A bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Colleagues, there is an unprecedented crisis unfolding on our border. The crisis threatens the very integrity of our national border, our laws, and our system of justice. It is something I have been talking about for a number of years, but it has reached unusual and dangerous proportions. It is a crisis of this administration's own making and a crisis the administration's policies continue to encourage.

America deserves leaders in the executive branch who will stand up and say clearly: The crisis must end now. The border is closed. Please do not come unlawfully to America. If you do come unlawfully, you will be deported. This is what we expect from our Chief Executive, the chief law enforcement officer in America and, for that matter, the head of Homeland Security, the office in charge of Border Patrol and ICE officers.

But President Obama and Secretary Johnson at the Department of Homeland Security refused--just refused--to plainly make this statement. How can they not? It is their duty. It is the law of the United States, and it is causing people around the world, particularly in Central America, to believe they can come unlawfully to America. It is encouraging this to happen. They are getting wrong messages from the leadership in our country.

So let's review the evidence.

On March 20, 2014, the University of Texas at El Paso did a study that was funded and supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate, and it states that ``both Border Patrol and ICE officers agreed that the lack of deterrence for crossing the U.S./Mexican border has impacted the rate at which they have apprehended UACs.''

UACs are unaccompanied alien children.

Officers assert that ``UACs are aware of the relative lack

of consequences they will receive when apprehended at the

U.S. border.''

Get this: Officers are certain the UACs are aware of this.

UTEP [University of Texas El Paso] was informed that

smugglers of family members of unaccompanied alien children

understand that once a UAC is apprehended for illegal entry

into the United States, the individual will be reunited with

a U.S.-based family member pending the disposition of the

immigration hearing.

There will be some sort of hearing set for them.

This process appears to be exploited by illegal alien

smugglers and family members in the United States who wish to

reunite with separated children. It was observed by the

researchers that the current policy is very similar to the

``catch and release'' problem that the Department of Homeland

Security faced prior to the passage of the Intelligence

Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

If we catch somebody in the United States unlawfully, they will be given some minimal process and then released on bail and told to return back to court in so many weeks or months. In many cases, they do not show up. They enter the country unlawfully against the laws of the United States. They are apprehended but released--and why would they show up?

Recently Border Patrol agents in the Rio Grande Valley questioned 230 illegal immigrants about why they came. These are particularly related to children, and 95 percent said they believed they would be allowed to stay and take advantage of the ``new'' U.S. ``law'' that grants a free pass or ``permiso'' being issued by the U.S. government to adults traveling with minors and unaccompanied children.

So this is what they said 95 percent of the people who came illegally believe. This memo that leaked out of the Department of Homeland Security continued:

The information is apparently common knowledge in Central

America and is spread by word of mouth and international and

local media. A high percentage of the subjects interviewed

stated that their family members in the United States urged

them to travel immediately, because the United States

government was only issuing immigration `permisos' until

the end of June 2014.

On June 10, 2014, newspapers in Honduras and Guatemala quoted Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson as saying this--this is what he is being quoted as saying in Central America: ``Almost all agree that a child who crossed the border illegally with their parents or in search of a father or a better life, was not making an adult choice to break our laws, and should be treated differently than adult violators of the law.''

This conveys a message. Isn't it clear that people who are not students of the esoteric aspects of American law would hear the Secretary of Homeland Security basically saying if you are a young person and you come you will be treated differently? Then they hear they will be given a ``permiso'' and allowed to stay and be taken care of, that there is no risk or danger in coming to the United States unlawfully.

On June 13, the Washington Post published an article entitled ``Influx of minors across Texas border driven by belief they will be allowed to stay in U.S.'' How hard is it to reverse that belief? We have not done it.

On June 19, Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar of Texas said, ``As long as they know they are going to be released and allowed to stay here, they are going to keep coming.'' Isn't that true?

The New York Times quoted one teenager from Honduras whose mother had sent for him: ``If you make it, they take you to a shelter and take care of you and let you have permission to stay.''

Records show the administration knew this surge we are seeing at the border, which is unprecedented in our history, was coming, and they knew of it for some time and did nothing to stop it or to send the message: Don't do this. Do not come to America unlawfully. Make your application if you feel you are justified in coming, and it will be processed in regular order. Indeed, the administration sought, rather than to stop this dramatic surge, to accommodate it.

Even before the public became aware of the beginning of the surge of this nature at our border, on January 29 of this year, the Federal Government--

get this--posted an advertisement seeking bids from a contractor to handle 65,000 ``unaccompanied alien children'' crossing the southern border. This was in January.

In 2011 we had approximately 6,000 coming into the country unlawfully. So in January of this year they posted an advertisement to handle 65,000. So this raises serious questions. Why would the administration claim to be surprised by the current influx of unaccompanied minors when they were taking bids in January for a contract to handle the exact situation--almost the exact number--we are seeing? This year it is expected to hit about 90,000 children; whereas, in 2011 it was 6,000. Projections from official sources say we may hit 130,000 next year. How did the administration anticipate the very numbers it seems we have at least to date?

In March of this year the Department of Health & Human Services estimated in its fiscal year 2014 budget proposal that the number of unaccompanied illegal alien children apprehended in 2014 this year would rise to 60,000, which is up 814 percent from the 6,560 who were apprehended in the United States only 3 years ago.

Over the weekend the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security published an ``open letter to the parents of children crossing our Southwest border'' on a Spanish language wire service. I had demanded of him in the Senate Judiciary Committee that he send a clear message, and he actually refused to do so. I had to ask him about three or more times before he would finally say: It is unlawful to come here, and that is the reason you shouldn't. He said: You shouldn't come because it is dangerous. He said: You shouldn't come. It is not a good idea. But he was not simply saying: Do not come unlawfully.

In newspapers in Central and South America and on Univision's Web site the letter noted, in part, that the Senate comprehensive immigration bill ``provides for an earned path to citizenship, but only for certain people who came into this country on or before December 31, 2011.''

The Senate bill died in the House and will not become a law, and it was wrong to have done that very thing. That is what the law said, but it wasn't passed. But the very fact that Mr. Johnson is advertising in foreign countries an earned path to citizenship for illegal immigrants undermines his primary responsibility, which is to enforce the law. The most primary responsibility for Mr. Johnson is not to see how many people he can apprehend and actually go through the cost and process of deporting; the primary job is to deter criminal activity to begin with, to send a message and back it up that people cannot come successfully illegally. Don't come. Then you will see a large dropoff instead of this 800-percent increase we see today.

Human beings are rational actors, and if they believe the United States is granting citizenship to illegal aliens who arrived before 2012, it stands to reason that the U.S. Government will move that date back if more illegal aliens arrive in the years to come. Why wouldn't they think they would be given amnesty too? That is what happened in 1986--amnesty was given. There were 3 million people who were given legal status, and the message was heard.

Some say that today, we have over 11 million illegal aliens in the country.

Even a 2009 internal Department of Homeland Security report on approaches for implementing immigration reform recognizes this fundamental fact. This 2009 report said:

Virtually all immigration experts agree that it would be

counterproductive to offer an explicit or implied path to

permanent resident status (or citizenship) during any

legalization program. That would simply encourage the fraud

and illegal border crossings that other features of the

program seek to discourage. In fact, for that reason and from

that perspective, it would be best if the legislation did not

even address future permanent resident status or citizenship.

That is from an official government report.

Contrary to the administration's claims that illegal immigrants are acting on mere rumor and misinformation, it is the sad reality of lax enforcement plus the lack of a clear message that is driving the surge. The reality is if you get into the country today, you are not going to be deported. That is true.

A leaked May 30 internal memo written by the top border official, Deputy Chief Ronald Vitiello, said:

Currently only 3 percent of apprehensions from countries

other than Mexico are being repatriated to their countries of

citizenship, which are predominately located in Central

America.

I repeat, only 3 percent are being repatriated back home.

According to the former head of Enforcement and Removal Operations for ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, Gary Mead:

It's taking a year or more in some places for people to

come up on a hearing and many times, they don't have an

attorney, or they've lost an attorney, and they get an

extension, and maybe it's two years before they have a

hearing. And in the interim period, they enroll in school, or

they get a job, or they are reunited with family members, and

then they are no longer an enforcement priority.

That is significant. Even if after 2 or 3 years a judge finally orders removal--assuming the individuals show up in court at all--many illegal immigrants simply ignore that order, and having been here for a period of years, no one makes them leave.

As former ICE Director John Sandweg said: ``If you are a run-of-the- mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero.''

Yesterday, Byron York published in the Washington Examiner the findings of Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, which shows that the United States deported a total of 802 minors to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador in 2011, 677 in 2012, and down to 496 last year. Weighed against the tens of thousands pouring in, it is clear that once again the reality on the ground--not merely rumor, talk, or policy--of the lax enforcement has influenced decisionmaking in Central America.

It is obvious to me. I have been a Federal prosecutor. You have to send the message, and if the message is heard that if you violate a certain law, you will be disciplined, the number of people who violate the law will drop. If you never enforce speeding tickets, people will speed. If you enforce them systematically, people will slow down.

York quotes ex-ICE official Gary Mead:

If you're getting 90,000 a year, or 50,000 a year, or even

25,000 a year, and you only remove 1,200, you're not

eliminating the backlog.

How obvious is that?

Additionally, those here illegally have taken advantage of an asylum system that is easily open to abuse and that the administration has sought to widen rather than narrow. This asylum question is very serious. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Goodlatte recently stated:

Many of the children, teenagers, and adults, arriving at

the border are able to game our asylum and immigration laws

because the Obama administration has severely weakened them

and many thousands have already been released into the

interior of the United States. What does President Obama plan

to do with those who have already been released from custody?

That is a good question. We have a situation now where illegal immigrants seek out and turn themselves in to the Border Patrol officer. They come across the border and go straight to them and turn themselves in. That is a fact. What happens then? They are taken farther into the United States to be reunited with family members, apply for a job, attend school, have children in U.S. hospitals, and stay in the United States--whether through skipping court hearings, receiving asylum, or simply ignoring orders to leave.

