Floor Statements

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. Speaker, I thank the sponsor of this important legislation for yielding the time.

I just have to respond to the most recent speaker, who I believe is sincere in his concerns, but we are not talking today about corporations and loopholes. We are not talking about education and homelessness. Those are important things that we want to work with them on. We are talking today about small business.

I found it sort of disturbing that the ranking member said that today is not about small business; it is about monkeying around with procedures. Are we so wed to our procedures that that is more important than small businesses?

I also have to say that, for me, in my town halls, in my Coffee with Cramer sessions, my regular town halls--I had more town halls than any Member of Congress last year--the number one issue that is raised not by corporations but by small family business men and women, largely farmers and ranchers, is the issue of 179 expensing and the uncertainty that is created by mid-December extensions to the previous year. Maybe if they are lucky, the farmer gets to buy a new combine for Christmas.

But it is about more than even the farmer or the snow removal business person that needs to buy a new snow blower or the lawn care businessman that needs to buy a new mower. It is about more than the implement dealers. It is about more than even the Case IH plant or John Deere plant or the Melroe Bobcat plants in North Dakota. Those are important. But it is also about the mechanic that works at the implement dealership, who is one paycheck away from not being able to feed his family. It is about the restaurant owner, the cafe owner in a small town who feeds breakfast and lunch and dinner and, yes, occasionally mid-morning coffee over the shaking of dice to that farmer, to that implement dealer, to that mechanic that benefits from the dynamics--the dynamics--of an economy that, yes, provides this, not a loophole, this appropriate deduction in the year in which a piece of equipment is purchased. It makes all the difference in the world not to corporate America, but to middle class families, hardworking farmers and ranchers and mechanics and snow removers and landscapers and all kinds of middle class working people in America.

Let's do the right thing. Let's make this incremental step toward comprehensive tax reform and do the thing that I know we all know is the right thing to do. Let's pass this bill. Let's pass it in the Senate. Let's get it on the President's desk and appeal to him for common sense.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.

As I have been sitting here, I have to admit, my thoughts have changed back and forth. My mind has changed. My speech has changed dramatically.

It occurred to me: I think my friends on the other side of the aisle are asking the wrong question. The question should not be: What is this going to cost the taxpayers? The question should be: What will the cost to the taxpayers be if we let these deductions expire?

Then it occurred to me, in listening to some of the speeches, that there is not a lack of sincerity in the desire to feed hungry people, not on their side, and certainly not on our side. I grieve when somebody's sincerity is questioned in this way. But I think what the question is is: Who do you trust to deliver the solution to people's needs, to people's hunger? What about college education? What about women's shelters? Who is best prepared to deliver those resources and those services?

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, it is charity. It is charity. The Sermon on the Mount wasn't communicated to the Congress; it was communicated to the congregation. It wasn't delivered to the democracy; it was delivered to the disciples. Our Tax Code ought not punish charity; it ought to lift it up.

I think we are asking the wrong question: Who is best prepared to deliver these services?

I think the other wrong question is we are arguing over what is not in the bill sometimes as opposed to what is. I wish there was more in it. I wish that we could include life income tools and the charitable IRA rollover. The chairman knows that. I hope to get to that. But I also know that incremental change is better than no change. Incremental progress is better than no progress. I hope we can get to comprehensive tax reform. I am confident we can. But today I am asking our colleagues, let's do what we can do. What we can do is this bill that is in front of us. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank my friends on the other side as well on the Rules Committee. I have been before them twice now on this topic and have enjoyed it immensely.

I might say as a word of encouragement with regard to the hamster wheel, because I share the same concerns, but I am also encouraged by the fact that we are actually passing the Senate bill today. As many times as we have tried to pass this, we have never been able to get it to the President's desk. That will happen soon. That is progress, and I think we ought to celebrate the progress of that.

With regard to being the least productive Congress, veto threats before voting on important things sort of leads to gridlock, I suppose. But I don't think that should stop us from doing our job and forwarding the ideas that our constituents have asked for. My constituents want the Keystone XL pipeline built.

