[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 183 (Wednesday, December 16, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H9369-H9372]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    LIFTING THE CRUDE OIL EXPORT BAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hill). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) for 30 minutes.
  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

[[Page H9370]]

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.

                              {time}  1645

  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).
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, the first thing that I want to do is commend 
the gentleman from North Dakota for his hard work on this. He is an 
original cosponsor of H.R. 702. He is a valued member of the ad hoc 
whip team that we put together.
  He and I have worked the floor. We have had dinners with undecided 
Members. We have helped coordinate action efforts with some of the 
outside groups that are supportive.
  You have been unflagging in his help on this. I could say similar 
things about the Speaker in the chair. The gentleman from Arkansas has 
also been a valued member of our team.

[[Page H9371]]

  What I want to focus on is to explain to the Members what this means 
strategically to the United States of America. The world produces and 
consumes about 95 million barrels of oil per day right now; 95 million. 
Three countries, the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, combined 
produce about 30 percent of that, a little over 30 million barrels a 
day between those three countries. Right now, Saudi Arabia would be 
number one, Russia would be number two, and the United States would be 
number three at about 9 million barrels a day production here in the 
United States.
  Until this bill becomes law, which we hope will pass the House and 
the Senate and the President will sign it this weekend, if you want to 
change the world oil markets, it takes five or six phone calls. The 
chairman of OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting 
Countries, who have their headquarters in Vienna, would make four or 
five phone calls to the various oil ministers of Saudi Arabia, Iran, 
Libya, Nigeria.
  If they all agree on a price and a production quota, they have a 
meeting, they get all the member states to ratify it, and they set the 
price. A handful of people set the world price. That is the way it has 
been done since the mid-1970s during the Arab oil embargo.
  If we repeal the ban on U.S. crude oil exports, which I think we are 
going to do, and the President signs the bill next week, we have about 
500 million barrels of oil in storage in Oklahoma, Louisiana, and 
Texas, up in the Midwest where the gentleman is from. Believe it or 
not, there is some in California and some even up on the East Coast. 
There is privately owned oil that is just sitting there.

  The chairman of OPEC calls those same five oil ministers and says, 
Boys, we need to raise the price. We are going to cut production. Each 
of you guys, your nation, we agree to cut production to half a million 
barrels a day. We are going to tighten up the market, and we are going 
to raise the price. And they all agree to do it.
  Well, that word is going to get out. Somebody in Houston is going to 
say, Well, I have got 10 million barrels right here. Somebody in Corpus 
Christi, somebody in New Orleans, somebody in Mobile, Alabama, somebody 
in New York City or Long Beach, California, there will be oil on the 
market to replace the production cutbacks of OPEC, if not in minutes, 
in hours.
  What we are doing is taking the keys from OPEC and giving the keys to 
the American people, the free market. Who has the biggest oil reserves 
in the world, if you include our alternative shale reserves? The United 
States of America. Who has the best technology in the world? United 
States of America. Who has the best people, the best seismic engineers, 
the best production engineers, the best oil field workers, the best 
truck drivers, the best pipeliners? The United States of America.
  So, by golly, within a week, we are going to unleash the free market 
competitive enterprise of the American people on the world oil market. 
These other countries--Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, and 
Libya--they can increase production a little bit, but there is only one 
country in the world that could literally double production within 4 or 
5 years. Guess who that is? The United States of America
  So what we are doing this week in the omnibus--there are lots of 
reasons to be for it. If you want to take control of energy policy away 
from a handful of oil ministers who are primarily in the Middle East, 
vote for this bill and put control in the market. Let the Americans 
compete with the Mexicans and the Canadians and the Saudis and the 
Iraqis and the Russians and anybody else who wants to sell oil.
  We don't realize what we are about to do, but it has tremendous 
economic and strategic implications for freedom everywhere in the 
world. You, sir, from North Dakota have helped make that possible. The 
gentleman in the chair from Arkansas has helped make that possible. The 
262 Members of this House, Republicans and Democrats--Henry Cuellar of 
Laredo, Texas--has helped make that possible.
  Next week is going to be a great week, it is going to be a milestone 
week, and we are going to look back, this is when we took back control 
from OPEC and gave it to the free market and to the American 
entrepreneurial spirit.
  I thank Congressman Cramer for his hard work. I am proud to have him 
as one of the leaders in this effort.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Barton for his kind words 
and his tireless effort on behalf of the employees, the workers, the 
economy of our country, and for articulating so beautifully and so 
perfectly, without rehearsal, the next chapter of what I began to talk 
about when I talk about the historical context. We are reliving much of 
that history right now.
  As we think about ISIS, as we think about Iran and a path to a 
nuclear weapon, when we think about what is going on with Russia's 
movement further and further into Europe and its growing influence, the 
bear is back. Here we have the opportunity to use the peaceful tools of 
energy development rather than the weapons of war.