We can all expect that 5 or 10 years from now--and correct me if I am wrong--politicians in this body will probably say these illegal immigrants ``came here through no fault of their own'' and are entitled to citizenship. Is this a policy of a great nation? It is a policy of a nation that believes and advocates for open borders, but it is not a policy that is compatible with a system of law, duty, and order.

If people apply and wait in line, why should other people be able to come from the outside, break in line, move ahead of them unlawfully, and then ultimately receive the very thing they sought unlawfully? The chaos continues.

Indeed, the President actively continues to incentivize even more illegal immigrants. That is the effect of what

he has accomplished here. He reauthorized his DACA program--based on a bill that did not pass the Senate or the House--for 2 years, which is a policy that exempts whole classes of certain individuals, particularly young people, from the immigration laws of the United States. He held a White House ceremony in the White House honoring 10 DACA recipients. DACA recipients are people who enter the country illegally. He also unilaterally authorized an additional 100,000 guest workers, and now the Justice Department is hiring lawyers to represent unaccompanied alien children in immigration court to maximize the number of those who will receive permission to stay in the country.

Claims that DACA--this policy of nonenforcement unilaterally carried out by the President of the United States not to enforce the law--does not apply to these new arrivals is simply a distraction. DACA is a unilateral action that established the precedent that those who come to America at a certain age will receive special exemptions from the law. That is what it says.

ICE officers report they are often forced to release even high-risk individuals of unknown ages and dates of entry who simply assert DREAM Act privileges.

In the internal Border Patrol memo, Deputy Border Patrol Chief Vitiello stressed the only way to stop the flow is to show potential illegal immigrants that there will be real consequences for their action. He said:

If the U.S. government fails to deliver adequate

consequences to deter aliens from attempting to illegally

enter the U.S. the result will be an even greater increase in

the rate of recidivism and first-time illicit entries.

Our immigration system is unraveling before our very eyes. It is unbelievable. The American people have been denied the protections they are entitled to under our immigration system. Washington is failing the citizens of this country in a most dramatic and open way. Laws are passed by elected representatives of the people. We have passed laws that say you can't come to America without permission, and you need to file your papers and follow the rules. It is unlawful to just walk across the border because you want to come to this country. That is not lawful in this country.

I am calling on all the leaders and officials in this town to take the firm, bold, and decisive steps that are necessary to restore order and restore our borders. It is important for the children who are at risk. Many of them are having a difficult time. They have run out of money and the coyotes and smugglers have taken their money and mistreated them. We have heard a lot of horrible stories.

What is the best way to fix this problem? The best way to fix it is to have the President of the United States and the Secretary of Homeland Security say we are not going to accept you coming unlawfully. Please do not come. Don't do it. Make your application like everybody else. Wait your turn like everybody else. We are not against immigration or young people, but it is unacceptable to have a lawless system--as we have today--that is placing children at risk and overwhelming our enforcement officers.

One TV program today said the Border Patrol officers, instead of doing their duty, are changing diapers. We have gone from 6,000 to maybe 90,000 to 100,000-plus next year. The cost of the budget item last year for these kinds of things was about $800 million. I think they are now saying they need $2.28 billion a year just to handle this overflow. We don't have money to do that. It is not the right thing. It is dangerous for children, it is corrosive of the law.

The President must send a clear message: Do not come. Please follow the law, and if you come anyway, contrary to the law, you will be apprehended, you will be deported, and you will be required to return home.

I thank the Chair, yield the floor, and note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, it is my understanding that the Senator from Missouri Mr. Blunt will be recognized next for 10 minutes or so.

I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks by Senator Blunt, I be recognized for up to 15 minutes.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, let me first say to my good friend from Missouri, I plan to talk about energy, the very thing he is talking about. If we go back and look logically, if we are dependent upon fossil fuels for 75 percent of our ability to run this machine called America, and we extract that, what is going to happen? I think we all know what is going to happen and I think people need to be forewarned.

I am going to tee this up by talking a little bit about President Obama's climate assessment meeting he had yesterday. All of these people were talking about the world coming to an end, the report he came out with--let me, first of all, ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from Delaware be recognized.

The whole idea in this report by design is to spark fear in the American people so they will go along with the administration in implementing their policies that will kill

fossil fuels and leave us with nothing but a broken economy. When I say broken economy, if, in fact--and no one would refute this--we are dependent upon fossil fuels--coal, oil, and gas--for 75 percent of the energy to run America, then what is going to happen to our economy if we extract 75 percent? I think we all know logically what is going to happen.

In the words of White House counselor John Podesta this morning: ``The American public doesn't feel that sense of urgency about the impacts of climate change and I think this report will help influence that.'' That is nothing but an admission. The whole reason for this report is to try to resurrect the issue of global warming. We heard my good friend from Massachusetts talking about that. He is very knowledgeable, and I will refer to some of his activities in a minute.

But keep in mind, this is John Podesta. It is the same John Podesta who is representing some of the terrorist regime from Sri Lanka that is no longer in effect. He is the same one who ran the White House during the Clinton years. So he comes from a very partisan perspective. But nonetheless, I appreciate the fact that he is admitting this is the reason for the climate assessment President Obama did yesterday, because he wants to try to bring this up again.

I can remember back when the polling showed that global warming was either the No. 1 or No. 2 of the environmental issues in America. Do we know where it is now? It is No. 10, according to the last Gallup poll. So people have forgotten about it. People have caught on. They have seen the scientists come in and refute all this IPCC stuff that the United Nations has been putting forth for a long period of time. I think it is a recognition that people have caught on to this and it is no longer the issue they want it to be.

Whether it is a drought or a flood, high temperatures, low temperatures, you can't find a job, you are finding more allergic reactions, then the White House blames it on global warming. Fear has always been a tactic the administration and other global warming alarmists have used to spur people into action. Time and time again, when the American people learn the details and the costs of the solutions to global warming that they contend exist, they don't want anything to do with it--and the costs are enormous.

Congress last debated global warming when my good friend, now Senator Markey, was in the House of Representatives. It was the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. This bill would have cost, according to Charles River Associates--and I think people recognize them as authentic-- between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. That is the cost. I would contend this would be the largest tax increase in the history of this country. That is consistent with other analyses. One was the Wharton Group and many of the scientists there who were making evaluations came out with the same thing: between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. MIT came out with about the same amount of between $300 billion to $400 billion a year. The cost estimate has been the same over the last 15 years since we first started debating this issue. I don't think anyone is challenging that.

But what is important--and this is kind of in the weeds, but we have to talk about this: I applaud Senator Markey for at least the levels of pollution--of emissions, I should say--that come from different sources that he was wanting to regulate, and that was those with 25,000 tons of CO2 emissions or more. That would be, quite frankly, the major emitters, the refineries and all of that. Here is the problem we have today. It is far worse than the Waxman-Markey bill would have been, because it wouldn't call for the regulation of just those entities that emit 25,000 tons or more, but the same as the Clean Air Act.

The Clean Air Act has a threshold of 250 tons of greenhouse gases a year. Stop and think about that: If it costs between $300 billion to $400 billion to regulate the emitters who emit 25,000 tons of CO2 a year, how much more if we regulate everyone with 250 tons? It has never been calculated. It would be very difficult. But we are talking about billions and billions of dollars more. So the regulations are far worse.

The first of these regulations now being developed is the New Source Performance Standards for newly constructed powerplants. The rule would essentially make it illegal to build new coal-fired powerplants. That is what it was designed to do.

The next step would be to take the existing powerplants--those that are employing hundreds of thousands of people in America today--and they would be out of a job. So that would go to the refining industry, and so forth, and establish new regulations for each and every industry. These greenhouse gas regulations mark the latest attempt by the EPA to destroy affordable and reliable electricity and energy supplies that have been the hallmark of our economy for a long period of time. They are already doing it in other areas too. It is not just regulating the greenhouse gas emissions or CO2 emissions; it is other regulations that are unbearable.

This one right here--they are talking about changing the ocean regulation. This chart is an interesting one because this shows that virtually every county in America would be out of attainment with their new goals. In my State of Oklahoma, we have 77 counties. All 77 counties would be out of attainment if they are able to do that.

In 2011, the EPA finalized its utility MACT. By the way, that stands for maximum achievable control technology. That is what we are talking about. So they passed this. Now it is passed. It is history now. They finalized utility MACT with a rule that costs over $100 million and would result in 1.65 million lost jobs.

The EPA put this rule out without even considering the cost of it, saying it wasn't required to do so. In other words, the law does not say they are required to say what it costs. I take issue with that. They estimated the rule would result in the retirement of less than 10,000 megawatts of electricity generation, but today we know the power companies around the country have announced the retirements totaling more than 50,000. So they are off by 500 percent. Fifty thousand megawatts in direct response to the EPA regulation.

By the way, when we had the utility MACT, I filed a CRA, and this is something I want to make sure people are aware of, and certainly my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle. On all of these regulations, when they reach the point where the regulation is final-- and we know for a fact it is going to cost dollars and it is going to cost jobs--I am going to file a CRA. A CRA is a Congressional Review Act. A CRA provides that if there is a regulation--and I hear so often my colleagues in the Senate will say to their constituents, Don't blame me for these regulations because that is the regulatory--that is the EPA and other regulators doing it. But a CRA forces them to take an issue. So all one has to do is find 30 people in the Senate, have them sign a CRA, file the CRA, and then it is simply a simple majority--51. In the case of this utility MACT, I only lacked three votes for stopping that rule. So we anticipate that we are going to be able to stop a lot of these rules.

In about 10 days, the EPA is poised to propose another new rule, the 316(b) cooling water intake rule. This rule is designed to protect fish from being caught and killed in nets designed to prevent them from entering powerplant systems. While the rule doesn't have any human health benefits, it is expected to cost industry over $100 billion in compliance costs, which, of course, will be passed on to everyone in America who ends up paying these bills.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, which is called NERC, has warned that this rule will have a far worse impact on electricity affordability and reliability than the utility MACT did. We know it will.

