Kevin Cramer

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, Sullys Hill is a national game preserve that is located entirely within the Spirit Lake Nation in North Dakota. I have a bill, S. 2099, that I want to ask to be voted on shortly. If enacted, my bill would change the game preserve's name from ``Sullys Hill'' to the English translation of its traditional Dakota name, ``White Horse Hill.'' The name change has the full support of the Spirit Lake Nation and all of the leadership of the local, State, and national government in North Dakota, including the entire North Dakota congressional delegation: my colleague, Senator Hoeven, chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, and Congressman Kelly Armstrong, who has an identical bill introduced in the House. In 1904, the game preserve was named after GEN Alfred Sully. Unfortunately, General Sully gained notoriety by committing several massacres of Native Americans, most notably on September 3, 1863, in the Dakota Territory. As reprisal for the Dakota conflict of 1862, his troops destroyed a village of over 500 teepees that lodged the Yankton, Dakota, and Lakota people, killing hundreds of Native Americans. Many of the descendants of his victims live on the very Tribal lands that surround this hill. With the issues that our Federal Government is dealing with today, changing the name of a game preserve in North Dakota may seem like a small matter, but let me assure you, Mr. President and colleagues, this is no small matter to the people of the Spirit Lake Nation. I am sorry it has taken us so long to correct this wrong. It has taken us over 100 years to correct this mistake. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 223, S. 2099.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I come down to the Chamber today to talk a little bit and highlight the vast differences in the priorities between the two Chambers in the U.S. Congress today. Several of my colleagues will be down here a little later today to talk about and to encourage the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act--a bill, by the way, that passed the Senate in a very strong bipartisan way, reflective of strong bipartisan input, in a vote of 86 to 8. The House also passed their version of the National Defense Authorization Act on more of a party-line vote. The point being, both Chambers have passed it; the reconciliation of the two bills has begun; the negotiations have begun, but they have been stalled. I think it is a strong reflection of the differences between the two Chambers. First, I will talk a little bit about why it is important that we do this job. First of all, there have been 58 years in a row that the NDAA has passed the House and the Senate and signed into law. Why? Well, because it is the highest priority of the government--of all the bills we do every year, apart from and very close to appropriations, would be authorization of our national defense programs. That is why it has happened 58 years in a row. It is important for a number of reasons. One of the things that both the House version and the Senate version of the NDAA does is highlight the importance of space with the creation of a Space Force, as we call it the Senate, and Space Corps, as they call it in the House. Nonetheless, it is similar, and it represents and recognizes the importance of space domain as a warfighting domain going forward, a priority that our near-peer allies have already recognized in their policies. Without NDAA passing, that goes by the wayside for at least another year. It also fully funds several national priorities, not the least of which is, of course, the largest pay increase in 10 years for our men and women who wear the uniform. On a more local level for me, it authorizes the modernization of our nuclear fleet, including the ground-based missiles known as the ICBMs that we have 150 of in North Dakota at Minot. It modernizes this system, which is several decades old. If we need anything, we need to modernize our weapons systems again to keep pace with our near-peer adversaries. It also authorizes millions of dollars in funds to the national Global Hawk mission, which is headquartered in Grand Forks, another very important Air Force base in my State. It authorizes funds for the MQ-9 program. MQ-9s are flown by North Dakota Air National Guardsmen in Fargo's Happy Hooligans. It also advances the mission of the Cavalier Air Force Station in Cavalier, ND, one of the very few space radar stations, and it ensures that the needs of all our Guard operations are met. The House bill, by the way, also does something that is very important to me. It is a bill I have introduced, along with my colleagues from New York, that honors the 74 sailors who lost their lives in the Frank E. Evans 50 years ago during the Vietnam war. These sailors' names have been left off the Vietnam Memorial Wall over a minor technicality, a technicality that probably shouldn't be in the rules to begin with, but certainly it has been waived in many other circumstances and needs to be waived in this NDAA. I would love to get that House language into the final bill. None of these priorities are going to be met if House Democrats--and I focus on House Democrats--if they don't come to the table and act in good faith and negotiate in good faith. Senate Democrats have had a major part in this, and I welcome every bit of involvement they provide. One of the joys of being on the Armed Services Committee for me has been being able to see a functioning committee that works well across party lines. Obviously, Senate Republicans are all on board. House Republicans are all on board. For some reason, the House leadership on the Democratic side is focused on other priorities, and the contrast could not be more clear. While we have been working hard in the Senate on appropriations, as well as the Defense authorization, our chairman has used his voice-- Chairman Inhofe--and used his incredible work ethic and his wisdom in working with Senator Reed, the ranking Democrat, on getting these priorities to the forefront. I can't think of a better tandem than those two gentlemen. Chairman Inhofe is truly one of the hardest working, most decent, and honorable people I have ever worked with. Chairman Smith, the chairman in the House committee, could learn a few things from him. Again, while we passed the bill with overwhelming bipartisan support, the House bill was a much more partisan exercise. We want to prevent a government shutdown. We want to prevent a continuing resolution. So along with the NDAA, of course, is the Defense appropriations bill, and we have to get both of them done. We want to give our military a win- win situation, where they get the pay raises, where they get the modernization they need, where new programs can be launched, and where we can provide long-term certainty. While we are trying to provide at least a win for our military, Democrats in the House are focused on trying to win the 2016 Presidential election, not even thinking so much about the next one. They are involved in a kangaroo court over there. I watched a half hour of it today, and I could hardly believe what I was seeing. Today's political theater in the House is unnecessary, and 3 years into it, it is an outward demonstration of the inward motivation of a party that is trying to undo the Presidency of Donald Trump. Instead of prioritizing our constitutional responsibilities, they are engaged in political theater in a kangaroo court. I am pleading, once again, with my colleagues across the aisle and especially across the Capitol, in these last couple of days, while the negotiators are together trying to figure out a path forward, please come to the table, please act in good conscience. Please, please, please look for opportunities where we can compromise, and, for Pete's sake, let's at least pass the things we all agree on. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, on this Veterans Day 2019, I wish to pay tribute to all veterans and thank them for their service. The freedoms we enjoy in America today are because of them. For more than 200 years, our veterans have fought across the globe defending our freedoms, while their families waited and worried at home. Thanks to them, the forces of tyranny and oppression have been turned back and defeated time and again. As Americans across the Nation come together on Veterans Day, I will be participating in a program in Fargo, one of many being held in communities across North Dakota. Next Wednesday in Williston, several military organizations and Williston State College will sponsor a presentation by Medal of Honor recipient SSG Clinton Romesha. As one of only 3,507 recipients in American history to receive this honor, Staff Sergeant Romesha was the fourth living Medal of Honor recipient for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. It was presented in 2013 for his heroism during the Battle of Kamdesh in October 2009, a 12-hour battle that was significant in the Global War on Terrorism. During this intense attack by some 300 Taliban fighters, despite his own shrapnel wounds, Romesha continued to fight. His actions helped mount a successful counterattack that eliminated Taliban machine guns and allowed for wounded soldiers to be taken to an aid station. In his bestselling memoir, ``Red Platoon: A True Story of American Valor,'' published in 2013, Romesha shares the account of the Battle of Kamdesh and how one person can make a difference against seemingly impossible odds. Now a resident of Minot, ND, he travels extensively as a motivational speaker, sharing the message about how the capacity for leadership and bravery resides within everyone. I commend Williston State College and its Foundation, the Williston Basin Chapter of the American Petroleum Institute, Williston Post 37 of the American Legion, Military Affairs Committee, VFW-Post 12169, and Williston Chapter 9 of the Disabled American Veterans for bringing this inspirational message by a true hero to their community. Mr. President, on this Veterans Day, may we be reminded to be thankful every day for all who serve our country. May God bless all veterans and their families. They are all heroes.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President. First of all, I have never come to the floor of the Senate--and previously of the House--as ill-prepared as today, but I want to follow up on something my friend from Utah just spoke about, and that is the attack on the innocent people in the last 48 hours. When I learned of it last night, I was stunned. I just got off the phone a few minutes ago with the brother and sister of one of the victims. A young mother, Anita Miller, was killed along with her four children. They were in the first SUV that was shot up and burnt. They were on their way to Phoenix to pick up their dad from North Dakota--Howard--who was working on an oil rig as this occurred. I just talked to Howard's brother Kenny and his sister Heather. All of the Millers and the LeBarons who are victims of this have many, many family members in North Dakota. They have lots of businesses in the State of North Dakota. They are hard-working, faithful people. It was a hard phone call to make. This was a hard message to deliver. And I didn't really know what to deliver except that I wanted them to know that the people of their country and the United States are hugging the people of their country, Mexico, and that what they have experienced is certainly the personification of evil in the form of these thugs from this cartel, for sure. They are people who kill with reckless abandon. They have no regard for life, even the life of innocent children. But we serve a God who personifies pure good, and the greatest response to pure evil is pure good. Kenny and I had a particularly long talk regarding his family--what they are experiencing and what is going on. They wanted me to know that they support the United States as well as their country. They wanted me to tell the President that they support what he is doing and appreciate his offer of help to the Mexican Government. I told them that there is lots of time for talking about the response of one government working with another but that, right now, grief is sort of the emotion of the moment, and remembering their loved ones is important, and we would be doing it as a Congress, as an administration, as a country, and as the State of North Dakota, which embraces these people we know and love so much. We will do what needs to be done, and we stand ready, first of all, to hold them up in prayer and to share their burden with them. I wanted to express as much as anything that their burden is ours today and that, to the degree we can share a burden like this, we are sharing it. We will react. We will respond in whatever way is appropriate and whatever way we can. I join Senator Lee in gratitude to President Trump for his reaching out and his offer of assistance. It can't be easy to live in a country or even to rule a country where the cartels are so powerful, where their weapons are as good as, if not better than, the weapons of the police and maybe even the military. It can't be easy to stand up to that, but with good friends and allies and neighbors, perhaps now, perhaps this event and perhaps the grief of these families will be the things that bring two countries together to fight this evil. I will end as I began and look forward to future days when we speak more thoroughly about it and there is more information on it, but to remind perhaps ourselves as much as anything, the only effective response to pure evil is pure love. As people of faith, we know pure love is personified in our Lord. So tonight, my message to the families in Mexico, North Dakota, and Utah is that we love them. We love them. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the 130th birthday of the State of North Dakota. On November 2, 1889, President Benjamin Harrison signed the documents turning Dakota Territory into two States, North Dakota and South Dakota. In the 13 decades since then, the people of North Dakota hive embraced the many opportunities and challenges of living in the geographic center of North America. God has blessed us with abundant natural resources, and with hard work and innovation, North Dakotans have fed the world and fueled our Nation. We are top producers of wheat, sunflowers, dry edible beans, navy and pinto beans, canola, flaxseed, and honey. Our ranchers raise 1.7 million beef cattle--or almost three head of cattle for every North Dakotan. As the Nation's second largest producer of oil in the country, we are one of the reasons the United States becomes closer every year to being energy independent. As one of the country's top 10 coal-producing States, our lignite reserves have an 800-year supply. Before there were Federal reclamation laws, North Dakota was enforcing its own, and our air quality has been ranked at among the best in the Nation. We proudly embrace an ``all of the above'' energy policy that, in addition to oil and coal, supports production of wind and biofuels. Every year, visitors and new residents discover the beauty of our State, with its distinct geographic regions. A young Theodore Roosevelt's years of ranching in the North Dakota Badlands greatly influenced his conservation policies as our Nation's 26th President. North Dakota has been regarded the birthplace of conservation as Roosevelt, who was known as the Conservation President, established vast protections for wildlife and public lands through new national forests, bird reserves, game preserves, national parks, and national monuments. He said, ``I would not have been President had it not been for my experience in North Dakota.'' My State can often be found at the top of quality of life rankings in America, largely due to the strong sense of community engagement and social support present from border to border. I speak for all North Dakotans in the pride we have for what our State has given to the Nation and world in our first 130 years, but, in true North Dakota spirit, I believe most would agree with me that we are just getting started and the best is yet to come. Happy Birthday, North Dakota.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, first of all, thank you for your flexibility at the chair today. Appropriations Madam President, the purpose for rising today is to advocate on behalf of our military, the men and women who are the bravest in the world. I feel compelled to do so because I can imagine that in these days of hyperpartisan politics, some of them may feel like some of us are abandoning them, and I want them to know for sure that we are not. We all took an oath to the Constitution, and the highest priority in the Constitution for the Federal Government is, of course, to provide for the Nation's defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues seem to be shirking from this responsibility lately. They are willing to settle for, seemingly, mediocrity, and right now we have excellence, the best. First of all, they are planning to come to this Chamber tomorrow to block the all- important Defense appropriations bill; that is to say, to block the funding for our military; that is to say, to block the largest pay increase for the men and women of our military in over a decade--just to name one topic that is being funded, or would be funded, by this appropriations bill that they are going to block. Back in July, the House and Senate, on a bipartisan basis--I say to the Presiding Officer, you just gave a wonderful speech about the importance of working together. On a bipartisan basis, we passed a major budget bill. It was a win for our military and a win for our country because it was supposed to provide them with certainty and an important path forward as they chart that path--that strategic path-- for America's superiority. To echo the House Speaker and the Democratic leader at the time: ``A bipartisan agreement has been reached that will enhance our national security.'' These aren't my words--although I agree with them--these are the words of the Democratic leadership of Congress. After passage, the Democratic leader went on to say: This deal would ``strengthen our national security and provide our troops with the resources they need.'' I agree with the Democratic leader. Please-- please--change course while you still can and support this important funding bill tomorrow. I agreed with my colleague from New York then, and I supported that legislation for the exact reason to ``strengthen our national security and provide our troops with the resources they need.'' This deal passed with strong bipartisan support. It was widely applauded. Yet here we are today, this week, with our colleagues preparing to block the funding for our troops for which they were just a couple of months ago patting themselves on the back. This whole process shouldn't even be this complicated. In fact, I am convinced that the American people are tired of us complicating simple things. We agreed to this 2-year budget agreement just a few months ago. I voted for it. Party leadership pushed for it. The President signed it. Then we voted for a short-term continuing resolution to get in order before getting to the final appropriations deal. I reluctantly voted for the short-term CR, but the only thing worse than a CR, of course, is a government shutdown. So that was what we were confronted with. If one asked the military community how they feel about continuing resolutions, they would be quick to tell you they don't work. They don't work at all. They do not provide certainty beyond certainty. They don't allow new programs to be launched. They don't allow the pay increases that our appropriations bill does. So evidently it has not been a priority for our Democratic colleagues, but they do have priorities, as we know. This impeachment craziness, this obsession with eliminating, getting rid of our Commander in Chief a year before the election of the Commander in Chief is what their priorities are, clearly, not the priorities stated in the Constitution or that they were bragging about a couple of months ago. Of course, in addition, they are now standing in the way of us passing the reconciled National Defense Authorization Act--the authorization that provides the guidance for these priorities that are also part of our appropriations bill. We went through all of that, and for what? I didn't agree to the deals we made or take these tough votes just so the Democrats could block Defense appropriations and leave our military stuck with political gridlock that they