Kevin Cramer

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. I thank the chairman for yielding and for his good work on this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, during the last Congress, while I served on the Natural Resources Committee, we held an oversight hearing regarding the child protection crisis on the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation in North Dakota in response to the numerous child deaths, as well as whistleblower reports that were detailing unsafe tribal placement of almost 40 foster children in abusive homes, many of which were headed by known convicted child sex offenders. In an effort to protect these children and children around the country, I introduced the Native American Children's Safety Act, a bill that Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota has also introduced in the United States Senate. This bill implements across-the-board minimum protections for children placed in foster care at the direction of a tribal court. These standards, Mr. Speaker, mirror existing national requirements for nontribal foster care placements, ensuring that tribal children receive at least the same, if not higher, standards of foster care as nontribal children placed in foster care. This bill is bipartisan. I believe it is noncontroversial. It was reported out of the Natural Resources Committee in both this Congress and the last Congress with unanimous consent. I also want to take the time to thank several members of the administration, particularly the BIA, as well as Health and Human Services, for their assistance in refining the bill. I also want to thank the National Indian Child Welfare Association, which assisted in refining the bill, as well as the National Congress of American Indians. All of these refinements to the bill help make the bill better. More importantly, it provides flexibility to the tribes in fulfilling the obligations of the bill, and I think it makes it a much better bill. I thank everybody who was involved, as well as my colleagues, and hope that we can pass it without objection today.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank my colleagues who have helped cosponsor this important amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think that the author of the amendment did a great job in discerning between 3 days and 30 minutes, as 30 minutes is hardly what some have called a ``hair trigger.'' Clearly, we want to be at a strategic advantage, and we would be at a tremendous strategic disadvantage should we have to take 3 days. Anybody who has been to one of these bases, as many of us have--anybody who has been in the bunkers and has seen the control system--knows that the protocols that are in place are anything but a hair trigger. We can be confident that we have the ability to respond quickly but not the ability to respond too quickly. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam Speaker, the most basic responsibility of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people is to protect the people. We protect our senior citizens' economic security with Social Security. We protect our country with our national security. We have a Department of Homeland Security to protect all people. It seems that the very least we can do for the most vulnerable, defenseless, and innocent among us is to protect them with this basic right, to protect them from the imposition of the excruciating pain imposed on them by government sanction no less--abortion. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important bill.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extends their remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of today's Special Order.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate so much this opportunity that we have this evening to inform and to educate my colleagues in the House, fellow Members of Congress, and even the American people through C-SPAN, about the importance of local radio and television broadcasters. They are important not only to our country, but I want to talk about how important they are to our communities--the communities we live in, the communities they live in, the communities they work in. For decades, these broadcasters have been the first ones to respond to disasters and emergencies. They have saved numerous lives by their ability to be on the scene and to broadcast widely. They have helped communities pick up the pieces after a natural disaster or a manmade disaster. The broadcasters of our country, of our communities, have played a vital role in the quality of life in our communities. I have been blessed throughout my career not just in public service but in other positions to work with local broadcasters hosting telethons to help find cures for diseases like muscular dystrophy, cancer, and many other diseases that our communities have tackled together. Now, we need to remember that these radio and television stations are not monolithic corporations. They are owned and run and managed by our friends and neighbors, the people that we see every day. Today is a big day. It is an appropriate day to celebrate--not just inform and educate but celebrate--the role of America's broadcasters in our communities. Because today, hundreds of Members of Congress were able to meet with their local television and radio station personalities and managers and representatives. Today, nearly 600 broadcasters came to Capitol Hill to tell their story of public service and to remind their Representatives of their role. You may not know that these broadcasters are required by statute to serve the public interest. When I hear about the stories they cover, when I see the types of stories they cover, the lives they have touched, the service that they are providing, I am heartened to know that we have a vibrant, thriving system of local broadcasting in this country. Unlike many other countries around the world, where national and regional news is what is available to their citizens, here in the United States, here in places like North Dakota and Texas and Arkansas and others, we have a system of local radio and TV stations so folks living in the same community are bound together by weather events, sporting events, news of the day, and human interest, all provided by an accurate local source. I know in North Dakota we have seen weather emergencies where information from our local broadcasters was all that was available for those suffering the impacts of a storm. Several years ago, I myself, with my family, in 1984, spent all night--this was before cell phones, I know--spent all night in a car in a blizzard that came upon North Dakota suddenly. We were just off the interstate. The only communication we had was through KFGO Radio, which won a Peabody that year for broadcasting to us and to several others that were stranded in that storm. So, today, we are going to hear a number of stories from Members of Congress across the country also touched by their local TV and radio stations. I thank them for sharing stories about their local stations. I will share some of mine as we go throughout this Special Order, but I want to call on somebody who knows a fair bit about broadcasting, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. CRAMER. If the gentleman wouldn't mind, I would like to ask a question. I know we didn't rehearse this, but in this era of all kinds of new information technologies available and ways of getting information, streaming and cell phones and smartphones and the like, maybe you could just share a minute or two about why it is still important, what role the broadcaster, the free, over-the-air broadcast through the public spectrum, why that matters in this era of new IT.