In fact, the FERC Commissioner recently said that because of EPA's rules, the United States is likely to see rolling electricity blackouts over the summer months in the next few years as demand for electricity outstrips the supply remaining after all of the powerplant shutdowns that are slated to occur in response to EPA's rules.

The EPA has been systematically distorting the true cost of its regulations for years, and I have been raising this as an issue for some time now, but it has been very difficult to air them out before the entire Senate simply because at this point the sole goal of the

Democrats seems to be to protect their majority.

If we look at this chart, this was prior to the 2012 election. What we found they were doing, prior to the 2012 election, was postponing many of these very onerous regulations because they knew we would be doing a CRA and the public would know who is responsible for these. They had postponed this. This is a report I put out in October 2012, and that was to try to force the administration to not wait until after the election to come out with their rules. That is what they did.

They are doing it again. Last week I released documents revealing that the EPA intentionally delayed the release of its greenhouse gas new source performance standards--that is the NSPS--by 66 days in order to avoid it being finalized before the midterm elections--the same thing as 2012.

I also sent a letter to Gina McCarthy, who is the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency, asking why the rule was delayed, especially when she had previously told me it was the result of a blacklog in the Federal Register. In other words, she was saying: The Federal Register did not post this rule until 66 days after we gave it to them. We checked with the Federal Register, and they said that is absolutely false. They have an immediate turnaround for these rules.

So now I am waiting for a response to that letter. I do not want to use the ``L'' word. I know there is a lot of pressure put on the employees and certainly the Director of the EPA to try to minimize what the public feels is going to be the cost of these regulations.

Had the EPA stuck with its original timeline of finalizing this rule by September 20 of this year, then I would have been able to work with my colleagues to force a Congressional Review Act vote to overturn the rule just weeks before the election. Then people would know the cost of these things.

But what we could do right now is vote on a few of the amendments. Our Senator from Missouri was talking about these amendments. We have a bill that is coming up. We have amendments that should be considered-- all having to do with energy, so they are all appropriate amendments to offer, as he articulated for about 10 minutes a few minutes ago.

I have some amendments that would do this. He mentioned one of them that he and I are together on. But one of my amendments is amendment No. 2977, entitled the ``Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2014.'' It simply prohibits the EPA from promulgating any greenhouse gas emissions regulations to combat climate change because they are denying this is the reason they are doing it. Of course we know what has happened to the science they are relying on through the United Nations that has now been refuted.

The second amendment I have is amendment No. 2979. It would prevent the EPA from issuing any new Clean Air Act regulations--such as those on climate change--until it complies with section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act. Let's keep in mind, this is the Clean Air Act, as shown on this chart. We are talking about decades ago. This is what the Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to do:

The Administrator shall conduct continuing evaluations of

potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from

the administration or enforcement of the provision of this

chapter. . . .

It is saying they are supposed to already tell the public what the cost is in terms of jobs and money. That is the law, but they are not obeying the law. So I have an amendment that puts teeth in it and says you cannot have any new rules until you comply with section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act. Very reasonable, and it is the law today.

Unfortunately, the EPA is not interested in doing this. With the Utility MACT rule, it completely dismissed the rule's cost and did not consider it when putting out the rule.

The EPA acted in contradiction to Supreme Court precedents that decisionmakers are required to ``weigh advantages against disadvantages, and disadvantages can be seen in terms of costs.'' That is the U.S. Supreme Court.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 5 more minutes.

I have to get to the last part. Rather than to face these issues head-on, I am going to share something that happened last year and then again this year. There is a very wealthy person named Tom Steyer. Tom Steyer has a mansion that overlooks the Golden Gate Bridge. He had a fundraiser for Barack Obama last year, raising a lot of money, but the one I am more concerned about is the fundraiser he had when he announced--this is just within the last month--Tom Steyer, a very wealthy person, said he was going to personally donate $50 million and raise an additional $50 million to try to do two things. One is to resurrect this whole idea on global warming since the people do not care about it anymore. As a result of that, we had an all-night vigil. Remember that? That was right after Tom Steyer made his announcement.

The second thing he is mandating is to kill the Keystone Pipeline. There is a lot of money out there. The regulatory burdens already being placed on this country are enormous, and the cost of regulations are, perhaps arguably, the worst problem facing this country.

Last week the Competitive Enterprise Institute published a major report calculating the cost of the President's regulations at $1.86 trillion. To put that in perspective, Canada's entire GDP is $1.82 trillion. India's is the same amount. So that is what the cost would be, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

People know what has happened to the military with this administration, they know what has happened to energy, but the cost of these regulations is something that is going to have to be addressed.

Lastly, I would say this. I know there are people out there who legitimately believe greenhouse gas is causing global warming and the world is going to come to an end, but I would suggest this: Lisa Jackson was the Administrator--chosen by Barack Obama--the first Administrator we had for the EPA. I asked her this question, on the record, live on TV. I said: Madam Administrator, if we were to pass bills like the Markey-Waxman bill or regulate by regulation the CO2 in the United States of America, would this have the effect of lowering the CO2 emissions worldwide? She said: No, because that is not where the problem is. It is in China. It is in India. It is in Mexico.

In other words, if you believe--as I do not believe--but if you believe CO2 is going to bring about the end of the world, then even if we do something in this country, it is not going to solve the problem. Arguably, it would make the problem worse because as we lose our manufacturing base, they are out seeking electricity and energy from countries where they do not have any of these regulations, and that would have the effect of increasing, not decreasing, emissions of CO2.

With that, I yield the floor and thank my friend for not objecting to my additional time.

Reserving the right to object.

What time do we have the vote?

That is the reason we were very careful with the time. And we gave my good friends--and they are my good friends--a lot of extra time.

I will allow the Senator to proceed for 1 minute. But after that, we need equal time on this. So I give 1 minute.

I ask for 1 minute.

Let me think it over. OK.

Reserving the right to object, I wish to explain how I come to my conclusion at the end by saying a couple of things.

I see that my dear friend--and these are all my friends whom I particularly enjoy working with--I say to my friend from Oklahoma, he said Tom Steyer is from California. This is correct. So is Justice Kennedy, and so is Richard Nixon, who signed the Clean Air Act. Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act, and I was a cosponsor of that act. And Republican Herbert Walker Bush signed the Clear Air Act Amendments.

I will not yield.

The fact is that Republican objections to controlling carbon pollution took that all the way to the Supreme Court.

Another thing on which I need to correct the record is my friend Senator Barrasso talked about our President as if our President doesn't care about our being energy self-sufficient. The United States is producing more oil at home than it is buying from the rest of the world for the first time in nearly two decades. Let me repeat that. The United States is producing more oil at home than it is buying from the rest of the world for the first time in nearly two decades. And PolitiFact marked that as true and accurate.

I want to say to my friend who has left the floor, Senator Murkowski--another good friend of mine--we offered a vote on Keystone as part of Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman's bill on energy efficiency, and we said we would treat it the way Mitch McConnell recommends treating controversial amendments. We offered a 60-vote threshold. Now they come to the floor decrying the fact that we didn't offer a vote, but we did.

Here is the point: Whenever America considers building a major infrastructure project, we make sure there is a process in place, and we have done that since 1968. It is a well-established process, and that process was updated by George W. Bush in 2004. So this unanimous consent request that would approve the pipeline would bypass the entire process we have set up in this country for these kinds of major infrastructure projects that has been in place since 1968.

We need to know whether the building of this pipeline is in the national interest, and it is critical that the process not be circumvented because there are major issues on behalf of America's families. Frankly, the request that is before us would cut short the process that protects our families. So rhetorically I ask, why would anyone want to do that? They talk about a lot of jobs. That is in great dispute. The permanent jobs are like 35. So let's be clear. It is about other things. It is about special interests. That is what it is about. There is a lot of money that follows this pipeline.

Now I want to talk about the human health impacts. Tar sands is one of the filthiest kinds of oil on the planet--filthy dirty oil. That is why Senator Whitehouse and I called on the State Department to conduct a comprehensive health impact study--because the pipeline itself is one thing; it is the type of oil that is going through the pipeline, this dirty, filthy tar sands oil.

If you don't believe me, ask our health professionals. A Gallup Poll found 12 years in a row that the most trusted profession is America's nurses. National Nurses United--the Nation's largest professional association of registered nurses, with 185,000 nurses--also called for a health impact study of Keystone because we know if this pipeline is built, immediately we will see a 45-percent increase in the tar sands coming in. Eventually we will see a 300-percent increase in the filthiest, dirtiest of oils coming into our country. We also know this oil has higher levels of dangerous oil pollutants and carcinogens because we documented that in our own country where they burn tar sands oil.

Mr. President, may I complete my remarks before I make a decision on the pending request.

I didn't understand what the Chair said.

All right. Then I would ask unanimous consent that I complete my remarks--the other side had many minutes--and then object.

And I would also ask the Chair, do we not have time on our side at this point in the debate?

OK. Well, just to allay my friend's concern and his excitement about whether or not I will object, I will absolutely object. I do object because we know that misery----

Misery follows the tar stands from extraction, to transportation, to refining, to waste storage.

We are going to show you some pictures, folks, in case you don't know what it looks like when you refine this oil. We are going to show you photos from Port Arthur, TX.

This is what it looks like. There is a playground where this filthy, dirty stuff is burned. This is not a good place to be. We had people at a press conference with the nurses from Port Arthur, TX, and they brought us these pictures and said this is what it is like when they burn the tar sands.

Now let's talk about the types of cancers that are linked to these toxic chemicals, including leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Why would anyone want to short-circuit a process? Just because the oil companies want it? We have to think about our people. Tar sands oil from the Keystone Pipeline will flow to our gulf refineries, increasing this toxic air pollution that already plagues communities such as Port Arthur, TX. I ask you to meet with some of those kids, meet with some of their parents, meet with some of those health professionals, and they will tell you the asthma rates that are happening, the respiratory illnesses, the skin irritations, the cancer. All they talk about is the pipeline. What about what flows through it? What about the toxins that get burned into our air?