have imposed on us now. By failing to pass this appropriations bill, by standing in the way now of reconciling in the conference committee the National Defense Authorization Act, they really are standing in the way of our military. Now there is talk of a ``skinny NDAA''--that is to say, a watered-down skinny version. For 58 years in a row, we have done what you just talked about and what the previous speakers talked about. We have worked in a bipartisan way to pass an NDAA 58 years in a row. As the first North Dakotan ever to sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I treated this NDAA with the utmost importance and still do. We made some significant progress, from nuclear deterrence to UAS development, establishing a Space Force, and honoring the sailors of the USS Frank E. Evans--a provision the Democratic leader and his colleague from New York supported, I will add. Both the House and Senate versions of the NDAA advanced important policies for my State, for our country, and really for the world. We should be working collaboratively to combine these versions and pass the best plan possible for our military. Instead, our work is being sacrificed at the altar of partisan politics, caught up in a partisan impeachment process that makes no sense. Let's make something clear about this skinny NDAA. Our chairman is not introducing it with haste or without great consideration. He first warned that this could happen well over a month ago. He said it would happen if our Democratic colleagues proved to be so incapable of setting aside their problems with President Trump that they could not advance the interests of our Nation's military. Ever the optimist, I thought they would. I thought they would. Now, my Democratic colleagues are balking at any and all forward progress on the NDAA because of their opposition to President Trump and his priorities for border security. They want to limit his authority to transfer anymore funds in order to build physical barriers at our southern border. So I want to be clear. The President would not need to use that authority to use any military construction funds to build a wall if our Democratic colleagues would simply provide the necessary funding through the normal appropriations process, as they always have and as we always have. I, for one, will not be so unreasonable in negotiating with them. For example, if--and I mean only if--my Democratic colleagues would fund the administration's border security request through the appropriations process, then count me in for limiting the President's transfer authority. I am willing to compromise, but you can't have it both ways. You can't say we are going to take away the President's constitutional authority on the one hand, and then, on the other hand, make sure you don't fund the priorities that he needs to fund, which is, again, the highest priority of our government. To reiterate my earlier point, I applaud the chairman for his handling of this process. He has been vigilant and focused on completing the NDAA, and I don't blame him for where we are today. No, House Democrats have not been willing partners and have forced the chairman to devise a backup plan for their intransigence. That is what I find so disappointing. Surely, our Democratic colleagues know the threat that our foreign adversaries pose. For crying out loud, we just came from a classified briefing. If it is not clear enough, I don't know when it will be. Whether it is the crisis at the southern border or the critical missions that bring terrorists like al-Baghdadi to justice, I am sure my colleagues want to do whatever it takes to keep our country safe. Surely, they are capable of putting partisan politics aside in order to pass the 59th straight National Defense Authority Act. Anything to the contrary would be unprecedented. Yet here we are. I find it astonishing that with all the wannabe Commanders in Chief right here in the Senate, they are playing politics with the funding and authorities of the troops they hope to lead. Can you imagine one of these Presidential candidates becoming the Commander in Chief and the first talk they have with the troops is, ``Yeah, I held up your funding and your pay raises.'' It is not a great way to start. If it were up to our committee, this bill would have already passed. If it were up to our conference, this NDAA would be on its way to the President's desk. But unfortunately, it is not. That is the unfortunate reality we face today. The Democratic Party is continuing to put their hatred of President Trump and his agenda above the needs of our Nation's military, and, thus, our Nation's defense. It is a dereliction of duty. I find it sickening, and I find it embarrassing. We are better than this. This institution deserves better than this. The American people expect and deserve better than this. I want to make one last plea before they block tomorrow's vote. Please put our military men and women, our highest priority, ahead of partisan politics. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to offer the following amendments: No. 961, No. 1019, and No. 1067. I further ask unanimous consent that no second-degree amendments be in order to these amendments prior to the votes and that at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, October 28, the Senate vote in relation to these amendments in the order listed.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a remarkable woman who has been named North Dakota's Teacher of the Year. Sara Medalen is a reading and math interventionist at Sunnyside Elementary School in Minot. While working with students to improve their reading and math skills, she has also implemented other innovative programs helping Sunnyside students gain greater self esteem. Girls arrive mornings before school for Books and Braids, so she can braid their hair while they read to her. The Girl Power group does charitable projects and hears from local women in various professions around town. Her STEAM Saturdays bring students together to collaborate on science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics projects, and Strides for Sunnyside is a running group encouraging students to embrace healthy habits and physical fitness. Through these programs and her genuine love for teaching and learning, Ms. Medalen has made a profound difference at Sunnyside School. She is an inspiration to her students, parents and fellow educators across North Dakota. Mr. President, I congratulate Sara Medalen on this well-deserved recognition. We all remember favorite teachers from our own schooldays, and no doubt they share many of the good qualities that Ms. Medalen brings to her classroom. WalletHub recently ranked North Dakota as one of the best States for teachers, and my State has many top quality educators who are just as remarkable as Sara Medalen. We cannot thank them enough for the positive impact they have every day on North Dakota students.