What we are doing today, as was teed up by the gentleman from Georgia, is, of course, talking about a Senate bill. We passed H.R. 3 when I introduced it the first week in the House, a closed rule, as the gentleman from Florida said, a simple bill. We have passed similar bills in previous Congresses, well vetted. And my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven, who is really the originator of this whole concept, introduced S. 1.

The other reason I think we should be encouraged is not only did the Senate have an open process, they voted on 47--at least 47--amendments. That is more than three times as many amendments on S. 1 as the Senate voted on in all of the bills last year. That is progress. That is not hamsters on the wheel.

I want to take a few minutes to describe the amendments that came over from the Senate and why I suggest to leadership--and I am pleased leadership accepted--that we just simply accept the Senate amendments and move this forward rather than going to conference, although I think that would have been a good exercise for a lot of us as well.

But there were a couple of amendments introduced that deal with energy efficiency programs, as the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, dealing with federally leased and owned property, as well as schools. It sets up programs and processes and gives authority to the Department of Energy to sort of coordinate energy efficiency issues in programs and projects, which I think is a noble goal.

There is that sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax. Now, we can throw that out as sort of meaningless. But the reality is that a statement like that passed 98-1 by the Senate is a pretty strong statement. I think the President ought to view that as currency--as currency. He argues that Keystone, because oil sands are somehow supposed to emit more greenhouse gas emissions than other production--I am here to tell you it is not true, and I will point out the very specific facts on that.

But in the spirit of compromise, he has this statement that I think provides currency for him to go to Paris next December and say: This is the sense of the Congress of the United States. I hope he views it as a positive.

Senator Mikulski has that amendment--which the gentleman from Florida spoke to--the sense of the Senate that all forms of unrefined and unprocessed petroleum should be subject to the nominal per-barrel excise tax associated with the spill fund.

While it says it is the sense of the Senate and it isn't put into law, I think it is important to note that we are talking about a tax, an excise tax that is placed on domestic crude, for sure, not placed on--if you can imagine this now--bitumen. Bitumen is the product that comes from the oil sands, and because bitumen is not in the Tax Code, it is not subject to the excise tax. That should be corrected. We should do that in the proper order, probably through the Ways and Means Committee.

That said, it is important to note that TransCanada is 100 percent responsible for spills and cleaning them up. I sited the first Keystone pipeline through the State of North Dakota, 600 landowners' land. They had some issues in the early going at one of the pumping stations. They did clean it up. It didn't contaminate water or the surrounding area. All of the tools worked properly.

My point is that they are responsible, and that is as per each State's law. This line will be permitted in each State, and they have to be responsible for cleanup.

Another one, Senator Cornyn had an amendment: Land or interest in land for the pipeline may only be acquired through constitutionally appropriate means. That only makes sense. Maybe it doesn't need to be stated, but it is important to state, similar to the Barrasso amendment that clarifies that treaties with Indian tribes must remain in effect. That should be obvious as well, but it doesn't help to restate those important points.

I think that these amendments are important amendments, they are good amendments, and they help broaden the appeal of the bill.

I want to take this map down and I want to speak to just a few of the merits of the Keystone pipeline bill because I know them very well, the extraordinary benefits of Keystone XL.

Employment opportunities--Mr. Speaker, according to the U.S. State Department, 42,000 jobs will be supported by the construction. I can assure you, having been on the construction site of the original Keystone bill, it is true. These are real jobs. These are good jobs. Some people refer to them as temporary jobs. Referring to a pipeline project as temporary is like referring to a wind farm as only temporary construction.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the generosity of the gentleman from Georgia. Thank you.

But all construction jobs are temporary until the construction is done and you move on to the next project. There are thousands of miles of pipeline under the ground in the United States. The steel workers, the truck drivers, the backhoe operators, the welders, and the local hotels and restaurants and retailers benefit tremendously. This is the make-or-break in many cases for some of these smaller businesses that benefit from the construction of this dynamic economy.