We know a pipeline does burst. We know a pipeline does burst. We have seen many of those incidents, and we know one did burst with tar sands oil in Kalamazoo, MI. They still haven't cleaned up the river--3 years, they still haven't cleaned it up. And we know that the pipeline goes through communities and environmentally sensitive areas in six States.

Why would my friends want to bypass a process that is going to look at the potential damage to the health of our citizens, to the safety of our drinking water, and the effect on kids and asthma and cancer?

And let's not forget the tar sands waste, by the way. Here is a picture of that, in case my friends don't know what it looks like. This is called petcoke, petroleum coke. Already, because we have increased tar sands importation, it is lining up around our cities--in Chicago, in Detroit--massive open piles of tar sands, waste products known as petcoke, billowing black clouds containing heavy metals. There was a story that was told to our committee. Children playing baseball have been forced off the field to seek cover from the clouds of black dust that pelt homes and cars.

So you have problems when you extract, you have problems when you transport, you have problems when you refine, and you have problems when you store the waste. Why do my colleagues want to bypass a process that has been put in place since 1968 so we can look at the impact on our people? Petcoke dust is particulate matter. It is among the most harmful of all air pollutants. When inhaled, these particles can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body's ability to fight infections.

Do you know the Federal Government has said that asthma is a national epidemic? I am quoting. It affects 1 of every 12 people or 26 million Americans. I know if I asked people in this Chamber--which I cannot do because it is against the rules of the Senate--to raise their hands if they have asthma or they know someone who has asthma, I guarantee half of the people in the room would raise their hands.

We don't need more asthma. We have a very important system in place to look at the effects of tar sands oil, and I don't think we should be pushing this project forward. Exposing Americans to pollutants linked to cancer and respiratory illness is not in the national interest.

Lastly I want to talk about the climate change impacts. For those people who are listening to the news, they must be surprised to see how many former Republican Environmental Protection Agency officials have come out and said to their colleagues who are here now: Wake up. Climate change is here, it is real, and human activity is adding to it.

The planet is in trouble. Tar sands oil has at least 17 percent more carbon pollution than domestic oil. The State Department concluded even in their flawed study that the annual carbon pollution from just the daily operation of the pipeline, should it be built, will be the equivalent of adding 300,000 new cars on our roads.

So why do we want to short-circuit a process which has been in place since 1968 and which was then renewed by George W. Bush in 2004 to protect our people from just this kind of a project?

If you walk up to an average American and say ``Should we build the Keystone Pipeline?'' they will say ``Pipeline? A pipeline is a pipeline.'' But when you explain the kind of oil you are putting through the pipeline, that is a different situation because this is the filthiest, dirtiest oil--more carbon intensive. The oil is linked to all kinds of illness.

I stood next to people from Canada, doctors who were so glad I was raising these issues. Even the newspapers in Alberta have called for a much better study on health impact.

So outside of this Chamber more and more Republicans are coming out in support of doing something serious about climate change.

My friend showed a picture of Tom Steyer. Let me thank him from the bottom of my heart. This is someone who is a very successful businessperson who realized he has to step up to the plate and preserve the planet for his kids and his grandkids. Thank you, Tom Steyer.

Just last week four former Republican EPA Administrators who served under Presidents Nixon, Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George W. Bush spoke out on the need to address climate change.

I thank Senator Whitehouse, my subcommittee chair on the committee, who called these four incredible--it was an iconic moment, frankly. Let's see if I remember them all. There was Ruckelshaus, who started off with Nixon. There was Christie Todd Whitman, who worked for George W. Bush. There was William Reilly, who worked for George Herbert Walker Bush. Then there was Mr. Thomas, who worked for Ronald Reagan--Ronald Reagan. There they sat, and there they spoke, and there they said very clearly: Wake up, Republicans. This is a serious matter.

Now today a bipartisan group of former Treasury Secretaries released a report showing that the U.S. economy is already feeling the negative financial impacts of climate change. These respected leaders say climate change is real and we must act.

So why would we want to short-circuit a critical review process when approval of the Keystone Pipeline would be a major step in the wrong direction? It is the equivalent of 300,000 cars added back on our roads after we struggled so hard to clean up carbon pollution.

Another concern that remains to be addressed is the Keystone Pipeline's impact on national security. I met with a former SEAL Team 6 leader, and he was involved in the assessment of the Keystone tar sands pipeline and the risk of that pipeline becoming a high-profile target vulnerable to attack. They concluded it absolutely was a high-profile target, and it would be vulnerable to an attack that could trigger a catastrophic tar sand spill.

As I said, the last tar sand spill 3 years ago in Michigan has still not been cleaned up. This stuff is filthy, dirty oil--the dirtiest. Why on Earth would we want to see an eventual 300-percent increase in the importation? The nurses don't want it and the public health doctors don't want it. They came to the press conference with us. We cannot afford to take a shortcut in the Keystone tar sands pipeline review project when so much is at stake--the health of our communities and the impact on climate change.

Finally, I have a picture that I show a lot these days, and it is a picture of what it looks like when you throw the environment under the bus. This is a picture of a province in China where the people walk out with masks over their faces because everybody says: Who cares? We can just do anything we want. Who cares?

I recently went to China. Over the course of 2 weeks, I never saw the Sun. I did not see the Sun. On one day when we had a little bit of Sun peeking through--I mean barely at all--the people there got so excited. The people who work in our embassy there get hazardous duty pay because it is so dangerous for their families. They can't go out and breathe the air because they can get sick.

We can have economic growth and a clean environment. You know why? We did it in the 1970s when everybody objected to the Clean Air Act. You should have seen the folks come to the Senate floor. You should have heard the Chamber of Commerce railing against the Clean Air Act. You know what happened since then? Tens of millions of jobs have been created. The air is clean. Thousands and millions of lives over time have been saved. Heart attacks, asthma attacks, and cancer have reduced. We can quantify it.

When colleagues come here and try to do something to bypass a procedure to protect human health and the environment, you can count on me standing right here. I am proud to do it.

I can report that California--under the great leadership of our Governor Jerry Brown--is moving to clean energy. We are moving to thousands and millions of new jobs. We have added more jobs over the last couple of reporting periods than any other State. We are balancing our budget. We have a surplus because we are moving to energy efficiency, and that means people are going to work.

I understand that my friend from New Hampshire is interested in making a few remarks, so at this time I wish to say to my Republican friends that it is with great respect and friendship, truly, that we see the world differently, and that is OK. That is what makes this the greatest country on Earth. We can come here and speak out.

I wish to say to the American people today that this rush to build the pipeline before the process is completed is dangerous to the health of people and to the health of the planet and to the importance of our national security.

I yield the floor.

Parliamentary inquiry, please.

My understanding is the Senator is using the time of the Senators on this side of the aisle to make a speech before he objects. Am I correct? Is it our time?

I ask that the Senator object, and then Senator Shaheen have the rest of the time because we are running out of time.

Will the Senator yield.

I wish to say through the Chair, I spoke for quite a while on why I feel it is not good governance to come to the floor and ask unanimous consent to move to a bill and to short circuit a process that is in place and has been in place since 1968. The process was renewed by President George W. Bush to make sure when we build an American infrastructure project that it is safe, that it is in our national security interests, that public health is considered, and all the rest.

I have said all along on an amendment of controversy--I am ready to vote on the Keystone Pipeline, and I support Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman's bill. What a great bill. What a win-win. Senator Shaheen is willing to take a 60-vote threshold for that, and those of us who worry about the pipeline are willing to vote with a 60-vote threshold. That is the way to go.

The minority leader, the Republican leader Senator McConnell, said it over the years over and over. Whenever there is controversy, if people feel it is controversial, have a 60-vote threshold. He said that I don't know how many times, but I have the quotes. All of a sudden, when it comes to repealing President Obama's Climate Action Plan or Keystone, somehow that doesn't qualify as controversial from his point of view, but the thing about ``controversial'' is it is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think it is controversial to raise the minimum wage. It hasn't been raised in years, but my friends on the other side don't like it. They demand 60 votes. So we had a 60-vote threshold.

That is where we are, and that is why we are in this mess.

I thank the Chair.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I come to the floor to speak about an issue we should all be concerned about, the State of veterans health care in our VA hospitals, our VA clinics, our VA system, and around the country.

I have been concerned about this for some time, working very hard on getting outpatient clinics built in Louisiana--new ones, expanded ones, in particular, in Lafayette and Lake Charles.

I am a member of a bipartisan working group on VA backlog issues, and we have made substantial progress through that bipartisan group. We have also introduced legislation to deal specifically with that VA backlog crisis.

As we work on those things, unfortunately, the news out of the VA gets worse and worse, and the need for real progress on these fronts-- including the community-based clinics I am going to talk about in Louisiana and elsewhere--that need gets more and more dire.

Think about the recent reports. CNN and others have reported that in Arizona at least 40 U.S. veterans died--died--waiting for appointments at the Phoenix VA health care system. Many of these were placed on a secret waiting list. The secret list was part of an elaborate scheme designed by the VA managers in Phoenix who were trying to hide the fact that 1,400 to 1,600 sick veterans were forced to wait months to see a doctor.

There is an official list that is shared with officials in Washington. That official list shows that the VA has been providing timely appointments. The problem is, you don't get on that official list, in some cases, until you have waited months and months and months on the secret list that is hidden from Washington, that was hidden from the world, and that was hidden from outsiders until the news media broke the story. So 40 of those veterans died waiting for appointments through this abuse.

In Colorado, USA Today and others reported that clerks at the Department of Veterans Affairs clinic in Fort Collins were instructed last year about how to falsify appointment records so it appeared the small staff of doctors was seeing patients within the agency's goal of 14 days--the exact same abuse, the exact same type of scheme, but different details. Many of the 6,300 veterans treated at the outpatient clinic waited months to be seen, but that was hidden through this scheme.