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and patriotism of Radioman 2nd Class Floyd A. Wells. A native of Cavalier, ND, he answered the call to defend his country during World War II. At the age of 24, he made the ultimate sacrifice on December 7, 1941, along with 2,402 other soldiers and sailors during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. It was not until earlier this year that his remains were positively identified, and on October 1 he was brought home to be buried at the North Dakota Veterans Cemetery. Attending this burial were members of his family who traveled from across the Nation to pay their respects to this beloved member of their family. Even though most of them had never met him, together they mourned the lost blessings of Floyd not being a part of their family for the past 78 years. He was remembered as a generous man and a gifted athlete who had a full life ahead of him. Floyd's life could have included competing in sports at college and having a family and home of his own. Floyd's burial service was a poignant reminder of how the sacrifice of heroes defending our country has an impact on those who knew and loved them far into the future. He died so Americans could live in peace and prosperity. I am thankful he is now back in his home State, lying in eternal rest with other North Dakota heroes, and I am grateful for the continued work of the many patriots who are committed to identifying the remains of all unknown soldiers and bringing them home. Mr. President, to the family of Radioman 2nd Class Floyd A. Wells, I join citizens across the Nation in sending our sincere condolences. It is heroes like Floyd whose service has kept our communities, State, Nation, and world safe. His life made a difference in the lives of all of us, and we are forever grateful.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I don't disagree with everything that is in the Senator's bill--far from it. I agree with much of it, but it does have several critical flaws, and it is not ready for prime time. In most, if not all, States, it is already illegal to prevent or try to prevent lawful voters from trying to register to vote. We all agree that every qualified voter should have an opportunity to register for an election. But this proposal is written so broadly that it would prevent election officials from rejecting the registration of an illegal immigrant. It could prevent poll workers from stopping a 16- year-old from voting in an election. In other words, this would seemingly make it illegal for voting registration officials to actually do their job. I assume it is not intentional, but it is obviously a big problem. Other sections of the bill create significant First Amendment concerns. It would create criminal penalties for political speech that misstates endorsements a candidate has received. Nobody approves of lying, but there are enormous problems when the Federal Government starts sending people to jail for what they say. Even the ACLU opposes my colleague's bill because this bill is so anti-First Amendment. Just a few days ago, Secretary Hillary Clinton claimed that a former third-party candidate was a Russian asset and that a Democratic Presidential candidate she doesn't like is Russia's preferred candidate in the upcoming election. Should Mrs. Clinton have violated Federal law because she perhaps misstated a political endorsement as a way of making a political point? We don't want to start down the road where the Federal Government referees free speech. I believe there is an appetite on both sides of the aisle for making good policy that honors the principle behind my colleague's bill, but this version has enormous problems, is nowhere near ready to pass by unanimous consent, and I object.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, it has been a year since the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, the replacement for NAFTA and the modernization for the NAFTA agreement that has been so important to all three of our countries. In fact, we are coming up on 1 year since it was signed by leaders of all three countries. In fact, the country of Mexico has ratified the USMCA. Canada is waiting for the United States to take the next step so they, too, can ratify this very important trade agreement. This agreement between the three countries on the North American continent is estimated to add $68.2 billion to the U.S. economy and create 176,000 new jobs. The USMCA would also increase exports to Canada by 5.9 percent, to a total of $19.1 billion, and shipments to Mexico by 6.7 percent, or $14.2 billion. Imports from Canada and Mexico would rise by 4.8 and 3.8 percent, respectively. But the ratification process has to begin with the Democrats in the House under the trade promotion authority with which this deal was struck. The Democrats leading the House seem to be more focused on taking away one person's job than creating 176,000 new ones here in the United States. It is time for Speaker Pelosi to act on something that is nearly unanimously agreed to. While not every person agrees to it, I don't think there is any question that if she would bring up the USMCA for a vote in the House, it would pass. We know that when it comes over to the Senate, it will pass here for many good reasons--for the reasons I already stated, for economic reasons and job creation reasons. But I also want to add that passage of the USMCA is important to negotiations with other countries. Having Mexico, Canada, and the United States in one accord adds leverage to the President's negotiations with China, especially now that we have a bilateral trade deal with Japan that President Trump has negotiated so effectively, and when working with other neighbors and allies on other bilateral trade agreements. All of this adds to leverage in negotiating with China. I want to speak for a couple of minutes about the specifics to my State of North Dakota. We are a border State with Manitoba and Saskatchewan in Canada, and our northern border is by far our biggest trading partner. In 2017, my State of North Dakota exported $5.8 billion worth of goods to the global marketplace. Those exports contributed to 28,000 jobs. Of that $5.8 billion, we exported $4.9 billion of goods to Canada. That is 84 percent of North Dakota's exports that go to our northern neighbor, Canada. When adding Mexico into that equation, that is 88 percent of the value of North Dakota's exported goods and services going to USMCA countries. Farmers and manufacturers can be very pleased with the renegotiated terms that will now benefit them directly with a commitment from Canada to reduce trade distorting policies and improve transparency, something that we have a little issue with in the original NAFTA. In addition, the new agreement assures nondiscriminatory