Kevin Cramer

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, BLM's Methane and Waste Prevention rule really is an overreach of authority that is already held by the EPA and the States. In fact, in North Dakota, the Department of Mineral Resources has waste prevention or conservation rules in place and is the first in the Nation to set gas capture requirements and goals. Requiring operators to meet yet another set of rules, in addition to States' permits, results in substantial increases in both time and cost without any additional benefit to the public or to the environment, and that would also subject operators to conflicting rules, which actually could have the adverse effect that this rule aims at. Just in North Dakota alone, it is estimated this rule would cost $24 million in lost tax revenue, and $240 million per year would be lost in production, but $39 million, most importantly, would be lost in royalty revenues, not to big, rich oil companies who make large contributions, as our friends on the other side like to talk about, but to regular people, farmers and ranchers and landowners who own the royalty, who get the royalty. These are the very people the Democrats love to talk about but don't seem to know how to talk to. Methane leaks are wasteful, but there is a natural incentive to capture it. Methane is not a waste product, it is a commodity. The overall, best-case scenario impact of this rule would be a reduction of 0.06 percent. Now, if the BLM really wants to do something, they could streamline the permitting of the infrastructure that would capture it. I know of two pipeline projects in North Dakota alone that, had they been allowed to move forward, at no expense to the government, had they been allowed to move forward by the BLM, without its heavy hand of regulation, would have reduced emissions 6 percent; 6 percent with the natural incentive, stopped by the BLM, rather than this rule, which would, perhaps in the best case scenario, reduce it 0.06 percent.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam Speaker, North Dakota does not need the stream protection rule and neither does the Nation. By passing this resolution today disapproving the Office of Surface Mining edict, we are responding to the cries of the American people who are tired of nationwide job-killing regulations from Washington. Madam Speaker, the Obama administration took nearly an entire term and over 10 million taxpayer dollars developing this job killer designed to prevent billions of dollars of coal reserves from ever being developed with absolutely no environmental benefit. Today's action prevents further destruction of jobs and low-cost energy for the American people. I urge the Senate to swiftly send this resolution to the President's desk.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise with a heavy heart to honor the life of Rolette County Sheriff's Deputy Colt Allery. On January 18, Deputy Allery made the ultimate sacrifice when he was shot and killed in the line of duty following a high-speed pursuit of a stolen vehicle near Belcourt, North Dakota. He was only 29 years old. Mr. Speaker, people from across North Dakota and the country gathered today in Belcourt to pay tribute to Deputy Allery, who has been described by his friends and his colleagues as someone ``full of spunk, cheerful, and always smiling.'' He grew up and lived in St. John, North Dakota, where he dedicated his adult life to selflessly serving and defending his community through a career in law enforcement. In 2011, he became a correctional officer for Rolette County, and later served with the Rolla Police Department and Turtle Mountain Tribal Police Department before joining the Rolette County Sheriff's Office as a deputy, just 3 months ago. Our State is heartbroken over the loss of another hero taken from us way too soon, and we will never forget Deputy Allery's service and sacrifice in defense of the citizens of North Dakota. My wife, Kris, and I offer our prayers on behalf of Deputy Allery's family, and express our condolences and our profound gratefulness to all police officers who put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities and country. God bless them, and God bless the memory of Deputy Colt Allery.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the WIIN Act includes two provisions very important to constituents of mine in North Dakota that involve Bureau of Land Management properties; and because of the House rules, I was unable to put these provisions in the House WRDA Act. However, Senator Hoeven was able to get them into the Senate bill; and, with the strong support of committee leadership and staff, we were able to work it out and get them in the final bill. One provision concludes an issue that has been going on for years that involves the continued use of trailer homes around Lake Tschida, or the Heart Butte Reservoir. The requirements set in this provision will increase safety while supporting existing investments and continued recreation around the lake. The other deals with a more recent issue that has arisen lately of looming fee increases at cabins and trailers at three North Dakota BLM reservoirs: the Heart Butte, Dickinson, and Jamestown. Because market rent surveys weren't completed for many years, and then the recent increases in North Dakota property values, surveys completed last year concluded that the fees would have to be increased 91 to 232 percent overnight. Obviously, my constituents would be hit too hard by that, so this bill helps correct that and brings a smoother transition.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about the rule of law, the importance of enforcement of the rule of law, the importance of a government that stands for law and order. I ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, as I begin my comments tonight by reading a resolution of support, a resolution that illustrates the position of a very important organization in my State of North Dakota, the North Dakota Veterans Coordinating Council. It reads like this: Whereas: The protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline have been going on for over 100 days in North Dakota. Whereas: The protests have been conducted on public and private land without proper permission. Whereas: The protests have not remained peaceful. In fact, the protesters have caused millions of dollars in damage. They have destroyed public and privately owned property, vehicles, and equipment to include heavy equipment and trucks owned by private contractors, at least two government trucks, cut privately owned fences, and slaughtered farm animals owned by private farms. Protesters have assaulted and thrown Molotov cocktails and hard objects at North Dakota law enforcement officers and military personnel who are sworn to keep the peace and protect North Dakota's citizens. Whereas: Protesters have desecrated North Dakota State and Federal property, to include the North Dakota State Capitol and, yes, the North Dakota pillar of the World War II Monument right here in Washington, D.C., located at The National Mall. Whereas: The protesters of the Dakota Access Pipeline in and around Standing Rock have desecrated the American flag by flying it upside down, sewing emblems over the flag, and displaying emblems and non-U.S. flags in a dominant manner to the U.S. flag in violation of North Dakota Century Code. Whereas: 95 percent of the protesters are not North Dakota citizens or Native Americans. Many are professional paid protesters unaware of the true understanding of the issues at hand. Whereas: As former military members, we have all taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against foreign and domestic enemies, the American flag, and our freedom. As veterans, we continue to support our military, law enforcement, and all of our constitutional rights we have fought for. Whereas: As veterans of the U.S. military, we have fought for and maintained the rights of our citizens to peacefully protest. The protests in Standing Rock