Mr. CRAMER. You raise very important points. Again, I appreciate the reminder that, while we are, today, educating, informing, and celebrating local broadcasting, it is at risk; that we can take our eye off the ball, that we can assume or presume some things and wake up one day and find out that when that accident happens on the railroad tracks or the storm is coming that suddenly there is nobody there to tell us about it.

Mr. CRAMER. Great points. Thank you so much for participating. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. CRAMER. I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I especially thank him for raising the football illustration, just because it is an opportunity--while he wondered if it was important in North Dakota, North Dakotans have become very accustomed to coming to Texas for football games because, for the last 4 years, the North Dakota State University football team has won the national FCS championship game in Frisco, Texas. Thank you for reminding us of that, and we look forward to a trip next year, perhaps. That said, I appreciate what you raised about how many broadcast stations really--they are tools of the First Amendment, and they are also, obviously, an important part of the First Amendment because that is where they derive their rights to express and to broadcast. Where would politicians be without broadcasting debates? So I appreciate that as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), just to let everybody know this is obviously a very important bipartisan Special Order because it a very important bipartisan issue.

Mr. CRAMER. I appreciate the gentleman's recognition of that and the very thorough list of examples of the incredible public service that our broadcasters do in the Northeast. Thank you very much for that. It occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, as I listen to my colleagues talk about the importance of local broadcasters that they really have multiple public service roles. Certainly it is a public service to be able to give the news, to deliver the sporting games, to deliver the weather, to deliver emergency information for public safety, to let people know what is going on in the community. That is an important service. But the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) brings up, of course, many other charitable things. I have participated in many charitable events that were good, that raised decent money for important causes. But when a broadcaster gets involved, it adds value; it raises awareness; it sometimes brings celebrity to it. And you can see a charity lifted up by virtue of the fact that a local TV station or a local radio station or, in some cases, multiple stations took on the cause--not because there is anything in it for the broadcast station, not because there is anything in it for the managers. Sure, sometimes there are programs that have a sales component to it that you can go out and sell, but by and large, these are pure acts of public service, pure acts of charity that with just a little bit of airtime, just a little bit of local personality that is attached to a cause can validate the cause, elevate the cause, bring awareness to the cause, and create momentum for a cause that generates all kinds of other private sector involvement, whether it is volunteers or money--in most cases, both. We can solve a lot of problems when we get a broadcaster involved. I have had the opportunity to be part of a very special program that I know a lot of my colleagues have been a part of, whether out here or back at home, and that is Honor Flights. It was a local broadcaster in Fargo, North Dakota, that saw a national story about the Honor Flight program that flies World War II veterans to see the memorial built in their honor. So WDAY radio and television took it on in Fargo and created the Red River Valley Honor Flight and flew four flights of veterans. During that time, they broadcast leading up to it to bring awareness so that the veterans, themselves, could sign up. Then they broadcast the trips themselves to bring awareness and to honor these men and women, these heroes of the Greatest Generation and then, of course, brought the celebration home in a way that you couldn't do without that involvement. That resulted in another Honor Flight chapter being raised up in Bismarck, where I live, and I became the chairman of the Roughrider Honor Flight. We had five flights out of Bismarck. The KX television network in North Dakota became our broadcast partner. Not only did they help by raising awareness, which helped me raise money, which helped us get more veterans signing up, but it got the whole community involved. At the end of it all, they provided a video documentary of the experience so that every veteran and their families who participated had that wonderful memory in a DVD that they could watch for the rest of their lives. Just this last weekend, I was on a radio show in Fargo called ``Heroes of the Heartland.'' It is on for an hour every Saturday, where a local veteran hosts the show, and it is all about veterans. I hope the show wins an award for what it does for veterans. While I was on the show answering questions about legislation dealing with veterans' issues, people would call in and say: Did you know that the VA in Fargo is holding a public information meeting in a neighboring city on Saturday at whatever time, where veterans can come and air their grievances or give their appreciation or learn about the VA? And I thought: Wow, how cool is this, that because somebody knew of something, not only was the