Energy security--we can't overstate energy security. We are talking about displacing Venezuelan oil. We are talking about displacing Middle East oil. In fact, the 830,000 barrels per day that will run through the Keystone pipeline into U.S. refineries is equal to about 50 percent of what we import from the Middle East. That is security.

When we talk about energy independence, that is one thing. Security means that we have our security in our own hands, and we are not subject to bad guys from other parts of the world; that, in fact, we are part of the security solution. And it relates directly to national security, I might add.

Enhanced safety--I was a pipeline regulator for years. There is no safer way to move crude oil than by a pipeline. It is the most efficient and it is the safest by far.

We have seen some of the things that happened when we cluttered our highways. In fact, the Department of Transportation in North Dakota anticipates the saving of three to six fatalities on the roads in North Dakota if this pipeline is built because, remember, it is not all Canadian oil sands. About a quarter of this capacity is reserved for Bakken crude oil as well. That removes a lot of trucks from our roads. That is much safer for the traveling public.

Trains--another issue we have. We have a lot of trains. This would represent 10 trains a week that could be hauling food to hungry people rather than oil to the marketplace.

Environmental protection--we hear a lot about the environment and the issues pertaining to it, and rightfully so. The good news is that after 6\1/2\ years of study, this is the most environmentally studied pipeline and the most sophisticated and highest-tech pipeline in the history of the world.

In fact, moving oil by rail actually emits 1.8 times more CO2 into the air than moving it by pipeline. Moving it by truck emits 2.9 times more CO2 than does moving it by pipeline. Moving it by barge to China, where it will be refined with far lower environmental standards than the United States, that is priceless.

Exchange with Canada--I don't think we should understate the importance of our relationship. Our number one trading partner, $2 billion a day of goods and services travels between our two countries-- our top trading partner and best friend, Canada.

If we were doing this to Canadians and to Canadian companies, or if they were doing this to us, I can't imagine how we would respond. I have worked closely with the Embassy. I have worked closely with the new Premier, Premier Jim Prentice, from Alberta, who, by the way, just won the election this last fall on the pro-environmental stewardship platform.

Exchange with Canada is so important. We need to restore and care for that important relationship. I would rather enhance that relationship, quite frankly--and it gets right back to this energy security issue-- than be fighting over oil or fighting to protect the transportation of oil in other places.

At the end of the day, with everything else that has gone on and with these other important issues, to me, the final thing is this, and it is what I would say to the President, Mr. Speaker:

You have asked for bipartisan bills. You have asked for us to work together. Here we have a bipartisan, bicameral solution, one that the American public supports in a big way, one that would create jobs, one that would lift up the middle class, Mr. President.

I would just beg, Mr. Speaker, that the President would reconsider his veto threat on this important bipartisan jobs bill and sign it when it goes to his desk so that we can get people back to work, can become less dependent on foreign sources of oil from across the sea, and can become more interdependent with our neighbors in Canada.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I spent several minutes articulating the details of the benefits of this bill. I am grateful to Senator Hoeven, my Senator from North Dakota, for introducing it in the Senate.

I want to answer just a couple of the questions because I think there are legitimate concerns being raised by my friends on the other side.

With regard to the price of oil being about $50 and being low and that it, therefore, somehow negates the need for the pipeline, there are two things I would say. 2,336 days ago, the price of oil was approaching $50, and TransCanada still applied for the pipeline. In fact, at low prices, the cost of transportation is an even more important consideration, and oil transported by rail costs about $10 a barrel more than it does by pipeline. The pipeline is even more important in this environment.

With regard to the pump station spill in North Dakota, on the original pipeline, I know it well. I sited that line. The good news was that everything worked. The alarms went off. The bells shut down. The farmer even called the company. There was a spill. It was corrected. There was no negative environmental impact.

With regard to the types of jobs, I saw them firsthand. These are permanent jobs. Yes, they are temporary on that particular job, but 88 percent of the steel used in the Keystone XL pipeline has been sourced from North Carolina. That is 88 percent.