treatment for agricultural products standards--a major win for our farmers. Specifically for North Dakota, I spoke directly with President Trump concerning the biased Canada grain grading issue and wrote a line he actually used in a speech. I worked closely with U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer and chief agriculture negotiator Doud to ensure that our grain growers were relieved of the unfair practice of grading North Dakota grain as sub- par feed. This is estimated to double U.S. exports of grain to Canada. North Dakota grain growers deserve better, and they will now be recognized properly if we can get the House of Representatives to bring the USMCA up for a vote. Our manufacturing workforce will be pleased with the automotive and machinery provisions that are included in this deal. Going forward, vehicles are mandated to have 75 percent of North American content to be imported without tariffs, compared to 62.5 percent. Also, at least 40 percent of a vehicle eligible for duty-free importing must have been built by workers earning at least $16 an hour. This is a big win for labor. This wage requirement will ensure that the market is not being flooded by cheap labor, particularly from south of the border. Renegotiating and reorganizing NAFTA into the USMCA was an essential move for our State, given the economic relationship and mutual reliance North Dakota and Canada share as neighbors. I applaud President Trump for securing his promise to approve a superior deal for our State and our country. It is my sincere hope that the House and Senate will act to ratify this agreement as soon as possible in order to cement this win for our country. We must demand that Speaker Pelosi set petty partisan politics aside, even if just for a day, to bring this important ratification up to the House so it can be passed and sent to the Senate so we can be on our way to a new, improved, modern U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, before we vote, I want to take a few minutes to express my strong opposition to what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing with their Congressional Review Act resolution. They are asking the United States to give up a very good, responsible, and Affordable Clean Energy Plan and replace it with the old, Obama-era, illegal, and unconstitutional Clean Power Plan. Prior to being elected to Congress, I spent nearly 10 years in North Dakota as an energy regulator and oversaw both economic and environmental policies and regulations in our State. I know something of this issue. For the American people, a fully implemented Obama-era Clean Power Plan would result in much higher electricity costs, less money in their pockets, fewer well-paying jobs, and just a lot less freedom. Across the country, their plan would reduce household spending by $79 billion. It would increase electricity prices in my State of North Dakota by 43 percent, and it would cost over 125,000 jobs over the next decade. Perhaps one of the most disturbing things about the Clean Power Plan that was presented by the Obama administration--one of the reasons, frankly, that it was deemed to be unconstitutional and illegal and had a stay put on it by the U.S. Supreme Court--was that in my State, under the proposed rule, we had a CO2 reduction target of 11 percent. Yet, in the classic bait-and-switch maneuver, the final rule increased that 11 percent by 400 percent. The 11 percent, while illegal, was doable, but the 400 percent was ridiculous. So make no mistake, right now, here in the U.S. Senate, the Democrats are asking us to vote to eliminate good jobs, to raise the cost of living, and to take more money out of the pockets of the American people. For what? The United States does not need an unconstitutional Federal power grab, like this one, in order to lead the world in reducing our emissions. In fact, we already do. Emissions have been declining in the United States for nearly 50 years. We don't need to apologize for our action or inaction. In fact, we need to start honoring the innovators who have made these reductions possible in the first place. We should be encouraging them and incentivizing them to continue their work in order to pave the way for responsible energy production that will be used for generations to come not just here in the United States but across the world. In the context of several issues, I often speak about needing to follow a Federalist model, the cooperative federalism that our Founders envisioned when they created the States. That is a model of State control, with Governors being in charge, not Presidents. This is under the umbrella, of course, of good Federal oversight and, of course, some authority. Yet States need to have primacy. Put those who are closest to the people in charge, give them the authority and the resources they need, and this model will produce the best results nearly every time, if not every time. The Obama era's Clean Power Plan is exactly the opposite of that. It is a Federal power grab that the States have rejected and, yes, that the Supreme Court has ruled a stay on. By stark contrast, the affordable clean energy rule that has been put forward by the Trump administration, which is the rule the Democrats want to overturn today in favor of the unconstitutional plan that hurts the American people, is a win for North Dakota and for States across the country. It respects the law and restores the proper balance between States and the Federal Government. It also promotes energy security. Maybe one could even say it promotes energy dominance. ACE, as it is called, gives States the flexibility to set their own emission standards. It focuses on energy efficiency improvements at individual powerplants, and it incentivizes increased efficiency for coal powerplants, which allows them to remain open. We have that important base of low-cost, reliable electricity in the form of clean energy. This simple, responsible plan is what the Democrats find so abhorrent. With the vote today, they are asking us to scrap the affordable clean energy rule and return to a rule that is unconstitutional, that tramples on States' rights, that kills jobs, that raises electricity rates, and that does nothing substantial to reduce emissions. I applaud President Trump and EPA Administrator Wheeler for having included Governors and States and innovators in the discussion before having made the final rule. We cannot let this happen today, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the legacy of Wimmer's Diamonds, which this month is celebrating a century of doing business in Fargo. Throughout these years, this fourth-generation jewelry store has been a mainstay in downtown Fargo. It has grown along with the city, adding a second location at West Acres Mall in 1985. The business began as the Fargo Jewelry Manufacturing Company, founded by Fred