have not been peaceful and, therefore, violate the rights of those living peacefully around the protest site and threaten the sanctity and sustainability of our basic freedom of peaceful protests by crossing the line into unlawful activities. Whereas: Individual veterans and veteran groups from outside of the State of North Dakota have reached out to North Dakota veterans and veterans service organizations for support in their plan to recruit veterans to assemble in North Dakota in support of the Standing Rock protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Whereas: Veterans standing in a nonpeaceful protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline, will also be standing against North Dakota law enforcement, military, private and government entities, reflects poorly upon themselves, our veterans organizations, veterans as a whole, the State of North Dakota, and our country. Therefore: Let it be the position of the North Dakota Veterans Coordinating Council made up of the North Dakota AMVETS, American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Vietnam Veterans of America adamantly oppose and condemn any veteran organization or persons representing themselves as U.S. military veterans who associate or involve themselves with the illegal activities which have occurred or take part in any unlawful or unbecoming conduct or assembly in protest to the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I could never say it better than the men and women who have fought and who have been willing to die for our liberties. They have said it perfectly in this position in support of a legally permitted pipeline and in support of our law enforcement officers who have exercised tremendous restraint against violence thrown at them. I, for one, am tired, as are the vast majority of North Dakotans, of people from outside of our State with a political agenda who have co- opted the reasonable, peaceful protests that once began what has become a full-fledged riot. Mr. Speaker, for more than 3 months, thousands of rioters disguising themselves as prayerful people, peaceful protesters, have illegally camped on Federal land owned or at least managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, owned by the taxpayers of this country. They have illegally camped on the shores of the Missouri River. By the way, Mr. Speaker, if you and I decided to go for a walk on that same land and picked up a rock and threw it in the river, we would be fined by this government. But, oh, no, not antifossil fuel rioters. No, they are enabled; no, they are encouraged by our Federal Government, at least this current Administration. Celebrities, bad actors; celebrities, political activists; and anti- oil extremists are blocking this pipeline's progress, and they are doing so based not on good information, not on the law, but rather on a leftwing political agenda. Oh, by the way, these celebrities and these rioters fly in on jet airplanes that are fueled by jet fuel that is refined from oil, in many cases Bakken oil; but let's ignore the irony and the hypocrisy for the moment. North Dakotans like these veterans that I just read about have respected the rights of peaceful protesters, but this has gone way beyond that. It has become rioting, plain and simple. In fact, I think it is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that two Federal courts right here in the District of Columbia have upheld the legality of this pipeline. First, a D.C. Circuit district judge appointed by President Obama, I might add, denied a request for an injunction to stop this pipeline based on the fact that not only has the company and the Corps of Engineers and the North Dakota Public Service Commission met every letter of the law, but exceeded it, including, according to this judge's own opinion, exceeding the requirements for consultation with the sovereign tribes. The project developer and the Army Corps tried desperately to engage the Standing Rock Sioux tribe dozens of times, only to be rejected for more than 2 years. Mr. Speaker, all that remains for the pipeline to be finished is an easement to begin the process and to finish the process of connecting this pipeline under the Missouri River in North Dakota, an easement that has been prepared and finished for months. Of course, the Obama administration rescinded a permit that had already been issued, a 408 permit to allow the pipeline to be built under this river. The same administration, by the way, who has gone to court to defend it. It is ironic, to say the least. It is chaos, to say the best. At the center of this issue is an administration that refuses--not just refuses to follow the rule of law, but enables and encourages the breaking of the law, beginning with the fact that thousands of illegal protesters are allowed to camp, to trespass on federally owned land. Now, if you allow somebody to illegally assemble, why would they not think that they should be allowed to burn property? Why would they not think they should be allowed to trespass on private land? Why would they think they shouldn't be allowed to throw Molotov cocktails at police officers trying to protect innocent citizens? Why would they not think they could follow a police officer home and harass his family until they had to move out of their home, or follow a National Guard member to their apartment and then harass them at their apartment and force their family to leave, to spit on them? Why would they think they shouldn't be allowed to do that if the President of the United States says go ahead and trespass? Never mind that this is a legally permitted pipeline. Let's just ignore that. Let's withdraw the permit that we have already issued, that we are defending in court. Why wouldn't they think that? What has happened, Mr. Speaker, to virtue in this country? When I see these protesters, rioters, criminals, thugs--yes, thugs; it is not a racial comment; it is just what you call people who are thugs--I look at them and I think, who is their mother? Where were they raised? How were they raised? What has happened in this country when we stand here in this Chamber, in this assembly, in this town, and we hear some people, politicians, supposed leaders, talk about law enforcement as though they are the problem? What has happened that people have become confused about the difference between breaking the law and enforcing the law? It is hard for North Dakotans to see that because we are not confused by that. We were raised by parents who told us what was right and what was wrong, who taught us to respect the legal system, to respect law enforcement officers. We have really respectable police officers in North Dakota, and we do throughout this country, because we have seen them come from multiple States. The National Sheriffs' Association has sent many officers. Other States and city police departments and counties have sent law enforcement officers to give some assistance to our overworked, overtaxed law enforcement officers right in North Dakota. We are tired of it. Stay home, Jane Fonda; don't come back and deliver food, pretend that somehow you care and take off again in your private jet; unless you want to try to fly that jet on solar panels, then come on, we will take you. You can't encourage illegal behavior and then wonder why there is violence, Mr. Speaker; and that is what our President has done. Let's give a little background on this. I know a little bit about siting pipelines. I was a regulator for nearly 10 years. I have sited several of them. This 1,172-mile Dakota Access Pipeline will deliver as many as 570,000 barrels of Bakken crude oil every day to Patoka, Illinois, and then to other markets beyond. This is 570,000 barrels of oil that is currently being produced every single day. It is being transported now. It will always find its way to market. It is just that it is being transported by trains and trucks. Oh, those aren't as safe or as efficient or even as environmentally friendly ways to move oil as a safe pipeline is, especially