I want to finish by reading this quote from Danny Hendrix. Danny says this with regard to what kind of jobs will be created by the XL:

They've got health care for another year. They've got a

pension credit for when they retire. It means that those

families have got health care, dental care--so it means a

lot. It means they can make a house payment. It means they

can send their kids to college.

Danny Hendrix is a business manager for Pipeliners Local 798 in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

These are real jobs, and to belittle them in any way, Mr. Speaker, to degrade them in any way, is intellectually dishonest and disrespectful.

Mr. Speaker, Aristotle said, ``We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.''

Mr. Speaker, this weekend, the North Dakota State University Bison football team was in Frisco, Texas, attempting to win their fourth consecutive NCAA Division I FCS national title.

After a long stampede with a talented flock of Illinois State Redbirds hot on their tail, they finally ended up in the end zone. The only ones in the winner's circle were the Thundering Herd.

The seniors finished their careers with more national championships, Mr. Speaker, than losses. I am especially proud of the boys from North Dakota.

Bismarck Century's Carson Wentz earned MVP status by quarterbacking his team to success, and BHS' Esley Thorton sealed the deal with a last-minute interception.

All of the teammates from the Rough Rider State and beyond, you have made us proud again, and you remind us why it is so cool to be from North Dakota.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I just heard a word that is almost hard to believe. We have been accused of expediting this process. Ladies and gentlemen, this is day 2,303 of this process. It is time now.

It is time because it is good for job creation. It is time because it is good for the environment. It is not just the safest way, as the chairman said; the most environmentally sound way to move tar sands oil is in a pipeline. It is good for national security. It is good for economic security. It is good because 62.8 percent of labor force participation is the lowest since 1978. It creates jobs. And it is for these reasons that not only does the majority of the United States House and the majority of the United States Senate support it, but it is because of these reasons that the vast majority of the people of the United States support it, including the people of Nebraska. And for those reasons, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to address a couple of things.

First of all, I will place in the Record letters I received from the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council and Caterpillar.

January 7, 2015.

Hon. Kevin Cramer,

Longworth Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Cramer: The Small Business &

Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) and our nationwide

membership of business owners and entrepreneurs strongly

support H.R. 3, the ``Keystone XL Pipeline Act.''

Delays in approving this important project cannot be

justified on any grounds. This is a critical energy supply

and security issue, as well as being vital for U.S. economic

growth, job creation and small business development.

This project means quality job growth, new business

formation, and an increase in oil supplies from reliable

sources. The building and operation of Keystone XL would

benefit small businesses via affordable energy and economic

growth. Small businesses within the energy sector would see

growth opportunities as a result of the pipeline's

construction and operation. An underreported fact is that the

U.S. energy sector is dominated by small businesses.

Consider the latest U.S. Census Bureau data:

Among oil and gas extraction businesses, 91.1 percent of

employer firms in 2011 had less than 20 workers.

Among oil and gas pipeline and related structures

construction businesses, 65.5 percent of employer firms in

2011 had less than 20 workers.

And among oil and gas field machinery and equipment

manufacturing businesses, 57.6 percent of employer firms in

2011 had less than 20 workers.

Among support for oil and gas operations businesses, 83.3

percent of employer firms in 2011 had less than 20 workers.

Among drilling oil and gas wells businesses, 79.8 percent

of employer firms in 2011 had less than 20 workers.

The energy business is all about small business. A new

study released by SBE Council on November 13, 2014, found

that small businesses are driving America's energy

renaissance. For example, from 2005-2012, construction

businesses related to oil and gas pipeline and related

structures grew by 12.2 percent among firms with less than 20

workers; oil and gas extraction businesses grew by 4.1

percent among firms with less than 20 workers; businesses

drilling oil and gas wells grew by 7.9 percent among firms

with less than 20 workers; businesses supporting oil and gas

operations grew by 29.1 percent among firms with less than 20

workers; and manufacturing businesses related to oil and gas

field machinery and equipment grew by 8.5 percent among firms

with less than 20 workers. It is important to understand that

during this same period, the total number of small and mid-

size employer firms declined, but the opposite was true in

the energy sector. Construction of Keystone XL would mean

increased small business growth, opportunities for

entrepreneurs, and a stronger economy for America.