If the clerical staff had allowed records to reflect that veterans waited longer than 14 days, they were punished by being placed on the bad boy list, the report shows. So, again, it is exactly the same fraud and abuse, the same scheme, designed to hide the real waits that veterans in these places and in many other places around the country are subjected to.

We see these horrible abuses. We see these examples with increasing frequency. It has gotten so bad that the head of the American Legion and the head of the Concerned Veterans for America on Monday called for Secretary Shinseki to resign and called for members of his top leadership to resign with him.

The calls for his resignation came after months of reporting that I have been talking about--U.S. veterans who have actually died waiting for care at VA facilities across the country. It came after these reports about Phoenix. It came after these reports about Colorado.

The heads of these organizations did not rush into a public call for his resignation. They did not take that lightly. That is virtually and perhaps completely unprecedented, but they did that on Monday. They called for the Secretary's resignation. They called for it publicly, and they called for several of his leadership team to resign with him. That is how bad it has gotten.

Yet in the midst of this, rather than responding to this crisis in any way we can, as quickly as we can, we have important matters hung up on pure politics on the Senate floor. Specifically, I am talking about my proposal to move forward with 27 community-based clinics around the country, including the two vital new and expanded community-based clinics that we need to move on, approve, and build in Louisiana, in Lafayette and Lake Charles.

These clinics around the country--and particularly the two in Louisiana, in Lafayette and Lake Charles--have been hung up through one bureaucratic screw up after another. These should have been built by now.

First, in terms of our two Louisiana clinics, the VA messed up how they let out the contract, and that caused them to pull back. It was their mistake, pure and simple. They have admitted that freely, and it cost us 1 year in terms of moving forward with those clinics.

After that mistake was corrected--after the loss of 1 year of waiting--then the CBO decided that they were going to score these clinics in a completely new way, something they had never done before, and that caused a ``scoring'' or ``fiscal issue'' with regard to all 27 of the community-based VA clinics around the country that I am talking about. That further delayed progress.

Finally, after these two major delays, leaders in the House got together on a bipartisan basis--and I want to commend my Louisiana colleagues in the House, in particular led by Congressman Boustany and others--to fix this scoring issue. They put together a reform bill and they got it approved by the House overwhelmingly, with one dissenting vote. In today's environment, resolutions to honor Mother Teresa don't pass the House of Representatives with only one dissenting vote, but they did that.

So it came over here, and I worked to address some small issues and objections that existed on the Senate side through a perfecting amendment which I have at the desk. I worked very hard for weeks to clear up those objections so we could move forward with this noncontroversial measure. Because of that, we have the unanimous support of the Senate--not one single objection to moving forward with these 27 community-based VA clinics around the

country. There is not one single objection related to the substance of that proposal--not one.

The only objection now has been from the distinguished Senator from Vermont who objects to moving forward with this focused proposal because the Senate does not agree unanimously or near unanimously with his much larger bill that encompasses dozens of VA issues. Again, I have pledged to and I will work with the Senator on those broader issues. I have been working hard on those issues, including these clinics, including being an active member of the bipartisan working group on the VA backlog issue. I will continue to work on that. But the fact remains his larger bill has substantial opposition. There are around 46 Senators--excuse me, around 44 Senators who oppose that larger bill.

In the meantime, I think we should agree on what we can agree on. We should make progress on what we can make progress on, starting with these 27 clinics. Veterans have been dying around the country because of these ridiculous waits and the fraud and abuse involved in hiding these waits. These 27 community-based clinics will directly help address veterans who are waiting for months and months in some cases, waiting for medical treatment. It will directly alleviate that issue in the communities in 18 States where these clinics will be located. There is a significant number of communities in a significant number of States. So let's agree on what we can agree on. Let's make that significant progress. Let's keep talking and working on the rest.

Last November Senator Sanders seemed to agree with that principle and that way of moving forward. In talking about another Veterans' Affairs piece of legislation, he said, on November 19 of last year, ``I'm happy to tell you that I think that was a concern of his.''--talking about another of our colleagues--``We got that UC'ed last night.''--unanimous consent--``So we moved that pretty quickly, and I want to try to do those things. Where we have agreement, let's move it.''

To repeat from that quote: `` . . . I want to try to do those things. Where we have agreement, let's move it.''

That is all I am asking for. We are not going to agree on everything immediately, but we can agree on important things right today, right this hour, right this minute. We do agree on 27 important community- based clinics in 18 States around the country, including 2 in Louisiana--Lafayette and Lake Charles, LA--that Senator Landrieu and I represent.

I want to try to do those things where we have agreement. Let's move it. And that can start right this minute in a productive, positive way with these 27 community-based clinics around the country. So let's agree on what we can agree on. Let's move on this important clinic issue.

Leaders of national groups--American Legion, American Vets, DAV, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and others--think the same. That is why they wrote a letter on June 10 of last year--June 10 of 2013--saying these community-based clinics are important. Let's come together, work together, and move specifically on these community-based clinics. They are important.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter of June 10 to which I just referred.

These groups agree with what Senator Sanders said last year and they agree with what I am saying today: Let us come together and move on those things we can agree on, and they specifically wrote the Senate leadership about these community-based clinics.

That leads to my unanimous consent request, which is to adopt this spirit of agreeing where we agree, getting things accomplished whenever and wherever we can, and continuing to work on the rest.

I ask unanimous consent the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3521 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that my amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.

I have a pending unanimous consent request and I would like to inquire how I proceed to have a ruling on that and, hopefully, have it passed through the Senate.

Reclaiming my time, or reclaiming the floor, since my unanimous consent request----

Madam President, a point of parliamentary inquiry.

Madam President, I had a unanimous consent request. It has been objected to. May I reclaim the floor and reclaim my time? In doing so, I will be happy to respond to the Senator.

I would again ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3521 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that my amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

If I may reclaim the floor and reclaim my time, I would like to respond.

I think it is really unfortunate. As we all agreed to today and in previous appearances on the floor, there is absolutely no objection on the merits of this proposal. The only objection from the distinguished Senator from Vermont is that a far larger bill, which does have significant opposition--around 44 Members, almost half of the Senate-- people have concerns about that. So if he can't play the game exactly his way, he is going to take his ball and go home, and he is going to block 27 community-based clinics on which there is no substantive objection, on which the leaders of national veterans organizations have pleaded with leaders of the Senate and House to act in a bipartisan way.

I am particularly concerned that today what I hear is an even higher bar that we are going to have to meet to act on these clinics that are not objected to on their merits.

Previously the Senator from Vermont talked about his far broader bill. Today he talked about all of health care. Apparently I am going to have to agree with Senator Sanders about all of health care reform before we can move forward on these 27 community-based clinics on which there is no substantive objection.

The Senator from Vermont said he will do everything he can to deal with these issues. Well, we can do something right here, right now, to deal with these issues. It is not solving every problem in the world. It is not solving every problem in health care. It is not solving every problem in the VA. But it is doing something real and meaningful and substantial in 27 communities and 18 States. We can move forward with these community-based clinics. We can try to do those things on which we have agreement. Let's move it. We can do that. That is all I am asking. And I think it is really counterproductive to

take the view that until we agree about all of the VA or about all of health care or whatever, we are not going to do any of that. I think that is really sad and counterproductive.

I will keep coming to the floor. I will keep working on this vital issue. I will keep working on other vital issues. I will keep talking to the Senator from Vermont about his broader bill. But I have to say that these scandals in Phoenix and elsewhere don't alleviate my concerns; they only heighten my concerns about a broader bill that is going to push many more patients, overnight, into a system that is obviously broken.

So I will continue working and talking about it all. I will continue working in the bipartisan working group on the VA backlog. But let's do what we can do now. Let's start with one step and then two and then five, and then maybe we can start to jog and then we can start to run. I think that is the productive path forward.

I urge my colleague to reconsider and let us move forward with these important clinics.

Madam President, I object on behalf of myself and 43 other Senators.

If not for any other reason but because of the substantive concerns with the bill.

Madam President, just to briefly repeat, I did object on behalf of myself and 43 other Senators about major provisions in this bill. I am happy to talk about it. I am happy to work on it. I am happy to work with Senator Burr, who is the ranking member on the committee, who has been communicating all these concerns to Senator Sanders and his staff. But I think that is very different from objecting to a focused community-based clinic bill that has no objection on the merits.

I just think it is a shame not to try to do those things where we have agreement--let's move forward--not to move forward. That would be moving forward in a substantial way. That would quickly improve the lives of veterans in 27 communities and in 18 States, including Lafayette and Lake Charles--communities that certainly Senator Landrieu and I very much care about and very much want to have their VA issues addressed in this way.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, I am here, as regular viewers of the C-SPAN network know, for the 65th time, every week that the Senate is in session, to ask my colleagues in the Senate to wake up to the realities of climate change that surround us.

Here is what we know: We know the oceans and atmosphere are warming. By the way, that is measurement, not theory. We know sea level is rising. Again, that is measurement, not theory. We know oceans are becoming more acidic--again, a simple measurement. The potential that these changes have to disrupt economic growth and to disrupt global commerce is the subject of my remarks today, and it is those changes that make investors and corporate executives take climate change seriously.

We may not take climate change seriously, but corporate executives do. A world of shifting seasons and extreme heat hurts their bottom line. The world of drought-stricken farms and flooded cities, of raging wildfires and migrating diseases is not good for business. A

recent article from the World Bank conveys the corporate outlook this way:

In corporate boardrooms and the offices of CEOs, climate

change is a real and present danger. It threatens to disrupt

the water supplies and supply chains of companies as diverse

as Coca-Cola and ExxonMobil. Rising sea levels and more

intense storms put their infrastructure at risk and the costs

will only get worse.