                              {time}  1700

  Never has the world needed it more. You talked about the bipartisan 
effort and how proud we are to work hand in hand with our Democratic 
Member friends, what a blessing that has been. One of the best, a 
gentleman that I have grown to not just know and appreciate, but to 
love, is Representative David Scott of Georgia, whose heart for the 
things that matter has in many ways changed mine, I have to admit. He 
has changed mine.
  He has offered amendments to multiple bills, an amendment to multiple 
bills that I have now joined him in offering. It is not one on this 
bill, but I want to read the amendment because it is relevant to what 
we are doing. It is a simple amendment.
  Representative Scott from Georgia offered this, and I join him in it, 
if not as an amendment, at least as an instruction. I quote now from 
his amendment:

       Knowing that young Black men in the United States ages 18 
     to 37 are the hardest hit, at a 38 percent unemployment rate, 
     and as high as 50 percent in some of our States and cities, 
     the U.S. Congress, through this act, strongly requests the 
     labor unions and contractors who will participate in the 
     development of our oil infrastructure to actively recruit 
     qualified said young Black men ages 18 to 37 for employment 
     with their existing apprenticeship programs.

  His amendment goes on to say:

       These labor union apprenticeship programs will be conducted 
     in conjunction with the National Electrical Contractors 
     Association and the United Association of Journeymen and 
     Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the 
     United States and Canada, under the auspices of the National 
     Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee, which allows 
     apprentices to ``Earn While You Learn.''

  As I said earlier, if we, as capitalists, people who support the free 
enterprise system--and this is clearly support of free markets--if we 
believe that a rising tide can lift all boats, let's lend a hand. Let's 
prove it. Let's prove it by giving more opportunities to populations 
that have disadvantages in our marketplace and prove to them that we 
can, in fact, lift all boats.
  I might add--and, Chairman Barton, if you want to explain some of 
this and comment on this--there is another important provision that was 
in H.R. 702 that is also part of this bill, and that gets to the use of 
support for the maritime security program. Would you be willing to 
share a couple minutes about that, because that is an important part of 
what we are doing.
  Mr. BARTON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON. We have a fleet of privately owned ships that are 
normally in private commercial operation and that are owned by the 
companies that operate here in the ports of the United States. We pay a 
small fee each year from the Department of Defense so that, if these 
ships ever need to be used to transport military supplies overseas, 
they have to cease commercial operation and carry the military cargo.
  They are only used when it is--I won't say an emergency, but a 
special situation. In this bill, we have some funding that increases 
the per-ship reimbursement rate slightly so that it makes it feasible 
for these ships to be on standby for our military to use. It was 
offered by the chairman of the full committee--I think Chairman Fred 
Upton--when our bill was on the floor, and it was included in the 
manager's amendment. It was made part of the

[[Page H9372]]

bill then and is in the bill that is before us that we are going to 
vote on on Friday. It is a way to help in a cost-effective way our 
military when they need lift capacity to get military supplies overseas 
in a tense situation.
  Mr. CRAMER. Making this vehicle another all-important appropriate 
vehicle for this amendment because the main piece of the omnibus 
package is, of course, increased spending for our defense. But you said 
cost effective. You are right, having these flagships available really 
saves the country the cost of about $52 billion worth of building the 
ships, so it is a tremendous tool.
  Mr. BARTON. It is a good deal for the taxpayer and a good deal for 
our troops.
  Mr. CRAMER. It definitely is. Thank you for that, and thank you again 
for your leadership.
  Mr. BARTON. Thank you for your leadership. I am going to have to 
excuse myself, but thank you for this Special Order.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to wrap up, as well, with another 
history lesson. It is so interesting. I love history. I am not one who 
looks back a lot. I do like to look in the rearview mirror once in a 
while to make sure I am still going straight as I move forward. I think 
we as a Congress and as a country need to do the same.
  It was on this very day, December 16, 1773, that patriots at Boston 
Harbor expressed their displeasure with a foreign power's influence 
over what they felt was an essential commodity. Participants of the 
Boston Tea Party, many of whom were small-business owners, well versed 
in and practitioners of the teachings of Adam Smith and, yes, free 
market economics, never would have envisioned that one commodity should 
be arbitrarily discriminated against over another, especially by their 
own government. We have an opportunity with this commodity to make a 
difference.
  Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left? I see that Chairman 
Shimkus is here and might have a word or two for us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), my 
good friend.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I want to thank my colleague from North Dakota and just 
say a couple things.
  First of all, what we have done on the omnibus is great public 
policy. Crude oil is a commodity like corn and beans that should be 
sold on the world market.
  Secondly, more oil on the world market lowers the prices for crude 
oil for everybody.
  Thirdly, on the international security arena, and by focus on Europe, 
and primarily the old captive nations of Eastern Europe, is that they 
are being held hostage by energy extortion by the Russians. The more we 
put more crude oil on the world market, the more that lowers the 
international price. That makes them have the opportunity to be free 
and independent from a totalitarian regime that is their neighbor to 
the east.
  I appreciate my colleague offering me up an opportunity to address 
this.
  Mr. CRAMER. That is the perfect wrap-up, Mr. Shimkus.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________