A vote in favor of H.R. 3 is a vote for small business and

quality job creation. Thank you for considering America's

small business sector on this critical issue. SBE Council and

its members look forward to House passage of H.R. 3.

Sincerely,

Karen Kerrigan,

President & CEO.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the climate change issue because I think it is an important issue to a lot of people.

The argument that the other side makes is based on the false idea that somehow oil sands are not going to be developed without the United States. It is. Moving anything by rail is 1.9 times more the emissions of CO2 than moving it by pipeline. Moving it by truck creates 2.8 times the CO2 emissions as moving it by pipeline. Moving it by barge to China is priceless.

Mr. Speaker, the good people of Fargo, North Dakota have broken hearts today. Their mayor, Dennis Walaker, died suddenly this week, sending a wave of emotion across my entire state.

Mayor Walaker epitomized what it means to be the people's servant, not because he was perfect--he certainly was not--but because he was as common as an uncommon politician can be.

Denny earned the top job in the city by virtue of his service as a city employee famous for fighting floods. The legend was solidified as he defied the feds and the odds by applying his uncommon common sense to the 2009 record flood fight, keeping his city safe and his people in their homes.

While Denny's famous flood fights put him on a big stage, it was the character of the man that was really under the spotlight more than his competence as a civil engineer.

Denny was always where he needed to be. He wore a suit and tie when he had to, but was more comfortable wearing, well, more comfortable clothes. It's hard to describe without cliche, but Denny was loved because he was one of the people he represented, whoever they were.

He was one of ``them.''

He was always available and accountable, and expected the same of other public officials at every level. Denny's communication style was more blunt than eloquent, but always memorable and effective. While he didn't shy away from criticizing legislators at the state and federal levels--in fact he seemed to relish it--he wasn't offensive. Perhaps because he expected the same clarity from us as he provided to us.

He was a good example to all of us. Not every politician could or even should match his personality or style; we should strive to match his character.

I pray for Denny's family and our city as we mourn, but am confident the memories we carry will keep him close to us for a very long time.

Mr. Speaker, my intention this morning was to get up and try to be eloquent when talking about the ABLE Act, Achieving a Better Life Experience, which we will vote on later today, but since yesterday, I have received four emails from parents in North Dakota whose words are far more eloquent than mine could ever be.

I will submit all of their words into the Record, but I want to share a few of the highlights from these important emails from my constituents.

Roxane Romanick writes:

How exciting that we are at this point where the dreams of

the act passing may come true in the next days.

After writing a bit about the legislation itself, she writes this about her 15-year-old daughter, Elizabeth:

Due to her diagnosis of Down syndrome, she has the support

of an individual education plan at school. The school will

start working on a transition plan for her within a few

months. Passage of the ABLE Act will mean that we can start a

savings account for her in much the same way that we did for

her brother.

Jamie Christensen writes:

Every parent of a child with special needs has a unique

journey, but one thing is universal. We try to do the best we

can to ensure a life well-lived for our child. Our unique

journeys have another similarity--many of us agonize about

the future.

She talks about their journey with their 7-year-old son, Grady, who has crystal blue eyes and a full head of hair. She writes:

Like many families, we want to care for our children

equally, doing what we can to give them tools to help them

reach their full potential. Shortly after Grady was born, I

opened a 529 College SAVE account for Grady's big sister. It

was then that I realized I had no idea how to plan for

Grady's future. The ABLE Act is a huge step forward in easing

this anxiety.

Aaron and Rachel Schuler from Bismarck, who I know very well, have a 4-year-old daughter, Ella. Actually, Ella will turn 4 years old on Christmas Eve. Ella has two siblings, Isaac and Clara. They talk about Ella with great hope. They write:

She will be a crazy teenager, graduate and go to college,

work a full-time job and have a real, meaningful

relationship. We believe this for her. That is what makes the

ABLE Act so important to Ella and to people all over our

great country. It will help her reach and fulfill the goals

she desires.