radio station there able to spread the information, but the listener became the newsmaker. They became the broadcaster. That is the other neat thing about local radio, especially: it provides an opportunity where everybody is a broadcaster. If you see an accident or you find bad weather or you see something happen that you want to alert the public about, you have that opportunity now with new media, meaning broadcast media. So it was an honor to be on ``Heroes of the Heartland.'' I have the great privilege of representing the entire State of North Dakota. That is a big congressional district. Now, it is not as big as Montana or Wyoming or Alaska, but it is pretty big. I try to have a lot of town halls, like many of us do. We have a lot of town halls. But I have the opportunity, working with broadcast partners now, where every week I have a 1-hour talk radio town hall on multiple stations. KFYR-AM 550 in Bismarck was sort of the flagship station. KPLC out in Dickinson carries it. AM 1100 The Flag is really where it was birthed, in Fargo. KTGO up in the Bakken, the heart of the Bakken, in Tioga, carries the talk radio town hall. People have the opportunity to either call me live on the air and ask a question or call on an 800 number and leave a message for me if they can't call during the show itself. It is broadcast statewide, and then it is broadcast again in the evening on delay. It provides a great opportunity for me to be in touch with my constituents and for them to talk to me and for me to be able to talk to them. As you can tell, Mr. Speaker, I am a big advocate for free over-the- air broadcast media, whether it is radio or television--or certainly both. And I think that even in the new media era, and I appreciated the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Crawford's thoughts on this, that we have this opportunity still, but that there is still an important role for free broadcast radio and television, that even with all the new media, that it only, in fact, enhances the importance of free over-the-air broadcasts. With that, I yield to another Member from Texas.

Mr. CRAMER. If the gentleman from Texas would yield, you raised an important point that I hadn't thought about that is sort of natural and obvious, and that is, if you are going to be a good local broadcaster, obviously you have to be a good local citizen.

Mr. CRAMER. Well, you are a very articulate spokesman and advocate on behalf of local broadcasting, and I appreciate your taking the time and your expertise. By the way, you did pose it in the form of a question. I suppose some people can look at Congress and say: There is a group that can be wrong more than half the time and keep their jobs too. But at any rate, I have noticed that if you stay in good contact through your broadcast community with your constituents that helps as well.

Mr. CRAMER. Well, it is very important because as I said, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning, over 600 broadcasters are in town today calling on the Members of Congress, calling on us, reminding us of the important role that they play in public safety, in public information, in public service, in many ways, in many ways, not just in delivering the news, weather, and sports and being active in our communities and elevating those important causes that make for a quality community, contributing their talent, contributing their, of course, their broadcast spectrum, which is really the people's. I think that is really an important point that we sometimes forget--that there is a reason that broadcasters have this legal obligation to public service because the people own the airwaves, and we rent them, if you will. It is important that broadcasters and Congress stay in close touch because, as the gentleman from Texas pointed out, this is a fragile relationship, and we can sometimes take them for granted while presuming that there will always be other ways to communicate when we know, in fact, that when the lights go out, when the electricity goes off, when a storm hits, whatever the case may be, as long as you have a car radio and a good battery, or you have a battery-operated radio and the broadcasters are on the air, you can always get that information from your local, reliable, familiar, friendly broadcasters. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time and I appreciate my colleagues from both sides of the aisle from across our country who have taken the time today to help inform, educate, and celebrate the American broadcaster.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. 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. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. 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. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. 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.

Mr. CRAMER. 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. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. 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. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. 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.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. 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. CRAMER. 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.

Mr. CRAMER. 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. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. 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. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. 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.