Wimmer, a Hungarian immigrant who arrived in New York City in 1907. He began working in America at Tiffany & Co. as an engraver. He moved West 3 years later, continuing his work in Minneapolis and Owatonna, Minnesota, for 6 more years before arriving in Fargo in 1919. In the years since, the Wimmer family has designed, sold, and serviced diamonds to customers throughout the region. The responsibility for keeping the business going has been passed on from Fred to his son, Art, then to grandson Andy, and on to the current generation of owners, Brad Wimmer and his son, Aaron. Likewise, Wimmer's Diamonds has been a destination for generations of customers, who have looked to it as a trusted partner when occasions call for a gift of diamonds and fine jewelry. In a time when there are fewer family-owned businesses, Wimmer's has been successful by adapting to the changes of retail management and customer preferences. It has been long established as a valued member of the community, giving back over the years in every way possible. I congratulate the entire Wimmer family for a century of business in Fargo. Wimmer's Diamonds is testament to the importance of small businesses in communities of all sizes across the Nation and the impact entrepreneurs have on our American economy. You have enhanced the quality of life we treasure in North Dakota and have set a very high bar for being a dedicated community partner. Thank you for all you have done to enhance the happy occasions in the lives of your customers, and I hope you will remain part of our celebrations for many years to come.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I rise in support of America's Transportation Infrastructure Act, a bill we on the Environment and Public Works Committee passed today with broad bipartisan support. Our bill contains the largest funding commitment in highway authorization history. It grows our economy, enhances roads and bridges, improves transportation safety, provides funds for necessary projects, eliminates burdensome regulation, promotes innovation, and invests in our Tribal lands. Our EPW chairman said the bill would ``enhance quality of life for the American people.'' Our ranking member believes it ``can endure the test of time and keep up with the evolving demands of a 21st century global economy.'' I agree with their assessments, and as a member of EPW, I want to thank them for listening to our priorities and collaborating with each of us. Since joining the Senate, I have expressed my belief that divided government presents an opportunity for us to achieve mutually beneficial goals and shared priorities. President Trump, myself, and my colleagues in Congress agree on the importance of investing in our Nation's infrastructure. This bill is proof that we can work together in a bipartisan manner on behalf of the American people. More important to me than anything else, our bill also reflects the needs of my great State of North Dakota. As a large, rural State built on agriculture and natural resources, we are heavily dependent on our extensive infrastructure to get our goods to market. With that in mind, I reached out our stakeholders at the very beginning of this process to glean their perspective. We received input and comments from city, county, and State leaders all across North Dakota, expressing their desire for a highway bill reauthorization that works best for our State. Their feedback and priorities are very important to me. While not all of their requests were met, I want them to know their voices were heard. I therefore ask unanimous consent for the letters they sent us to be printed in the Record following my remarks. Full versions of each of these letters can be found on my official website. I would also like to take a moment to highlight some of the bright spots in this legislation. First, at $287 billion, this is the largest highway bill in history. North Dakotans made it clear: They want a real, long-term reauthorization that does more than the status quo and actually invests in our Nation's roads and bridges. Second, 90 percent of these funds will be distributed to the States via formula. That is incredibly important to large, rural States like North Dakota. The main point for the formula is that it is not discretionary, so it is stable, predictable funding. We have vast stretches of highway system that contribute greatly to our Nation's economy and interstate commerce. Despite our low population, rural States contribute much more to the highway trust fund per capita than the rest of the country. In fact, North Dakota contributes the second-highest amount in the country, roughly three times more than the national average. Maintaining the current formula ensures that our State's contribution is acknowledged and paid back to us in a consistent, unbiased manner, giving North Dakota steady funding and flexibility to prioritize our State's transportation needs. Under this bill, transportation funding has increased by 27 percent, and North Dakota will receive nearly $1.6B over the next 5 years, which is welcome news to communities back home. Third, America's Transportation Infrastructure Act cuts duplicative bureaucracy and delays. For example, it establishes a 2-year goal for completing environmental reviews, a 90-day timeline for related project authorizations, and an accountability system for these projects. The days of half-finished, never-ending projects must come to an end. This bill acknowledges that. In addition, it creates incentives to lessen carbon emissions and reduce methane and energy waste. Lastly, this bill includes multiple provisions I have cosponsored. The bipartisan USE-IT Act, which incentivizes carbon capture and sequestration technology, is included in this package; as is the Addressing Underdeveloped and Tribally Operated Streets Act, also known as the AUTOS Act. The AUTOS Act, sponsored by my fellow North Dakota Senator John Hoeven, would enhance the safety of roads on Indian lands by streamlining existing federal procedures and increasing funding to repair roads and bridges in Indian country. These just a few of the many aspects of our bill that I support. As I have demonstrated, this is an economically and environmentally responsible bill. It is a win for both sides of the aisle and a win for our country. I am grateful our committee was able to take this first step today. I encourage my colleagues in the House to be proactive and to avoid procrastinating until the last minute. Let's work together in a timely fashion to deliver a significant investment for the constituents we serve.