How awesome.

And just while I have been sitting here in the Chamber, Marijo Schwengler of Fargo writes about their journey, about their 2-year-old son, David, one of four sons, who is diagnosed with Down syndrome. She writes:

I pray that seven weekly therapy appointments with an early

intervention teacher, physical therapist, occupational

therapist, and speech therapist will help him be the best

that he can be. We dream big for David. Why shouldn't we?

Indeed, why shouldn't they? But she cites this fact:

David must remain ``poor'' in order to receive the services

he needs. The ABLE Act would mean that we could start saving

for David's future today.

What an awesome promise that is.

My words would be inadequate, Mr. Speaker, but I submit these and the extended comments in these emails that I received in the last two days on behalf of Elizabeth and Grady and Ella and David and their peers, the thousands and thousands of families around our country who, in many respects, have a bias against them because they are disabled or have disabled children.

The ABLE Act that we will vote on this afternoon, Achieving a Better Life Experience Act, will go a long ways toward leveling that playing field, improving their lives, and improving the lives of our entire country.

Designer Genes,

A Down Syndrome Support Network,

December 2, 2014.

Hon. Kevin Cramer,

Washington, DC.

Dear Rep. Cramer: Many thanks to you and everyone in your

office for all of the work that you've done on the Achieving

a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act. How exciting that we are

at this point where the dreams of the act passing may come

true in the next days.

As you know, Designer Genes of North Dakota has been

actively following the progress of the ABLE Act with many of

our other Down syndrome association partners across the

country. We believe that the opportunities that the ABLE Act

affords to our individuals with Down syndrome will make a

world of difference to their futures.

Last spring, my own daughter, Elizabeth, turned 15. Due to

her diagnosis of Down syndrome, she has the support of an

Individual Education Plan at school. Required by law, the

school will start working on a transition plan for her within

a few short months. Passage of the ABLE Act will mean that we

can start a savings account for her in much the same way that

we did for her brother. For too long we've treated

individuals with significant disabilities with an

institutional bias meaning that their need for support and

care is based on old history of requiring

institutionalization which included extreme poverty. Since

birth, Elizabeth has had the opportunities afforded to her by

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the

Americans with Disabilities Act and has been fully included

in her community. These two laws establish support without

impoverishment and help to equal the playing field for

persons with disabilities. The ABLE Act will now do the same

because it recognizes that needing support is inherent to

persons with disabilities but does not require that they

should live a life without realizing their hope and dreams.

Elizabeth is a go-getter. Every day she has a new dream and

just yesterday she was googling recording equipment on the

internet because she's decided she wants to own a recording

studio. I have no idea where this dream has come from but

it's very real. She's convinced she's moving out of the house

when she's 18 and heading to college. I wish with all my

might that the dream will come true for her (well maybe not

the moving out of the house part). These dreams come because

every day she walks, learns, and belongs beside her peers at

Century High School, because someone fought for her right to

do so.

Thank you for your work on this effort, Rep. Cramer!

Roxane Romanick.

I thank Chairman Schweikert for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and the sponsor have done a good job of describing what the bill is and what it does and why it is necessary. I want to talk a little bit about what is at stake.

I think the first thing that we have to consider that is at stake is the unilateral disarmament of the American economy by virtue of destroying, really, our global competitiveness. It is an interesting time to talk about it.

Our President just came back from making a deal in China, a climate deal in China, where the Chinese are allowed to continue to pollute for 16 years, create more jobs of their own and take some of ours, while we put standards and requirements, emissions requirements on our industries that won't be able to keep up and put our jobs at risk.

In my home State of North Dakota, there are 4,000 megawatts of low- cost electricity--the jobs that producing that electricity creates and the competitiveness that that electricity provides for our economy-- that is at stake, all based on EPA rules that are based on some 1970s, decades-old data and studies that are only available to the bureaucrats.