one that is going to be buried 100 feet below the bottom of the river, to make sure that the water is safe. From the outset of this process, the Standing Rock Sioux leaders have refused to sit down and meet with either the Corps of Engineers or the pipeline developer. However, 55 other tribes have. The Corps consulted with 55 Native American tribes at least 389 times, after which they proposed 140 variations of the current route to avoid culturally sensitive areas in North Dakota alone. That is right, Mr. Speaker, you are not going to read about that in the New York Times or the Washington Post. You are never going to hear about it on NBC or ABC or CBS. You may not even hear about it in North Dakota because, frankly, even our media are afraid of the ramifications of violent rioters who are willing to commit violent acts if you cross them. Yes, even my home address has been posted on their Web sites and on their Facebook pages so that they know where my family and I live. These are the prayerful, peaceful protesters you hear so much about on the NBC News. This project route was examined, reviewed, studied, and ultimately supported by the North Dakota Public Service Commission, the State Historic Preservation Office, assorted tribal consultants from around the country, and multiple professional independent archaeologists. This is a thoroughly vetted pipeline, which is why it has over 200 Federal permits, all of which have been delivered and have been built, except for this one, which was rescinded to make a political statement. They say that they object to the pipeline being close to the water intake of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. However, it shouldn't be of any concern. As I said, this is going to go between 90 and 115 feet below the floor of the river. It is double-lined pipe. It has got control valves at both ends and sensors at both ends. It is the safest pipeline in the world. By the way, the intake for Standing Rock's drinking water, the new one, which will be in service before the end of this year, is 70 miles away. There is a railroad track that carries hundreds of thousands of barrels every day over the top of the Missouri, as close as that. By the way, the other thing you often hear is that this was not the original route, that there were other preferred routes, but because they crossed at places that affected a different kind of people than the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, that this was somehow discriminatory. Let me set that record straight as well. I know, as I said, a fair bit about pipelines. I have read the permit. I have read the application. I have read the judge's opinions. It was always planned for this location for a very good reason, Mr. Speaker. By the way, there are at least 10 to 12 other petroleum pipelines north of this same location. This is just going to be the latest and greatest of them. The main reason this route was chosen was because it was the least intrusive on the environment, on waterways, on private property, and on cultural resources. The other locations that were under consideration that were not chosen crossed many more bodies of water and were much closer to many wells and cultural resources and very important historical resources. It was 48 extra miles of previously undisturbed field areas. This is and was the best route because it is an existing corridor. In this same corridor, there is already a natural gas pipeline. There is already a large electric transmission line. That is why it was chosen. Let me talk a little bit about the impact this is having on my State. We had the recent vandalism of the graves in Bismark. That is right. They vandalized graves in a Bismark cemetery. Of course, the unconscionable graffiti markings on the North Dakota World War II pillar that the veterans wrote about earlier are examples of how these peaceful protestors' actions don't match their claims. The responsibility of protecting property and residents has fallen on the shoulders of the State of North Dakota because, guess what, when we asked the Obama administration for law enforcement help, for reimbursement, at least, for our State and for our counties for a situation that they created by their refusal to obey the law themselves, they sent some PR people from the Department of Justice. They sent people to watch our cops to make sure they don't do something wrong. See, again, they are confused about the difference between breaking the law and enforcing the law. We are not confused about that in North Dakota. Attempts to get reimbursement or to get U.S. Federal help have fallen on deaf ears. So far, North Dakota has had to borrow $17 million to cover law enforcement costs. I will tell you this--and we have heard in the Chamber a lot of bad-mouthing of the incoming administration--I can't wait. I can't wait to go to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and explain the situation to him and ask him for assistance. I am very encouraged by President-elect Trump's favorable comments about the Dakota Access Pipeline earlier today. These protesters, these demonstrators, these rioters have brought protests into the communities of Bismark and Mandan. They blocked roads and traffic, forcing lock-downs at the State capital and Federal buildings. They have forced people to leave their homes. They forced daycare centers to close. This daycare was forced into lockdown twice. Can you imagine explaining to children, who don't know anything about a pipeline and they don't care--and they shouldn't have to--why they are in a lockdown, why they have to be careful. Some out-of-State thugs are circling the block, harassing the owners. Many of our residents are fearful for the safety of their neighborhoods and volunteers are hesitant even to deliver Meals on Wheels. We have had people call us and say they can't deliver Meals on Wheels because people won't even answer their doors because they have seen these rioters walking around their property. Law enforcement and their families have been stopped and rioters have repeatedly tried to intimidate them. On Thanksgiving Day, 300 protesters blocked traffic in Mandan, North Dakota, carrying a large dead pig on a stick while at least as many protesters, again, trespassed and built a bridge to reach a hilltop on private property. Law enforcement has shown tremendous constraint, giving verbal warnings that if they stop making the bridge, there would not be any arrests. It was ignored. The bridge was built. Rioters crossed, dismantled the bridge, and law enforcement held the line for hours against tremendous numbers--they were well outnumbered--without a single arrest. The protesters are the clear agitators and the criminals here, not the police officers. There would be no law enforcement presence if these protests were truly peaceful. For example, most media have demonized their law enforcement for use of water as a less than lethal tool during a protest in cold temperatures. They used it to hold back protestors only after they used the water to put out prairie fires that were started by the protesters. And the protestors got wet from a water cannon. By the way, that is a made-up term by the national media to make it sound like some sort of violent act by our police department. It was a water hose brought there to put out fires. And when they used that to push back hundreds of protesters when there were only dozens of police officers, now they are blamed for being the agitators. As you can tell, I am frustrated, Mr. Speaker. I am frustrated not just by the actions of these thugs, because we have come to expect that from certain people in this country, unfortunately. I am frustrated by this administration's refusal to obey the law, to enforce the law, to support the law, but instead enable and actually encourage the breaking of the law. That is not what we elect the President for. I am so grateful we have a law-and-order President coming into office shortly. They have been forced to arrest more than 400 people, most of them