are necessary to address the disruption and resume inspection and weighing services; and 2. Not later than 24 hours after receiving notice or otherwise learning of the impending disruption of such inspection or weighing, or after the start of such disruption in official service, whichever is earlier, submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry of the Senate a report that describes the disruptions and any actions necessary to address the concerns of the Secretary relating to the disruption so that inspections or weighings may resume. On a positive note, another critical element of the House bill was retained wherein the Secretary will be obligated to waive official weighing and inspection requirements in both cases of emergency as well as other circumstances as long as the waiver does not impair the underlying objectives of the statute and the buyers and sellers agree and provide documentation of the agreement to the Secretary. This waiver requirement is intended to provide certainty to trading partners as well as U.S. suppliers. Since its charter in 1993, the National Forest Foundation provides the ability to leverage private and federal dollars to support our Nation's great forests in a variety of ways. In recent years, the Foundation has leveraged funds at over a 4 to 1 ratio and plans to continue on this success to raise at least $125 million for forest restoration activities. Simply put, the National Forest Foundation works, and this is a common-sense reauthorization. While I recognize that concessions were made resulting in less than ideal bill text, at the end of the day, H.R. 2051 provides certainty to American agriculture, and I would urge my colleagues to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my colleague, my ranking member, Collin Peterson. Throughout this work, he and all the Members on both sides of the aisle of the committee worked well together. It is a tribute to the way bipartisan work ought to be done in the House, and I am proud of the work the Agriculture Committee has done. I urge Members to join me in support of this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with America's rice farmers in celebrating the month of September as National Rice Month. It has been 25 years since September was first declared National Rice Month. On this silver anniversary, I want to pay a special tribute to the hard working men and women who produce rice on their family farms. I would also like to recognize all of those who mill and market rice, all of the suppliers and buyers, and, of course, all of the consumers who make rice an essential part of their diet. Rice farming in America actually predates our nation's independence, beginning some 300 years ago. Today, America's rice industry creates 125,000 good-paying jobs and contributes an estimated $34 billion to our nation's economy, including an estimated direct impact of $169.8 million in my home state of Texas. Nine million tons of rice are grown each year by family farmers on some 2.7 million acres of land, predominately in the states of Arkansas, California, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas. While these six states produce the lion's share of rice in America, there is also rice production in other states, like Illinois and Tennessee, and the entire rice industry reaches every state in the nation, especially those states with cereal makers, breweries, and other food-makers that use rice as a key ingredient. On top of this, about half of America's rice crop is bound for export markets, helping to feed people around the globe while positively contributing to our nation's balance of trade. Although the figures I just listed are as impressive as they are important, the benefits of rice are not limited to jobs and the economy. Health-wise, rice is a source of more than 15 vitamins and minerals and 100% gluten-free, with only 100 calories per serving. Brown rice is 100% whole grain and may reduce the risk of heart disease and certain cancers. What is more, studies suggest that those who eat rice have healthier diets than those who do not. On the conservation front, America's rice farmers have a longstanding commitment to protect and preserve natural resources. Today, U.S. rice farmers produce more rice using less land, energy, and water than they did just 20 years ago. Our rice farms provide critical habitat for hundreds of species, particularly migratory birds. America's rice farmers continue to serve as leaders in the farming community by producing a healthy, conservation-friendly food that, as a byproduct, generates jobs and economic opportunity. It is fitting that we honor the hard working American farmers, millers, merchants, suppliers and buyers, and the consumers who make rice not only such a wholesome and popular food but an important part of our economy. I ask that my colleagues join with me in celebrating September as National Rice Month.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 93 Veterans from West Texas who will be visiting our Washington D.C. this week, sponsored by the Permian Basin Honor Flight. On behalf of a grateful state and nation, we welcome these heroes to the nation's capital. The Veterans on this Honor Flight are: Clint Adams, Alberto Alavartez Jr., Clark Bagley, Joe Banks, Michael Barker, Victor Barros, James Bedingfield, Carlton Blackwell, Herbert Blankingship, James Block, Grady Blocker, Wilbur Boone, Thomas Bostick Sr., Raymond Boswell, Harold Brenner, Wendell Brown, Billy Brown, Mike Brown, Dr. Joseph Bruner, Daniel Bullen, Robert Cole, Jennifer Conkin, Richard Cortez, Doyle Dewayne Dobbs, Ernest Elkins, Ronald Emmons, Robert Fields, Daniel Fischer, Richard Galloway, Wade Gamblin, Ralph Gillette, John Graves, Eldon Griffis, Michael Henderson, Gary Hokerk, Wayne Hokerk, Rex Holland, Timothy Humpherys, Billy Hunte, Joe Jackson, Roger Johnston, Herman Jones, Bobby Kizer, Charles Linebarger, Teresa Lopez, Delfin Lopez, Michael Lopez, Raymond Lusk, Darcy Maloney, Robert Middaugh, Scott Morris Sr., Scott Morris Jr., Ira Overton, Carolos Padilla, Salvatore Pagano, Preston Parrott, Newton Peterson, Julian Pressey, TJ Price, Donald Price, Emil Raschke, Edward Reel, Winifred Richmond, Sifredo Rodriguez, Frank Rodriguez, Pedro Ruiz, Richardo Saldana, Thomas Salgado, Erene Sanchez, Simon Sanchez, Jerry Sides, Georgia Simcik, Claude Smith, Melvin Smith, Tommy Smith, Steve Stone, Rachel Stout, William Sudduth, Bobby Jean Swinney, William Tapley, Leslie Tidwell, Charl Trantham, Veron Trent, Teddy Trogdon, Henry Tuck, Randy Vest, Orlando Villanueva, Donald Waldrop, Gary Watkins, Mark Webb, David Whitten, Grady Wilkerson, Robert Williamson, William Wrenn. Mr. Speaker, I am humbled to have the opportunity to meet these brave men and women who exemplify the best of our country. Their sacrifice and commitment to the duty to our nation can never be fully repaid, and I hope that when they visit our nation's monuments in Washington D.C., the gratitude and respect we have for them will truly be reflected. Colleagues, please join me in thanking these veterans and their families for their exemplary dedication and service to this great nation. I would also like to extend a special thank you to the local communities, all of the volunteers, and Mr. Jeremy West and Mr. John West for their extensive work in organizing this Honor Flight. This trip would not have been possible without all the financial and emotional support of the people who have put in so much hard work and personal time to make sure this trip could be possible.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. I thank Chairman Royce for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the approval process that is going on and the underlying deal with Iran. It is one of the most consequential foreign policy issues that we will confront, certainly since I have been here and, I expect, for the next several decades. This is a terrible deal. I can't state it any more forcefully. We have seen this movie before. In 1994, President Bill Clinton made a deal with North Korea. His deal with North Korea would rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons and would usher North Korea onto the stage as a responsible citizen of the world's nations. That didn't happen. This is the exact same verbiage we heard on this floor then that is being said tonight, and this is the exact same outcome we will get with Iran and their nuclear program. Look at their current record. Chief sponsor of state terrorism around the world. As their economy improves with the dropping of the sanctions and the resources they will get, do you realistically think that this ayatollah will, in fact, become a moderate voice within his country? Do you not think he will take those resources and expand the mischief and terror that he has conducted around the world already under the sanctions that were in place? The other side has already given up on the snapback provisions. They have argued very eloquently that those won't happen because we can't reinforce the sanctions that were the heart of what got Iran at the table today. Mr. Speaker, this deal ushers in a world that is less safe, less stable, and less secure. Trust must be earned. I trust Iran's word when they say that Israel must go away. I trust Iran when they say ``death to America.'' I do not trust Iran when they say they will abide by this agreement. I wouldn't play golf with these people because golf is one of those events where you have to self-assess your penalties. They will not do that in playing golf, and they are not about to do it with respect to this nuclear program that is going on. We have no way of knowing what their covert activities might be over the next several years. They will cheat. They have cheated, and they will continue to cheat. We cannot trust these people with a deal. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion of approval and reject this deal. Tell the world where we stand. Whether our partners around the world can see the clear-eyed threat that these folks represent to the world for the next several decades, we can see it, and we must vote ``no.''