We have, for example, in western North Dakota a brick plant in Hebron, Hebron Brick, that is subject to the MACT rule, which is a rule based on studies that are tightly held, again, and only visible to the bureaucrats. We have countless acres of private farmland and ranch land in our State and in the States around us that have been owned privately for generations. It is up for grabs if this Waters of the U.S. rule continues to go forward, a rule that really took forceful inquiry by the Science, Space, and Technology Committee to find, to get, to reveal the secret maps that the EPA was creating as part of this massive land grab.

It really comes down to this, Mr. Chairman: we are at a time in our country when there is very, very low confidence by the public in our government. I am just saying let's restore America's confidence in America's government, and let's provide the one great safeguard to corruption that we can provide, and that is transparency.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. It seems it should be so unnecessary to have something that makes so much common sense become so historic, and yet, here, we find ourselves at a historic moment.

After years of debate and accommodation, the most environmentally studied and accommodated pipeline in the history of the world has been stranded on the President's desk, held hostage by Hollywood advisers and liberals, donors to politicians who either don't understand the issue or don't care.

But as signals of a possible vote in the United States Senate are being transmitted, the American people ought to find comfort in the fact that politics works, that when the American people speak, even the United States Senate listens.

So I am grateful that Congressman Cassidy has brought this bill to the people's House, a bill that originated with my Senator, Senator Hoeven in the Senate, so that we can tee it up for them this week so that next week they can do what they should have done a long time ago and pass this bill.

You know, I am a big part of the Keystone pipeline. When I was on the North Dakota Public Service Commission years ago, I carried the pipeline portfolio. I happened to oversee the siting of the original Keystone pipeline that goes through North Dakota and goes down to Cushing, Oklahoma. It crosses the border in North Dakota. It crosses eight counties in my State, 600 landowners' land. It crosses farms of farmers who know how to work the land and know the value of the topsoil and understand the value of the minerals underneath it. It crosses two scenic rivers and includes five pumping stations and runs 217 miles through my State.

I am proud to say that while not universally loved, not one inch of that pipeline through North Dakota required condemnation proceedings, not because I am a great regulator, but because North Dakotans understand value--the value of domestic energy, the value it has to job creation. And I want to talk about jobs in a little bit.

As vast reserves of oil are discovered and new technologies unlocked, energy security is within our reach this decade. The amount of oil that would flow to U.S. refineries in the Keystone XL represents 36 percent of what we import today from the Persian Gulf alone. The fact of the matter is that, today, over 71 percent of the Bakken shale crude that is produced in North Dakota is shipped by rail. Now, I have nothing against trains--I thank God that we have a robust rail system--but railing oil costs more. It is a little more dangerous. It is not as efficient as pipelines. It also requires trucks to get the oil to the rail facilities. Again, trucks are good--they are not bad at all--but they are not as safe or as efficient as pipelines, and they take a toll on our highway infrastructure.

According to the director of the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources, Lynn Helms, approval of the Keystone XL will cause two things to happen, and listen carefully: 300 to 500 truckloads per day will be taken off of North Dakota highways, and there will be 10 fewer trains every week leaving the State. He also calculates that greenhouse gas emissions from rail are 1.8 times that of a pipeline and 2.9 times the emissions from pipeline transportation, and spills from truck transportation occurs at three to four times the rate of spills from pipelines. So yes, sometimes accidents happen, but they happen far more frequently with trucks.

Approval of the XL will result in 450,00 to 950,000 kilograms per day less greenhouse gas emissions in North Dakota alone, as well as significant decreases in dust and 60 to 80 fewer spills per year.

America's national security, Mr. Speaker, and America's economic security are tied directly to America's energy security. We can do a lot better, and we need to.