Earlier this month executives from major American companies came to Washington for a roundtable discussion at the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change, which I lead with Congressman Waxman. Each of the companies present had signed the climate declaration of the Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy or BICEP. They see a low- carbon economy as a smart way to create new jobs and stimulate economic growth. More than 750 companies, nameplate American corporations such as eBay, Gap, Levi's, Nike, Starbucks, and many others have signed BICEP's climate declaration.

Kevin Rabinovitch is global sustainability director at Virginia-based candy company Mars, Incorporated, makers of the famous M&Ms, among other things. At the roundtable he told us Mars has a goal of eliminating fossil fuel energy use and greenhouse gas emissions companywide by 2040. In fact, just yesterday Mars announced it will build a 200-megawatt wind farm in Texas that will generate enough energy to power all Mars operations in the United States. I applaud this exciting step for Mars and the bold vision it represents.

But Mr. Rabinovitch told the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change:

. . . if other companies and governments don't adopt

similar science based targets, our efforts will have limited

effect on climate change. We cannot do it alone. This is why

the business community needs Congress to get off the

sidelines, to quit denying rudimentary science and abundant

evidence. Improving energy efficiency reduces climate-

altering carbon emissions, but it also--these businesses

find--reduces operating costs.

Colin Dyer, the president and CEO of Jones Lang LaSalle, Incorporated, the second largest publicly traded commercial real estate brokerage firm in the world said:

Cost savings alone represent a compelling benefit of

sustainable design, construction, and management. Jones Lang

LaSalle put smart building management technology to work for

the consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble.

According to Dyer:

P&G earned back its initial investment in the technology in

three months and saw average energy cost savings of 10

percent annually. The program, which is being expanded, also

improved building systems reliability, supported the

company's broader sustainability programs, and actually

increased employee productivity.

Smart executives also understand how much their customers care about this. Rob Olson, vice president and chief financial officer of IKEA, said this:

From talking to our customers, we know that Americans are

increasingly concerned about climate change as they

experience events like Hurricane Sandy and the drought in

California. They want to reduce the amount of energy they use

in their home and they care about reducing waste and using

less water.

This is not a new message from America's corporate sector. Last year the Bicameral Task Force on Climate Change wrote to over 300 businesses and organizations about carbon pollution and climate change. The response was encouraging. Coca-Cola, headquartered in Georgia, wrote:

We recognize climate change is a critical challenge facing

our planet, with potential impacts on biodiversity, water

resources, public health and agriculture. Beyond the effects

on the communities we serve, we view climate change as a

potential business risk, understanding that it could likely

have direct and indirect effects on our business.

Walmart, founded and headquartered in Arkansas, wrote this: ``We're committed to reducing our carbon footprint and we're working with our suppliers to do the same.''

Here is what Walmart said in its 2009 sustainability report:

Climate change may not cause hurricanes, but warmer ocean

water can make them more powerful. Climate change may not

cause rainfall, but it can increase the frequency and

severity of heavy flooding. Climate change may not cause

droughts, but it can make droughts longer. Every company has

a responsibility to reduce greenhouse gases as quickly as it

can. Currently, we are investing in renewable energy,

increasing efficiency in our buildings and trucks, working

with suppliers to take carbon out of products and supporting

legislation in the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Serious business leaders are looking for serious answers to the looming economic crisis of climate change. An article last month in the Harvard Business Review entitled ``How to Survive Climate Change and Still Run a Thriving Business'' outlines recommendations for companies looking to strengthen their supply chains and better understand their consumers.

Serious business leaders are also fed up with the denial apparatus that is run by the big carbon polluters. Major utilities PG&E, the Public Service Company of New Mexico, and Exelon all quit the U.S. Chamber of Commerce after a chamber official called for putting climate science on trial similar to the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. Large tech companies such as Apple and Yahoo also left the chamber.

One of the companies that came in to the Bicameral Task Force was North Carolina-based VF Corporation. You may not have heard of VF Corporation, but you have sure heard of their major brands. They make Lee, Wrangler, Nautica, North Face, and many other name brands. Letitia Webster is their director of global corporate sustainability, and they have a global perspective on climate change. Their customers around the world are concerned about climate change, particularly their younger customers, and VF wants to meet those customers' expectations for good citizenship. VF also needs cotton for all their clothing and they are worried about climate disruption to the cotton supply chain. ``Research tells us that continued climate change will make it more and more difficult for farmers to manage cotton crops and for companies to manage their supply chains.''

VF also provides very high performance clothing and equipment to high-performance outdoor athletes who train and compete in places where climate changes are already evident. Those athletes see the same changes as the 100 winter Olympic competitors from 10 countries who signed a letter of warning about climate change. Letitia Webster mentioned in particular the Khumbu Icefall which has closed Mount Everest to climbers for the first time. She is not the only one.

John All, a climber, scientist, and professor of geography at Western Kentucky University told the Atlantic magazine:

I am at Everest Base Camp right now and things are dire

because of climate change. . . . The ice is melting at

unprecedented rates and [that] greatly increases the risk to

climbers. You could say [that] climate change closed Mt.

Everest this year.

Tim Rippel is a climbing guide, and he blogged from Everest's base camp:

As a professional member of the Canadian Avalanche

Association, I have my educated concerns. The mountain has

been deteriorating rapidly the past three years due [to]

global warming and the breakdown in the Khumbu Icefall is

dramatic.

Ms. Webster warned of the costs of inaction, saying, ``It's too expensive not to take action.'' This is a North Carolina company, and I hope its message gets through to elected officials who represent North Carolina.

Senator Hagan has already spoken passionately about the need to act on climate change. She gets it, but her colleagues on the other side of the aisle remain silent.

I visited North Carolina over the recess as part of a tour of the effects of climate change along the southeast coast. I flew out to where sea level rise is gnawing away at North Carolina's Outer Banks.

I visited the marine science facility at Pivers Island, where scientists from Duke University, the University of North Carolina, North Carolina State, East Carolina University, and of course NOAA, are studying aspects of sea level rise in North Carolina and the effects of ocean acidification on microbes that form the basis of the food web.

These are some of the world's leading scientists. They all know that these changes are driven by carbon pollution. There is no doubt. Unless North Carolina's elected officials think that their own universities are part of the big hoax some of our colleagues talk about, they had better pay attention to what is happening on the North Carolina coast.

I met with the North Carolina Coastal Federation at their coastal education center in Wilmington, NC. It

was a bipartisan group joined together in concern over the exposure of their coastal communities to the rising seas. The ``North Carolina Sea- Level Rise Assessment Report'' prepared in 2010 by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission's Science Panel on Coastal Hazards says:

The most likely scenario for 2100 AD is a rise of 0.4

meters to 1.4 meters (15 inches to 55 inches) above present.

By the way, that is what they call bathtub measures. That doesn't take into account what 55 inches of extra sea will do when it is heaped against the shore by a storm surge from a big tropical storm or hurricane.

I hope their congressional delegation in Congress is listening.

The biggest power producer in North Carolina is Charlotte-based Duke Energy. Duke worked through the U.S. Climate Action Partnership for climate change legislation. Duke actually pulled out of the National Association of Manufacturers because of that organization's denial of climate change. Duke's then-chief executive officer Jim Rogers said:

We are not renewing our membership in the NAM because in

tough times, we want to invest in associations that are

pulling in the same direction we are.

He said that NAM, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Republicans ``ought to roll up their sleeves and get to work on a climate bill. . . . '' Duke Energy might want to also consider whether North Carolina politicians are pulling in the same direction.

This is not complicated. Load up carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and you load up heat in the atmosphere. We have known that since Abraham Lincoln was President. This is not a new discovery. Load up the heat, and the oceans warm up. That is not some theory either. You can measure it--with thermometers. When liquid warms, it expands, unless my colleagues want to repeal the law of thermal expansion. As the ocean expands and ice melts, up goes the sea level. It is up 6 inches at the tide gauge in Wilmington, NC, since 1954.

If my colleagues want to deny the 6-inch increase in the tide gauge in Wilmington, NC, let me explain to them what the North Carolina assessment says about how you measure sea level rise:

[Sea-level rise] can be directly measured in a

straightforward way. The longest record of direct measurement

of sea level comes from tide gauges. A tide gauge is a device

built to measure water level variations due to tides and

weather, and to eliminate effects due to waves. A tide gauge

can be as simple as a long ruler nailed to a post on a dock.

More sophisticated instruments, like those used by NOAA, are

usually placed in a stilling well, or a pipe, that protects a

float connected to a recording device from waves. As tides

rise and fall, the float's motion is recorded.

It is not complicated. Good luck denying that. When you fly over the North Carolina coast, you see lots of investment along the seashore. There are lots of houses, lots of hotels, condominiums, restaurants--an entire seafront economy that the larger North Carolina economy very much depends on.

What are my colleagues from North Carolina going to tell them about climate change: Don't worry. It is not real? Good luck with that. They are already measuring the sea level rise.

Those small businesses in North Carolina want to protect their storefronts from sea level rise just as VF Corporation wants to protect its cotton supply from drought. These North Carolina companies get the economic threat that climate change presents.

The frustrating thing here is that we can strengthen our economies and businesses by tackling the problem of climate change and sea level rise head-on, and we can leave things better, not worse, for the generations that will follow us--perhaps the simplest obligation that we hold, and one, by the way, at which we are presently failing. But if we are going to stop failing at that obligation and tackle this problem head-on, we have to wake up to reality. We have to put aside, once and for all, the toxic polluter-paid politics that infect Washington.

The denial campaign that is run by these polluters is as poisonous to our democracy as carbon pollution is to our atmosphere and oceans. America is suffering as a result of Congress being tangled in a web of lies and surrounded by a barricade of special interests. We have to break through that. It is a matter of truth, it is a matter of honor, and it is a matter of being effective at these real problems.

I yield the floor and thank the Presiding Officer, and I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, today, I would like to discuss the nomination of Leon Rodriguez to be the Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. Mr. Rodriguez was appointed on December 19 and approved by the Judiciary Committee on April 3rd by a vote of 11-7.

I want to explain my opposition.