from out of State. They get bailed out rather quickly. Somehow they have a source of lots of money readily available to bail people out and cover their expenses. They have chained themselves to equipment to prevent work from being done. Here is an interesting fact. When it was much warmer in North Dakota than it is today, they would chain themselves to the equipment. And then, after hours of being there, they would get thirsty. And police officers, rather than just letting them stay there, actually helped provide them water and held the water so that the protesters, the illegal rioters, could get a drink of water. That is the quality of our law enforcement officers. They burned tires and fields, as I said earlier. They damaged cars and bridges. They harassed residents and have torn down fences. They killed and slaughtered neighbors' cattle and bison and horses. There was at least one report where gunshots were fired at the police. By the way, this protest is not about climate. We hear about that. By the way, it shouldn't have anything to do with climate. The oil is being produced. Now the issue is: How do you transport it? Do you transport it in the most environmentally and economical and efficient way in a pipeline? Or, do you transport it in some less safe, less efficient, less environmentally friendly way? The simple fact is, our Nation will continue to produce and consume oil, and pipelines are the best way to move that oil. Legally permitting infrastructure projects have to be allowed to proceed without the threat of improper governmental meddling and activity. By the way, what of shovel-ready jobs, Mr. Speaker? What of that? What of building the infrastructure of this country with private sector money? What a great thing. But for the Bakken and other shale oil plays in this country in the last 8 years, we still would be in a recession. Most of the jobs that have been created in the last 8 years in this country have been created in the energy sector. It is not about water protection, as I said. There is a brand new intake system being built. It will be operational 73 miles from this pipeline. That is not the issue. That is just an excuse. By the way, that new intake is about 1.6 miles downstream of a railroad track, a railroad bridge that will carry crude oil, as well. The pipeline is not going to come in contact with the water. It employs the latest and greatest in advanced technology. As I said, a dozen or more oil and gas and refined product pipelines already cross the Missouri River upstream from the tribe's drinking water intake, and this pipeline is crossing at a point where there is existing infrastructure. It is an infrastructure corridor. Mr. Speaker, the rule of law matters. I am so grateful for our law enforcement officers, as I said, not just in Morton County, not just around Bismark, Mandan, and not just in North Dakota, but from around the country who have come to the assistance of our State. But, Mr. Speaker, if we think we are going to rebuild the infrastructure of this country, and every time we build a railroad track or a highway or a bridge or a pipeline or a transmission line or wind farm or factory, we are going to have to put up with this, what kind of investment is going to take place in this country? As I said, we are not confused in North Dakota about the difference between breaking the law and enforcing the law. The vast majority of North Dakotans--and when I say vast, well into 90 percent--support law enforcement. We are grateful for what they do. We are sorry that you are going through this. I will fight with everything I have and use every ounce of influence I have over the next administration and with my colleagues in this Chamber to provide the resources to make sure that you get a day off, to make sure that our State gets reimbursed, and that your families are compensated for what you have gone through. I thank law enforcement officers for taking and making the tremendous sacrifice they make to protect legal commerce, peaceful citizens, and yes, ironically, Mr. Speaker, I thank the law enforcement officers for protecting the right to express ourselves in a peaceful manner. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from New York and Indiana and the other colleagues supporting this legislation. They have described it beautifully. I would just simply state that what this really does is it brings FAA policy up to the contemporary standards of modern-day missions by our Air Force and Air National Guard. Many flying missions have made the transition or are making the transition from manned aircraft to remotely piloted aircraft, just like the Happy Hooligans in my home State of North Dakota, and I think this policy recognizes that reality. I am just going to wrap up by simply stating, Mr. Speaker, that there are many benefits to this bill in addition to the ones that have been stated. First of all, it is taxpayer friendly, and it is mission appropriate. It does nothing to diminish but rather enhances the integrity of the Air Force's mission, and it is good for taxpayers. It supports airport authorities and their flexibility, as well as military and defense operations. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, it strengthens the defense of our country, which is our highest priority, by keeping military installations at local airports. I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 5944.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, in February of 2014, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking called--and it is important to know what it is called--Management of Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights. In December of last year, the proposed rule was posted and comments were due in February of this year. Mr. Chairman, States--States, not the Federal Government, States-- largely regulate oil and gas operations except in circumstances where the Federal Government has ownership of the mineral rights. That obviously is not the case in this rule, given its title. Where there is Federal ownership, it is the Bureau of Land Management that has regulatory authority. And for an agency that has hundreds of personnel and decades of experience, even they have a hard time keeping up with the workload and maintaining adequate expertise in their agency. But, Mr. Chairman, not only do States have the authority and the expertise to regulate oil and gas industry, they have the most natural and obvious incentive to do it well. The State regulators live in the States where the minerals reside. Now, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not have the personnel or the expertise to regulate oil and gas operations, as demonstrated by GAO recommendations. Concerns outlined by the Fish and Wildlife Service are concerns that are addressed by several other regulatory bodies, including State regulators and, therefore, any attempt by Fish and Wildlife Service to also regulate would be redundant and duplicative. Enough already with redundant and duplicative regulations. The added regulation will only serve to increase the delays and the costs to U.S. energy producers and, consequently, ultimately to the consumers. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply prevents funding to move this job- killing rule any further, and I encourage my colleagues to support jobs by voting ``yes'' on my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just respond to my colleague's concern by stating that the concerns that he raises, that the Fish and Wildlife Service raises, are legitimate concerns. But they are concerns that are already being addressed by other regulatory bodies, including the States who have both the legal authority and the expertise as well as, as I said earlier, the natural incentive to do it well. It is where they live. I think it is also important to understand that it is sort of private property law 101, that the minerals are often bifurcated from the surface, and that is the case we are talking about. And in that case, at least in North Dakota, the minerals supersede, actually, the surface rights. So this rule conflicts with not only common sense, but even with basic private property law. I, again, urge a ``yes'' vote, and assure my colleagues that the concerns raised are being addressed by other regulatory bodies. Duplication is not necessary. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, in the last few months more than 175 Members of Congress from both parties and both Chambers have expressed concerns about the FCC's proposed set-top box rules. Even the Small Business Administration has weighed in with concerns about how these rules could burden small operators. Last month, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader) and I authored a bipartisan letter signed by 59 of our colleagues that says, in part: ``the proposal threatens the economic welfare of small pay-TV companies providing both vital communications services to rural areas and competitive alternatives to consumers in urban markets.'' Mr. Speaker, if continued innovation in the video industry is the goal, then this proposed rule is the wrong direction. In fact, it is estimated that this rule could cost up to a million dollars or more per system. Now, a million dollars may not be a lot to a big company, but to most of the companies in rural North Dakota, it could be the difference between staying in business or going out of business. I also have strong concerns that the proposed rules are outside the Commission's legal authority. Instead of getting into another lengthy legal battle with Congress, I urge Chairman Wheeler and the FCC to drop these proposed rules because of the harm it could inflict on small rural operators.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank now my two favorite marines. That was very nice. Thanks to both of them. Last Congress, in the Natural Resources Committee, we actually had an oversight hearing regarding the child protection crisis on the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation in my State of North Dakota in response to numerous child deaths and whistleblower reports detailing unsafe tribal placement of almost 40 foster children in abusive homes, many of these homes that were headed by convicted sex offenders. In an effort to protect these children, I did introduce the Native American Children's Safety Act in the House, which is a companion bill, as noted by previous speakers, that was introduced in the Senate by Senator Hoeven and Senator Tester. Both bills passed their respective Chambers without objection. Today I am asking my colleagues here in the House to join me in passing the Senate bill so that we can get it to the President for his quick signature. As stated, the bill implements across-the-board minimum protections for children placed in foster care at the direction of a tribal court. And, yes, the statistics are stark. Native American children are 2.5 times more likely to be victims of abuse or neglect than other American children. But, Mr. Speaker, children exposed to violence are also more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. They are more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety and other post-traumatic disorders. The standards in this bill mirror existing national requirements for non-tribal foster care placements, ensuring that tribal children receive care at least equal to that in the protections afforded non- tribal children. It is bipartisan, as you can tell. It is noncontroversial, as you can tell. It was reported out of the Natural Resources Committee by unanimous consent both this Congress and the last Congress. But I want to add this word of thanks to other folks who were very helpful. I want to thank the National Indian Child Welfare Association, the National Congress of American Indians, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Department of Health and Human Services, all of whom provided insights and suggestions for this bill. Their counsel proved valuable in providing the flexibility to the tribes without hampering, stepping on their sovereignty, so that they could transition to these uniform standards and help save perhaps many, many lives on our reservations. I thank my colleagues. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, reducing our ICBM alertness is reducing our readiness, and the whole point of the Defense Authorization Act is to ensure our military readiness. The ICBMs have been a very effective deterrent to enemy aggression for decades. This amendment is simply a deterrent to those who would try to reduce our readiness by reducing our alertness and reducing the number of ICBMs. This would be a dangerous step, contrary to the longstanding policies of our defense and certainly a bad posture.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. I thank Mrs. Brooks for her leadership on this--Mr. Kennedy's as well--and for bringing this important legislation to our committee and to the floor. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support H.R. 4641. With heroin addiction now being three times greater than it was a decade ago, we know it doesn't matter where you come from. Whether you are on an Indian reservation, on a farm, in the middle of a city, in a suburb, in a small town, or whether you are in a Fargo high school, at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, or at Bismarck State College, it doesn't matter what your lot is in life. It doesn't matter what your income level is. It doesn't matter what your social status is. This opioid abuse crisis affects people from all walks of life, and it is about time we acknowledged it and tried to deal with it at this level. This bill is pretty basic, but is pretty profound as well because it takes advantage of the collective opportunity of the collective talents, experiences, and backgrounds of the people on the ground who are dealing with it every day. It brings it all together and facilitates it at every level of government in every community and in every State whether it is North Dakota or Indiana or Massachusetts. It is the beginning, I believe, of a profound solution. Just as much as anything, I applaud the efforts of the leadership who brought this to us, and I grieve with so many parents as we have heard their stories. This year, in the Fargo, North Dakota, area alone, there have been a minimum of 10 fatal overdoses because of this crisis. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with anybody and everybody in this Chamber, as well as in the Chamber on the other side of the Capitol, to help solve this problem.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, forgive me for being proud, but today my 750,000 fellow North Dakotans and I are standing a little taller as we celebrate the extraordinary accomplishments of one exceptional young man. Last night, every television in North Dakota was tuned in to the NFL draft to see who the lucky team would be who gets North Dakota State University quarterback Carson Wentz. The Philadelphia Eagles used the second overall pick to take Carson. Cheers and tears of pride and admiration for the most famous Bison football player ever expressed a sense of State patriotism. NDSU's record of five consecutive FCS national championships took a backseat to one special Bismarck native, and rightfully so. Carson Wentz is more than a 6 foot, 5 inch superathlete. He is a man who takes God's incredible gifts and works them with an ethic of worship. His mind and heart are as big as his frame; and his pride is not in himself, but it is in his team, in his school, in his community, and in his State. We are happy for the good people of Philadelphia, knowing that Pennsylvania is gaining much more than a great football player. They are gaining a great citizen. Congratulations, Eagles. And God bless you in your new adventure, Carson Wentz. Thanks for being a great ambassador for North Dakota.