Now, the environmental safeguards in the Keystone pipeline--I said it is the most studied pipeline in the history of the world--they are rigorous and they are appropriate. They have been tested and they work. I can attest to that. I toured the Keystone during construction, and I met many of the men and women who worked on the line. Those, Mr. Speaker, are real jobs. Those pipe layers are real workers doing real jobs. The restaurant owners, the hotel owners, the retailers, the subcontractors, those are real jobs, and they should not be diminished by considering them something other than real jobs. We have the lowest workforce participation rate since 1978 in this country. Let's put people back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to stand here and support this rule and ask my colleagues to do the same. Support final passage. Put people back to work and make America more energy

secure and keep the prices low for the American consumer.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that my home State of North Dakota is enjoying the blessing of an energy boom, an economic boom, which is driven largely by an oil and gas renaissance that has us contributing now over 1 million barrels of oil per day toward America's energy security, but with the blessing of this energy boom comes some unwanted consequences, and chief among them is a growing demand for the product of human trafficking. It has caused the citizens of our clean and beautiful State to be somewhat alarmed and rightfully so.

Our local and State law enforcement agencies are stressed to the max. Our nonprofit and faith-based communities are doing all that they can to assist, and they are doing it with great effort, but they need some additional help and encouragement.

So this and the many other House bills that will be passed in the next couple of days dealing with this plague of human trafficking will provide the tools that, frankly, only the Federal Government can provide to assist--not replace, but assist local, State, and nonprofit agencies in this fight against the plague of human trafficking in our society.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support this and the other bills before us.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 4286.

Mr. Speaker, in New Town, North Dakota, right in the heart of the Bakken oil patch, an elderly woman once told an FBI agent that she knew human trafficking was taking place in her community because she saw young girls taking different men back and forth to various rooms. And when the agent asked the woman for her name so they could investigate, she was too afraid to report it.

The horrific nature of this crime can shock individuals and communities to such a degree that they are unable to conceive such heinous crimes are even possible, much less taking place right in their rural communities.

All around the country, law enforcement and public citizens are encountering difficulties in identifying human trafficking victims, and our justice system is too often ill-equipped to assign the appropriate penalties for a fast-growing international crime, such as human trafficking. And what is worse, too often, the victims are treated as criminals, dropped into a judicial system not equipped to provide the health and protective services that these women and young girls often need.

I held a roundtable with my friend and colleague, Representative Erik Paulsen from Minnesota, earlier this month in Williston, North Dakota. Along with being the fastest growing micropolitan in the Nation, Williston is newly dealing with an increase in human trafficking. It was encouraging to hear how local law enforcement and victims' advocates in Williston are working hard with Federal agents and officers to reverse the trend and to prevent trafficking while restoring the lives of victims, but they are very much in need of a series of Federal laws designed to aid the very important work that they are doing.

To show our commitment, Congress will enact legislation like the Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking Act, which ensures minors who are trafficked are treated as victims and not as defendants, and the SAVE Act of 2014, which helps address the root of the problem by making it a Federal crime to profit from knowingly advertising for the commercial exploitation of minors and trafficking victims.

Mr. Speaker, we know the most important work to stop human trafficking will be done on the ground by

our State and local law enforcement, Federal agents, community members, victims' advocates, the faith-based community, and others, but they need our help to make laws to better support their efforts. So I urge all of my colleagues to support the five bills that will be on the floor tonight to help get our criminal justice and victim support systems caught up with a rapidly evolving international crime.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

With regard to the claims of parochialism, there is no question that those of us from the States that host these ICBMs are technical experts in the field. It only makes sense that we would know a lot about it.

Mr. Chairman, while I am content with the Department of Defense's recent force structure announcement on complying with the New START Treaty to maintain 454 ICBM silos in warm status, I too strongly oppose the hard stop date that maintains these missile

silos in warm status no later than 2021. Members of this body, Members of the Senate, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many others have said the sustainment of our nuclear triad is essential and that any further reductions ought not be done in unilateral fashion.

Maintaining and investing in the modernization of this weapon system is just as important as any other leg of the nuclear triad. From what I can tell and from what the people of North Dakota know, it is a lot cheaper to maintain them than to rebuild them should we err in our judgment currently.

I urge passage of the amendment.