First and foremost, Mr. Rodriguez lacks adequate immigration experience to lead this agency. I only say that because his nomination comes on the heels of potentially sweeping immigration reform legislation. When we read his responses to my questions, it becomes clear that he has little appreciation for what this job as director entails. He basically says that he has a lot of studying to do. I think, with the situation of immigration in this country--the need for immigration reform--that we need to do better than have a director of the agency who says he has a lot of studying to do.

Second, his previous experience with Casa de Maryland is a concern as well. He was a member of the board of directors there from 2005 to 2007. The mission of Casa de Maryland is to help improve quality of life and fight for equal treatment for low-income Latinos. There is surely nothing wrong with that. That is a very noble cause. But if we peel back their mission statement, we will see that the activities they are involved in are a lot greater than just improving the quality of life for low-income people. They aid people here illegally in finding employment and gaining legal status in this country. They provide legal services to do so, and they fund day labor centers that focus on ensuring undocumented workers can find work on a daily basis. And, of course, that entails the use of taxpayers' money to accomplish that goal.

Their efforts are in direct conflict with the mission of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. That agency has to ensure the integrity of immigration programs and benefits. Casa de Maryland believes that anyone, even those who are here in contravention of our law, should be eligible for benefits. The organization has pushed for driver's licenses for people here unlawfully. They have worked to undermine REAL ID, a Federal law that needs to be fully implemented by the States. They have organized rallies that promote legal status for people who have broken the law. They have trained undocumented workers to understand their rights and published a cartoon pamphlet advising people not to speak to law enforcement when approached. They go so far as to encourage them not to even provide their names.

Mr. Rodriguez claimed that he had no knowledge of this pamphlet put out by Casa de Maryland. Yet, he was on the board at the time the pamphlet was published and disseminated.

Mr. Rodriguez doesn't disavow their work or their contempt for law enforcement. In fact, he stated in one response that he was ``supportive of the use of local tax measures to support the day labor centers'' that Casa de Maryland established.

So it is concerning that he could bring this same philosophy to an agency whose mission is to oversee legal immigration in the United States. And we all know that we are a welcoming Nation of immigrants because about a million people come here every year legally, and they are welcomed, and our laws allow that.

Now, a third reason to oppose him is my concern about Mr. Rodriguez's commitment to responding to congressional oversight, and my colleagues know how strongly I feel about Congress's doing its constitutional job of oversight; in other words, to be a check on the executive branch of government, to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed. Despite assurances given during his hearing, Mr. Rodriguez repeatedly failed to provide responsive answers to many of my questions. Mr. Rodriguez was not responsive to the questions I posed even in writing. While he repeatedly stated he would review the programs and policies if confirmed, Mr. Rodriguez claims not to be privy--that is his word--to internal functions or have knowledge of how the agency works. He refused to provide his opinions on very critical matters facing the agency, and I will give my colleagues examples.

In his initial responses he stated the following response not once, not twice,

but 17 times: ``If confirmed, I will certainly commit to a careful study of this program to determine any additional appropriate steps forward, including any possible changes to address this matter.''

We are talking about a person who gives that response, and he is directing an agency of 18,000 people. He is not going to be ready to go to work on day one, and they need somebody who is ready to go to work yesterday.

The second time around asking questions, he responded a bit differently in each question, but always alluded to the fact that he was ``not privy to the internal factors upon which USCIS and its leadership base its decisions.''

I wish to give my colleagues one example. I asked about whether drunk drivers or sex offenders should be eligible for legal status and immigration benefits. He responded in both instances saying, ``In most cases, individuals who have been found guilty of a serious crime should not receive immigration benefits.''

Well, that is a big question mark. What does he mean by ``in most cases''? I would read that this way: So when should these individuals be allowed to receive benefits and legal status? That is the question that is unanswered by his response.

By not answering the questions about felons, drunk drivers, or even gang members, he is essentially toeing Casa de Maryland's line that no one should be deported.

He could not offer an opinion of his own or elaborate when such people should get benefits. He said he would be forthcoming with Congress, but his repetitive answers show, No. 1, he is avoiding the questions, and No. 2, he has a lot of studying to do before he takes this job.

A fourth reason: He wasn't forthcoming with his views on what we call around here DACA, the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals program that grants work authorizations and stays of deportation for anyone under the age of 31.

One of the most pressing items on the agency's plate right now is whether we are going to renew the President's DACA directive. In his hearing and twice afterwards in questions for the record, I asked Mr. Rodriguez about his plans with DACA and whether he would expand the program. I couldn't get a straightforward answer from him. I asked if he had any discussions about the program, and he stated that he was only ``generally aware'' of the renewal process. He clearly knew the agency published a renewal form for public comment, yet he claimed to have little knowledge or opinion on the matter.

What is more, I am told by employees within the agency that he has a person at the table who is reporting to him directly on the agency's decisions. I am told he has a conduit during discussions on the deferred action program. It is not clear how much he is driving the policies, but it concerns me that he claims no knowledge of this matter.

Had Mr. Rodriguez been more forthcoming, we would also know what is in store for the President's directive. Will he simply renew it, or will he expand it, as many believe is the plan? Congress should know this man's views on those very important matters.

In connection to DACA, I asked about information sharing with USCIS and other Federal entities. My colleagues know I rely on whistleblowers for a lot of information. Just recently, a whistleblower brought me a case in which the FBI asked for information on a DACA applicant. The FBI agent, in an email, said this:

I am checking to see if there was any information available

regarding fugitive ``john smith''? We would love to get him

in custody. I was interested in knowing where he submitted

his fingerprints and if he left a home address.

Now, that is the Federal Bureau of Investigation doing its work. Here is what the USCIS provided in response to the FBI:

We cannot confirm that a DACA request has been filed

without reason to believe that the requestor would represent

an enforcement priority. However, according to your email,

the agent can see what form was filed. As such, you could

also direct him to our website for additional publicly

available information regarding immigration forms.

The USCIS's response to the FBI was essentially this: Sorry. We can't help you. We must protect the confidentiality of the applicant. That is not quoting anybody; that is the hypothetical answer I think our immigration agency gave to the FBI.

But this isn't the only case we have like this. I have been informed about the lack of information sharing by the USCIS since DACA began in 2012. I asked Mr. Rodriguez about his commitment to provide law enforcement with information on people who apply for immigration benefits. Now, I didn't ask about the statutory or regulatory hurdles in information sharing, but he refused to answer. I asked about his commitment to making sure people who defraud the government--or who are lawfully denied benefits--are turned over to law enforcement for removal. In one instance, he said it depended on the person's circumstances.

The immigration agency is part of the Department of Homeland Security. Its core mission is, as we would expect, to protect the homeland. Yet, this agency has a culture that I call ``getting to yes.'' In other words, cut a whole bunch of red tape and don't worry about what the law says. Just get people approved to be in this country.

Mr. Rodriguez's nonresponsive answer on this matter of ``getting to yes'' concerns me, because it is not consistent with the mission of the department. I wanted a firm commitment he would change that culture, and I couldn't get that from him.

Let me also address his connection to Mr. Perez, former head of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, now the Secretary of Labor. Mr. Perez, of course, was involved in the Department's decision to decline the prosecution of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case.

During his hearing, Mr. Rodriguez admitted he was aware of emails between political employees and career prosecutors discussing the decision to decline to prosecute that case. At that time, Mr. Rodriguez was serving as Mr. Perez's chief of staff and personally assisted in preparing Mr. Perez for his testimony before Congress. Yet, after Mr. Perez testified that the political appointees were not involved in the decision when Mr. Rodriguez said that they were involved in that decision, Mr. Rodriguez made no effort to correct the testimony after the fact.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service can be a very powerful agency. They grant benefits to foreign nationals and are implementing the President's weak prosecutorial discretion initiatives. This agency will have a lot of responsibility if an immigration reform bill is passed by Congress. We are talking about 12 to 30 million undocumented people applying for benefits if this legislation is passed. They will carry out an administrative amnesty if a bill is not passed.

Under President Obama, this agency has implemented very controversial policies and practices. Many of the policies this agency has undertaken were included in the July 2010 internal memo I obtained entitled ``Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform.'' That sounds a little bit like ``I have got a pen and a phone, and if Congress won't, I will.'' The purpose of the memo was to ``promote family unity, foster economic growth, achieve significant process improvements and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization.'' The memo highlighted creative ways to achieve ``meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action.''

Remember when the President said: I have got a pen and a phone, and if Congress won't, I will.

That is a perfect example of it.

While the administration suggested this memo was only an internal deliberative document concocted by some bored bureaucrats, the Department has already undertaken many of these proposals. They will do even more under the new Director's leadership if the President decides to act unilaterally regarding immigration.

Remember the President who said: I have a pen and a phone, and if Congress won't, I will.

The agency's culture of ``getting to yes'' must change before any legalization program is carried out. The Homeland Security inspector general has reported on this culture. Their own internal watchdog, the IG, admonished the leadership for appearing to pressure line adjudicators to ``get to yes.'' Their report clearly shows that the immigration service has a lot of work to do to

get rid of the ``get to yes'' culture that has pervaded this agency in recent years.

The fact that one-quarter of the immigration service officers felt pressured to approve questionable applications and 90 percent of the respondents felt they did not have sufficient time to complete interviews of those who seek benefits certainly warrants significant changes be made immediately. It does not appear Mr. Rodriguez is inclined to do that.

This culture stems from the leadership suggesting that line adjudicators lean toward approval and focus on eligibility and less on fraud. Unfortunately, I did not get any sense from Mr. Rodriguez that he was committed to changing the culture.

Mr. Rodriguez's appointment to this agency concerns me a great deal. I hope my colleagues, before voting this afternoon, will have that same concern. I question his experience and his managerial judgment to lead an agency of 18,000 Federal employees. Unfortunately, I doubt his sincerity in working with Congress on oversight requests. I wish he had been more forthcoming.

For these reasons and others, I oppose the nomination.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, there are two things I wish to address here briefly on the floor of the Senate. The first, strangely enough, has to do with an editorial that appeared in the New York Times this weekend.