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chair, as the chairman said, I served nearly 10 years as a title II rate regulator on the North Dakota Public Service Commission, and I know what title II rate regulation looks like. The Internet is not an appropriate vehicle or medium for this type of regulation. The Internet is not a monopoly railroad, the Internet is not a monopoly telephone company, it is not a monopoly electric or gas utility. The Internet is a dynamic, competitive innovator. Even the threat of this type of regulation stifles that innovation, and we do not want that to happen. I want to address the amendment that was referred to by the ranking member of the subcommittee, who I have great respect for. She referred to the term ``permanent forbearance.'' That is a contradiction in terms. Forbearance is, by definition, temporary. He who has the authority to forebear has the authority to unforebear. That is exactly what her amendment did. That is why it was not adequate to this bill. This legislation simply codifies that which the President of the United States and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission promised: to not regulate rates. If they promised to do it, God bless them. But we don't know that the next Chairman and the next President will live up to that promise. This law ensures that that promise is kept by codifying it.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, the University of North Dakota is the State's largest and oldest university, with nearly 15,000 students, 225 fields of study, 3,000 courses, and 84 graduate education programs. UND has a reputation for research and scholarship in the health sciences, in energy and the environment, in aerospace and entrepreneurship--oh, yeah, and in hockey. In fact, Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, in Tampa, Florida, the University of North Dakota men's hockey team won its eighth NCAA Championship by defeating Quinnipiac five goals to one. UND hockey is legendary in the NCAA, with 22 Frozen Four appearances to go along with their eight national championships. Congratulations to Coach Brad Berry, to President Ed Schafer, the entire team--outstanding team--of student athletes and, of course, the incoming president and former Member of the House of Representatives, Mark Kennedy--for whom my advice would be, ``Don't screw this thing up''--and the entire UND family on their latest accomplishments. Thank you for a great season and for your tremendous example of excellence. As you raise another NCAA championship trophy, you also raise the bar for all of those who follow. That is a really good thing.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Walden for yielding the time and for his important leadership. I think it is worth noting, as I know Representative Loebsack and several of us from rural districts often get involved in issues like this, and I always like to remind people that Representative Walden's district is actually larger than the State of North Dakota. That is how rural we are. We all know Iowa is a rural State. I think this bill is a great representation of what happens when a coalition of rural States and districts get together and try to do the right thing for the people we work for. So it is a pleasure to be part of that. I will be brief because the leadership has already outlined the essence of the bill very effectively. I will spend just a minute or 2 talking about the reality of the importance of this to a place like North Dakota and to places like rural Oregon or Iowa and other places where distance is greater than the population, where the advantages of access to something as dynamic as the Internet makes all the difference in the world for education opportunities, for health care accessibility, and, of course, for individual use. That is a challenge in rural America that, frankly, many of our small Internet service providers and communication and technology companies have been meeting all along with plenty of things going against them, not the least of which is: much of the deployment of broadband in rural America has been done, even when it is not necessarily economically advantageous to do it at the time, so that the burdensome regulations, intended or unintended, that came from the FCC rule just don't apply to everybody. I think that the standards that we have set in the negotiation that have created the benchmarks for access deployment are appropriate. And 250,000 consumers and the size of the companies, I think, hits just right that sweet spot, not only because it was negotiated and it has got consensus, but because I think it is the right number. I think they are the right numbers. So we don't want to stifle innovation. We want to expand innovation, especially in something as dynamic as the Internet. This act does that. I am honored to be a part of it, and I am honored to be a member of the committee. I thank the Representative Eshoo as well as Representative Loebsack and certainly Chairman Walden for their leadership.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, the people of North Dakota have many admirable qualities. Throughout the history of my state, they have shown resourcefulness and perseverance as they have produced food to feed a hungry world and unlocked today's shale oil revolution. With low oil prices bringing a slowdown in the energy sector, North Dakotans are again showing their resilience. Many are looking to improve themselves by gaining new skills and more education. Bakken U, an innovative new program from the North Dakota University System that is funded by the North Dakota Petroleum Council, is helping make that happen. I want to congratulate Warren Logan of Dickinson, who left college a few years ago to work in North Dakota's oilfields. As the first recipient of a $5,000 Bakken U scholarship, he will continue to work fulltime while also being a fulltime student, finishing the business administration degree he began to pursue years ago. Warren is the first of many ambitious North Dakotans to take advantage of this unique Bakken U program. Bettering themselves with additional education is certain to benefit them and my entire state.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest challenges in public education is the integration of learning opportunities for exceptional children. Dedicated parents, teachers, staff and administrators all contribute to the success of this effort. Today I congratulate Meredith Frisch, a paraprofessional at Westside Elementary School in West Fargo, who was recognized as Paraeducator of the Year by the North Dakota Council for Exceptional Children. This award recognizes individuals who work to promote significant educational successes for students, a commitment to continued professional development and the highest standards of educational quality. Meredith represents well all paraeducators in my state who dedicate their careers to working with exceptional students. She is known for her commitment to finding the best in all students, encouraging them to reach above and beyond their potential all with a unique brand of compassion and humor. She is a credit to all educators throughout North Dakota, and our state is better because of her devotion to exceptional students.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, North Dakota's research universities are nurturing bright students in a variety of programs that encourage them to learn, grow, innovate and even change the world. Today, I congratulate North Dakota State University student Andrew Dalman, a graduate student in the mechanical engineering program. He has been recognized by the U.S. Society of Manufacturing Engineering as one of the ``30 under 30 Brightest Manufacturing Engineers.'' And again, Forbes magazine has put Andrew on its list of ``30 Under 30 in Manufacturing and Engineering in 2016.'' Andy has helped develop an affordable 3D-printed prosthetic arm for children. He was on an NDSU team designing a new shape and type of ceramic dental implant. Now he is focusing on an advanced bone technology project to make medical testing cheaper, safer and more ethical. The talents of young entrepreneurs and innovators like Andy bring hope and promise to our world as they focus their bright minds on some of the greatest challenges and opportunities facing us today. This is the highest calling of our state's higher education system, especially our outstanding research universities, and I commend all who are part of it.