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 75th Anniversary of the establishment of Camp Bowie in Brownwood, Texas. This month, the community of Brownwood will gather to mark this occasion with a symposium to honor the history of Camp Bowie. Camp Bowie, named in honor of a Texas hero James Bowie, was established on September 19, 1940, by the United States War Department. This installation was the first major project authorized during the World War II era. In the same year, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was given the power to mobilize National Guard Units across the nation. Shortly after its completion, Camp Bowie became the new home of the 36th Texas National Guard Division. After the U.S.'s entry into World War II, the 36th Division was deployed for training at Camp Blanding, Florida. On September 9, 1943, these brave men were the first allied soldiers sent to the beaches of Salerno, Italy to defeat Hitler's European fortress from the west. The 36th Division served 400 days of combat, and five campaigns in Italy, France, Germany, and Austria. The men of the 36th Division came home and demobilized on Christmas Day in 1945. Since World War II, Camp Bowie has trained over 420,000 service members and is an instrumental part of our nation's defense and preserving our nation's liberty. Camp Bowie's history serves as an example to many generations of what it takes to defend our freedom. I am proud to represent Camp Bowie and Brownwood, and I am honored to share their history with my colleagues in Congress. On September 16th through the 18th, 2015, the Brownwood community will be honoring this historic milestone at Howard Payne University. I would like to commend Tarleton State University, Howard Payne University and the Brown County Museum of History for their hard work in organizing this symposium.

Mr. CONAWAY

Mr. CONAWAY. Will the gentleman yield?