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleagues today to commemorate this anniversary of an incredible event. Fifty-eight years ago in May of 1961--the year in which I was born-- President John F. Kennedy appeared before Congress and boldly declared the United States would send an American to the Moon before the end of the decade. This was no small task, obviously, as programs had to be funded, as scientific advancements had to be made, and as foreign adversaries had to be kept at bay. As the head of NASA's Space Task Group said, ``Flying a man to the Moon required an enormous advance in the science of flight in a very short time.'' Yet President Kennedy was not deterred. In his ignoring conventional wisdom and the ever-present naysayers, he pressed on, and so did the patriotic Americans who were charged with making this happen. A few years later, NASA began its Apollo missions, and the necessary scientific advancements became a reality. In October of 1968, Apollo 7 was the first Apollo mission in space, and it conducted the very first live TV program of a U.S. spacecraft. Apollo 8 launched 2 months later and successfully orbited the Moon. Apollo 9 carried the first lunar module into orbit in March of 1969. We were getting closer. Apollo 10 launched in May. It was a full dress rehearsal for the Apollo 11 mission. It was successful. We were ready. Fifty years ago yesterday, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins launched the Apollo 11 mission to fulfill President Kennedy's promise of landing on the Moon. That week, my 8-year-old self and an estimated 650 million of my closest friends from around the world watched Neil Armstrong land on the Moon and plant our Nation's flag. He offered the famous phrase: ``That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.'' That giant leap was a monumental moment in history, for sure, and it didn't happen in the abstract. It was really the result of hundreds of years of scientific discovery and decades of work from countless public servants who devoted their lives to this cause. Apollo 10 gave Apollo 11 the confidence that the operation would be successful. Apollo 7 gave us the opportunity to see its success with our own eyes. The astronauts of Apollo 1, in a fatal 1967 tragedy, gave their lives to this mission. That giant leap happened because of the small steps that had been taken before it, and those who took that giant leap are pressing on even today. The scientific discovery and space exploration that were made possible because of those missions continue to this day, including in my great State of North Dakota. Just a few years after the Moon landing, the University of North Dakota's John Odegard asked Buzz Aldrin to come to our State to help him start a space education program within the University of North Dakota, and Buzz Aldrin said yes. He left the State, of course, ultimately, but the program stayed, and it grew. Today, students from across the globe enroll in the University of North Dakota to learn about the cutting-edge technologies and scientific breakthroughs in space exploration. Some of their recent endeavors provide vital insights for future space exploration, including for a mission to Mars. North Dakotans don't just learn; they get involved. Some even become astronauts. New Rockford's own James Buchli joined NASA in 1979 and 6 years later became the first North Dakotan to go to space, and he is now in the U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame. Shortly after Buchli's space flight came West Fargo's Tony England, who launched into space 6 months later. England's career is marked by his work 15 years earlier at Mission Control, where he and others heard the chilling words, ``Houston, we have a problem.'' England's team helped save the lives of those on the Apollo 13 mission that day. Then Jamestown's Rick Hieb launched into space three times starting in 1991. The University of North Dakota's 1994 graduate Karen Nyberg was the 50th woman ever to launch into space. She did it first in 2008. She also spent 6 months on the International Space Station in 2013 and now serves on the board of the University of North Dakota School of Aerospace Sciences' foundation, giving back to her alma mater. North Dakotans leave an outsized mark in the world of space exploration, and they are just getting started. The University of North Dakota touts over 100 students taking graduate classes in the Department of Space Studies, and they have handed out nearly 800 master of science degrees in space studies since the program began. I am optimistic about the roles these leaders will play in the future, following the leads of giants like Buzz Aldrin and Karen Nyberg. I was only 8 years old during the Apollo 11 mission. Like most Americans, I found it to be an exhilarating experience, even watching it on my parents' black and white television. But I know I didn't fully grasp the importance of what I was watching that day. I worry sometimes that many people still don't. Space was, is, and will be integral to our way of life, and we must continue to maintain our commercial, technological, and military edge in this important domain. I hope we will use this anniversary as an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to space exploration and to remind ourselves of the impact investments made today can have on our future, and along the way, perhaps we can renew that unifying American spirit that was so prevalent on that day 50 years ago and perhaps even give inspiration to aspiration once again. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize July 10 as Chronic Disease Day and to call attention to the unique healthcare needs of patients from this diverse community. This date is significant due to the fact that it represents the 7 out of 10 Americans who will succumb to some form of chronic illness. Governors and State legislatures across the country will be working with local chronic disease patient advocates on July 10 to highlight contemporary challenges and opportunities, and I encourage my colleagues to join in this effort. Chronic illness includes cancers, cardiovascular disease, and many other conditions, some very rare. Some chronic illnesses can be preventable, and Chronic Disease Day is an opportunity to feature healthy lifestyles, the importance of regular health screenings, and proper self-care. In this regard, awareness and education can go a long way towards improving patient outcomes, preventing the progression of disease, and lowering healthcare costs. Many chronic illnesses are unavoidable though and have genetic components or are simply idiopathic with an unknown origin. These include rare and life-threatening conditions that require near constant access to life-sustaining care or therapies. These patient occasionally rely on voluntary charitable assistance programs to maintain this access when they have no other options. July 10 is a time to promote the importance of preventing chronic disease while reflecting on opportunities to better serve individuals and families facing serious chronic illness. I call on my colleagues to please join me in recognizing Chronic Disease Day.