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, North Dakota's exceptional quality of life has often been recognized by those who live in my state and those who wish they did. The secret to this quality of life can be found in the quality of our people, the many individuals who dedicate their careers and volunteer time to making their communities better. Today, I want to recognize Rebekah Christensen, director of the Richland-Wilkin Kinship Program. She was presented with this year's Outstanding Citizen Award by the Wahpeton Breckenridge Area Chamber of Commerce for her work as head of this program. This Richland-Wilkin Kinship Program matches young people with volunteer adults. Its motto is ``Mentors are ordinary people doing ordinary thing that produce extraordinary results.'' This motto holds true as well with dynamic leaders like Rebekah, her mentor volunteers and board members, and the many community members who support the program financially and with community engagement opportunities. They are all contributing to supporting young people in the Wahpeton- Breckenridge area and helping them transition into successful adults.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a hero, Fargo police officer Jason Moszer. While in the Army National Guard, he was deployed as a combat medic to Bosnia and Iraq. Officer Moszer joined the Fargo Police Department in 2009. In 2012, he and a fellow officer were awarded the department's Silver Star Medal for rescuing two children from an apartment fire. On the night of February 10, Officer Moszer responded to a domestic disturbance, putting himself in danger to help others, something he had done many times. On this night, however, gunshots were fired and a bullet struck Officer Moszer, causing a fatal wound. He died the next afternoon, but not before one last heroic act. It is reported at least five people, ages 26 to 61, are being helped thanks to his donated organs. I thank our U.S. Capitol Police officers for their service to us every day. I especially thank Officer Andy Maybo, who traveled to Fargo to represent the Capitol Police and the National Memorial Committee, which he chairs. Andy lent his expertise to the Fargo PD and planners as they prepared for a fellow officer's funeral, an event that had not occurred in Fargo in over 130 years. God bless all the men and women who wear the badge, and God bless the memory of Officer Jason Moszer.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, if it seems like I stand here every year around this same time giving the same speech congratulating the same football team on winning the same national championship, it is because I do. I am here again to congratulate the North Dakota State University Bison on making football history by winning their unprecedented fifth FCS national championship, defeating Jacksonville State of, yes, Alabama, 37-10 in Frisco, Texas, last Saturday. Mr. Speaker, Bismarck's own Carson Wentz, our quarterback, earned MVP status for the second year in a row, an accomplishment made more remarkable by the fact that he missed the last eight games with a broken wrist on his throwing arm. His backup, freshman Easton Stick, deserves credit for leading the Thundering Herd to eight consecutive victories en route to Frisco. Excellence is never accidental, Mr. Speaker. The coaching staff and the athletes at Bison Nation earned their place in history through hard work and exceptional preparation. These are to be admired by our Nation and aspired to by our Nation. I look forward to standing here next year to celebrate the green and gold on winning an FCS six-pack. Go Bison.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I was informed last week that the Department of Health and Human Services is considering temporarily housing unoccupied minor children at military bases throughout the United States. Six bases are under consideration to house up to 5,000 of these undocumented children. One of the bases under consideration is Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress strongly enough my opposition to this plan. The reasons are numerous, but let me emphasize two of the most obvious: military bases are not appropriate for housing unaccompanied children, and unaccompanied children are not appropriate residents of a military base. The last Congress clearly expressed our opposition to housing unoccupied minors at military installations through the passage of H.R. 5230. Additionally, funding sufficient to meet the needs at the southern border was provided just a few weeks ago in the passage of the fiscal year 2016 omnibus spending bill. Mr. Speaker, it is neither compassionate to the children, nor in the country's best interests for national defense, to house these children at Grand Forks or any other military installation. I urge the administration to find a more appropriate solution to the crisis at our southern border.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk a little bit about one component of the omnibus tax extender package that is dominating the legislative agenda as we wrap up this year. The one piece of the package that I want to talk about is the lifting of the crude oil export ban, which is an issue that has passed twice now in the House of Representatives--in fact, as a stand-alone bill. H.R. 702, the lifting of the crude oil export ban, passed with 62 percent of the vote. As is often the case, good bills that are passed by the House often languish in the Senate for a number of reasons. Perhaps one of the main reasons bills languish in the Senate is that their rules are as antiquated as is this export ban on crude oil. Mr. Speaker, I want to take some time to talk about this provision and why it is important that we lift the crude oil export ban. I want to talk a little bit about the history that led to the export ban in the first place, and I want to talk about a more optimistic future as we look at the oil renaissance--what it has created and what it can create. As I said, the export ban really is an antiquated law. It was put in place 42 years ago, which was a very different time in our country. It was different for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that the ban on exporting crude oil came at a time when our country did not enjoy energy abundance as we do today. It, rather, suffered from a scarcity of energy resources--a scarcity of oil, a scarcity of all kinds of energy--and, certainly, from a scarcity of the products that are created by oil. It suffered even from a scarcity, frankly, of some of the technologies that make the development of fossil fuels and, yes, of new, cleaner--greener, if you will--energy sources. We are nothing in this country but for our innovation. I think innovation is the key to much of our success. It is not that the United States really had a scarcity of resources, but that, rather, we had a scarcity of technology to develop those resources. As the technology developed to get more and more of our energy resources and to develop them, it also progressed to make it more and more efficient to develop them and to make it cleaner to develop them. I am happy to elaborate. I represent the great State of North Dakota. I am the only Member of the people's House from the State of North Dakota. We have just over 700,000 people in my State. So, like my 434 colleagues, I represent, roughly, 700,000 citizens. It just so happens that they make up a State. In just the past few years alone, we have lost 80,000 U.S. jobs, just in the last year, 80,000 U.S. jobs, because our oil producers have been forced to scale back their rigs by nearly 60 percent. That is the result of a collapse in price. Why is there a collapse in price? There is a collapse in price largely because we are producing a lot more, and, of course, we cannot sell the product outside of the United States. Obviously, you can't produce more than your consumers can take in. In North Dakota, we grow a lot of crops. We grow a lot of food to feed a hungry world. In fact, we are the number one producer of anywhere from 12 to 16 or 18 crops depending on the year. We produce a lot of wheat, but we can't begin to eat it all. We produce a lot of cattle. We produce a lot of honey. We produce a lot of sunflowers. We produce a lot of beans. We produce a lot of products that we couldn't begin to consume in this country, but there are hungry people all over the world who would love to consume it. So we are always innovating, creating new breeds and technologies and farming practices and chemicals and, yes, modifying the product. Why? It is because there is not more land on which to grow more food, but there are many more people who need to eat it throughout the world. The same is true, in many respects, of energy. Yet now, as we have come upon this time with this renaissance that was created--again, not because God suddenly put more oil under the ground, but because of technology--the advancement of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has unlocked billions of barrels of oil that were always there or were at least there for several years--decades, centuries, millennia. It has unlocked it because of technology. We talk a lot about energy independence and about the goal to get there. Yes, that is a noble goal. I would submit, though, that more important than that is energy security. And I have heard the Chair, Mr. Speaker, talk about the topic of energy security with great eloquence. Energy security is like food security. It is the ability to develop and to produce what you need as well as to produce for the global marketplace, increasing our influence in the world. I am going to get into that in a little bit. Let's not forget about the jobs. Let me talk for a minute about the jobs in my home State of North Dakota, which is now the second leading producing State of oil, second only to Texas. I was an economic development director for our State at a time when we were beginning to diversify our economy, at a time when out- migration was just starting to plateau. Since that time, we have become the fastest growing economy in the country and have the fastest growing population in the country. We now have the second highest per capita personal income in the country and the lowest unemployment rate in the country. In fact, we still, even with this downturn, have more jobs than we have people looking for work in North Dakota. I have seen people go from poverty to prosperity. There is nothing wrong with that. I have seen truck drivers become fleet owners. I have seen short order cooks become restauranteurs. I have seen carpenters become developers. I have seen people who have a water well become entrepreneurs selling water for hydraulic fracturing. I have seen the renaissance lift people up. While a rising tide lifts all boats, they don't necessarily all get lifted at the exact same time. So there is a little bit of massaging and intervention that goes on to help people even during the boom, if you will, to keep up. According to an IHS Energy study, for every one job created in the oil and gas sector, there are six jobs created in the broader economy. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, from my experience in North Dakota, that is definitely true. It is not just the oil rig worker. It is not just the truck driver. It is not just the pipeline worker. All of them, as important as they are and as good of jobs as they are, it is that restaurant owner. It is the hair dresser. It is the Main Street retailer, the person selling groceries. It is the entrepreneur who comes up with an idea no one else had thought of before. It is the entrepreneur that sees the problem that needs a fix, finds the fix, sells it and markets it and becomes an employer as well, rather than just an employee. By the way, the American jobs created by the oil renaissance of recent years exists in all 50 States. Speaker Ryan put out this chart today, this little graphic piece, identifying the opportunities that lifting the crude oil export ban would have that go beyond the renaissance that we have experienced in recent years. Lifting the oil export ban would create an estimated 1 million American jobs in nearly all 50 States. That is because the supply chain that it takes to produce the oil, to discover the oil, to move the oil, to refine the oil, to finance, to do the accounting, it is in every State. In fact, the President's home State of Illinois is one of the greatest beneficiaries of the oil renaissance. Many of these 1 million jobs would be created right there within a matter of years. It would add, imagine now, $170 billion--with a B--to our gross domestic product every year. At a time when we are looking for revenue to meet the priorities of our Nation, at a time while unemployment has come down, we still have a very, very low workforce participation rate, at a time when our education system doesn't always match the opportunities, we have the opportunity with these additional dollars and the additional job opportunities to meet the demands of a growing economy. All the while, we could, with lifting the crude oil export ban, meet the market demands around the world. Mr. Speaker, I happen to think that history can be a great teacher. I said earlier that I want to address the history or the context of this export ban. How did this come to be? You know, as I said, much has been written and said by me and my colleagues and others in the industry how lifting the export ban would be good for our economy, how it would be good for job creation, and how it would be good for the United States of America. The history of how it came to be, I think, is useful. It was the Yom Kippur war in 1972 led by Syria--an attack by Syria backed up by, Mr. Speaker, none other than the Soviet Union--against our friends, Israel. It was the United States, as has been the rich tradition of our country, who came to the defense of our best friend and ally in democracy who shares our values in the Middle East, Israel. Syria and the Soviet Union pitted against Israel, backed by the United States. The Yom Kippur war led to the oil embargoes of 1973, which caused a reaction, leading eventually to this crude oil export ban. You might recall in the seventies, Mr. Speaker--I do, barely, but I do--the gas shortages, the rationing of gas, sales limited to 10 gallons of gas per customer, as is illustrated in this poster, this real picture of the 1970s. Now, while it might have been a well-meaning policy to put a ban on exporting crude oil with the idea that somehow we could produce enough oil in the United States or, at least, we ought to hoard what we have, it is not like the United States was a leading producer of oil. We weren't what we are today. Today, we are the number one producer of oil and gas. Gas, as you know, can be exported. By the way, refined petroleum products can also be exported. So that is what led to the ban. The problem is, as I said earlier, this isn't 1973 anymore. This is not 1979. This is not 1989. This is a time when we have energy abundance. We have oil abundance to the point where we have every storage facility, including pipelines, ships, and tanks, full of oil. We are still producing light, sweet crude, I might add. In a little bit, I will get to the difference between that and this heavy sour crude and the various market mixes that demand that. Mr. Speaker, as I started out reminding the Chamber, we passed H.R. 702 with 62 percent of the vote, a large bipartisan vote. That was a bill introduced by my friend, Representative Joe Barton of Texas. He is in the Chamber with us, and I would like to yield such time as he would like to explain why this is such an important piece of this week's omnibus and tax package. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).