I remember one of the people who was influential to me when I was coming up through the political system in Bexar County, TX, and in Austin, and now working here in Washington and back home in Texas. One of my mentors said: Don't ever get into a fight with somebody who buys ink by the barrel.

That seemed like pretty sage advice, but maybe it is a little dated these days because so much of what we see in the news is not in written newsprint itself.

The point is, the editorial in the New York Times this weekend I am referring to was talking about criminal justice reform, a topic that in recent months has produced some genuine bipartisan legislation. I am proud to be a cosponsor of one of those reform bills, along with my colleague, the junior Senator from Rhode Island, Sheldon Whitehouse.

Our bill would allow low-risk Federal prisoners to earn credit toward completing a portion of their sentence outside of prison walls--for example, through home confinement, through halfway houses or community supervision.

Strangely enough, the Times editorial praises our bill as an example ``of significant progress toward a legislative solution.''

Unfortunately, it then proceeds to blame Senate Republicans, including me, for stalling progress on the bill and preventing a vote on the sentencing bill introduced by the distinguished majority whip, Dick Durbin of Illinois.

The strange thing about it is, as every Senator and everybody within the sound of my voice knows, it is Majority Leader Reid who determines what legislation comes up on the Senate floor, and this editorial didn't mention him at all. An amazing oversight. The last time I checked, the majority leader was the only person in the Chamber with the power to schedule a vote on any legislation he wants, and he can do so whenever he wants.

So for the record, I wish to correct the error in the New York Times editorial. I strongly support criminal justice reform, including sentencing reform. My concerns about the sentencing reform bill cosponsored by Senator Durbin and Senator Lee are that I believe the criteria it uses are excessively broad in deciding whose prison terms to shorten. But I think those are the sorts of things that could be worked out through an open amendment process on the Senate floor. And-- I am sure we all agree on this--we don't want to prematurely release dangerous, higher level drug traffickers. That is my concern, that the bill is overly broad and would include them. Those kinds of concerns should not be taken lightly--and I am sure they are not--and I look forward to working with my colleagues to address them.

To reiterate, my opinions about the sentencing bill have nothing to do with the majority leader's prerogative to schedule a vote. He could schedule that vote anytime he wants. I would like to think the New York Times editorial board is knowledgeable enough to know that, but apparently they need a reminder.

Immigration Policy

In the last week I have come to the floor a number of times to talk about the humanitarian crisis in South Texas. This of course is caused in large part by 52,000 unaccompanied minors, mostly from Central America, who have shown up on America's doorstep, on our border, saying they want to live in the United States. It is estimated those numbers could rise to as many as 60,000 to 90,000 this year alone and maybe double next year unless something is done.

I have to say I am somewhat encouraged because the Obama administration is finally acknowledging--somewhat belatedly, but finally they are acknowledging their policies may have contributed to this crisis in the first place.

This past weekend Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson published what he called an open letter to the parents of children crossing our Southwest border. This letter ran as an op-ed in Spanish language media outlets, and it warned parents of the extraordinary dangers facing Central American migrants who travel through Mexico, including the danger of kidnapping, sexual assault, torture, and murder.

Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson also made clear that the children who have been pouring into South Texas will not be eligible for the Obama administration's so-called deferred action programs. This is what he said:

There is no path to deferred action or citizenship, or one

being contemplated by Congress, for a child who crosses our

border illegally today.

In other words, Secretary Johnson's op-ed implicitly acknowledged that President Obama's policies have created a perception that children who make it across the border will be allowed to stay. I must say it is a very dangerous perception and one that simply has to be corrected, not only for the sake of U.S. border security and for the rule of law but for the sake of the very children who now constitute the humanitarian crisis on our southwestern border.

In discussing this matter with a number of our colleagues on a bipartisan basis, it has been observed that the drug cartels, which used to just traffic in drugs, now traffic in people. They have changed their business model. Essentially, they control the corridors by which drugs, people, and weapons traverse Mexico and, in this instance, come from Central America.

The fact is there should be a lot of concern on our part that this flood of unaccompanied children will prove to be a distraction from the interdiction of dangerous drugs coming across the same borders. In fact, in the Rio Grande sector of the Border Patrol, in the Rio Grande Valley, as the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee knows, there has actually been a drop in the number of drug interdictions coming across the southwestern border in part because the Border Patrol and other law enforcement have been diverted to deal with this humanitarian crisis.

I see the chairman on the floor, and it looks as though he has a question on his mind. I yield to him for a question if he has one.

Madam President, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee is exactly right to say we can't just look at the border in dealing with this crisis.

My friend Henry Cuellar from Laredo, TX, a Member of the House of Representatives, likened this to a football game. He said: You can't only do goal line defense. We need to find ways of deterring people from leaving their homes in the first place and coming to the United States.

I know Vice President Biden was in Guatemala this last week and Secretary Johnson was in the Rio Grande Valley, and I know they are looking at all of this. There is no simple, single-shot answer to it. But the fact is there are a lot of people who want to come to the United States, for obvious reasons.

But I look at it as even though we are a nation of immigrants, we are a nation of legal immigration, one of the most generous in the world. I think we naturalize roughly 800,000 people a year now because they want to become American citizens through the legal system.

But to have this mass of humanity come at such a great flood and in such a short period of time, particularly as unaccompanied minors, threatens to capsize the boat. It creates a lot of hardship in local communities, States, and places around the country we wouldn't expect to be dealing with this, because they are going to have to be taken care of. We are committed to making sure these children are taken care of, but we have to send a message very clearly that if you are a parent contemplating this circumstance, you should not send your children, particularly on the perilous and dangerous journey leading from Central America.

I have mentioned in recent days a book written in 2013 called ``The Beast'' by a courageous Salvadoran writer named Oscar Martinez. Mr. Martinez, a journalist, traveled I think eight different times with the migrants from Central America and wrote in this book about their experiences and, unfortunately, the unspeakable brutalities these migrants encounter on a daily basis--again, because they are traveling through a smuggling corridor controlled by the cartels, in this instance the Zetas. The Zetas are a spinoff of the Sinaloa cartel. They used to traffic in drugs, but now they realize they can make money off these migrants--and they do, in terrible sorts of ways. Of course they are lawless, and the brutalities they exact on these migrants are shocking.

For example, Mr. Martinez in his book ``The Beast'' tells a story of one migrant woman who was raped on the dirt-and-straw floor of a cardboard shack before being strangled to death in a Mexican town along the Guatemalan border. This woman's picture was subsequently published in a local newspaper on a half page, with two other pictures of tortured bodies. In the meantime, an epitaph was written on a small cross that read: The young mother and her twins died November 2008.

I realize this is shocking and really horrible, and we prefer not to even think about it. But I think we need to acknowledge--and certainly the parents who send their young children unaccompanied on this long, perilous journey need to understand--what they are vulnerable to.

The dangers of the trans-Mexican migration journey have become far worse over the past decade as powerful drug cartels have effectively taken over the human trafficking business. As Caitlin Dickson in the Daily Beast reported yesterday:

While the journey north was always treacherous and costly,

in the hands of the cartels it has become deadlier than ever.

The entire border, and the routes leading up to it, are

controlled by some combination of Los Zetas, Sinaloa, and

Knights of Templar cartels, along with a few smaller groups--

making it impossible to cross without their permission.

What they have to pay to exact their permission is a tax or a fee-- basically, protection money--to allow them to pass more or less safely through their territory. As I have said many times, there is nothing at all humane about encouraging mothers, daughters, fathers, and sons to put their lives in the hands of such vicious criminals. Yet when the President has talked as he has over the years about dealing humanely with migrants, he acts as if the decision to demonstrate more and more leniency or deferred action when it comes to our enforcement or immigration laws is itself a humanitarian act. Yet perversely what it does is it encourages this sort of illegal immigration and encourages mothers and fathers to subject their children to these tremendous brutalities.

I can only hope the ongoing crisis we are seeing now along the southwestern border will dispel any illusions that

somehow by saying, well, we will not enforce our immigration laws as to this class of individuals, we are going to pick and choose or we have deported too many people, so we are going to quit deporting people-- these actions and inactions have consequences, and this is the sort of consequence that sort of action produces. I hope it will dissuade the President from announcing yet another unilateral suspension of immigration enforcement later this summer.

There are various stories written and rumors told that the President, if immigration reform doesn't pass this year in Congress, will take action unilaterally through an Executive order. He has encouraged that perception, saying, ``I have a pen and I have a phone,'' and he has issued a number of Executive orders in a number of different areas, but I hope the President doesn't compound the problem by further sending the message that he is going to unilaterally suspend enforcement of our immigration laws because the consequences will be big and they will further jeopardize the health, welfare, and well-being of the people he thinks he is trying to help.

I would ask the President: What is more important, is it political posturing--trying to show to an important constituency that you are sympathetic to their concerns--or are we going to focus primarily on people's lives and their welfare?

Given all that has happened in this humanitarian crisis, how on Earth could the President possibly justify another unilateral change in immigration enforcement that will likely lead to another surge like we have seen on the border.

It is pretty simple. Unless we send a clear message that our borders are being enforced and that our laws are being upheld, we will continue to face crisis after crisis after crisis. Meanwhile, untold numbers of migrants will continue suffering and dying in Central America and Mexico just trying to get here or get here--showing up on our doorstep--and overwhelm our capacity to deal with them in a responsible way.

I yield the floor, and I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns).

Reserving the right to object.

Madam President, let me touch on a few of the points of my distinguished colleague from Louisiana.

First of all, regarding the allegations against the VA in Phoenix, as we know, these are very serious allegations, and it is absolutely appropriate the inspector general do a thorough and independent investigation of those allegations. As I am sure my colleague from Louisiana knows, the leadership at Phoenix has rejected those allegations, saying those are not true. The Secretary of VA has done what I believe,

and I would hope my friend from Louisiana believes, is the right thing to do, which is to do an independent investigation.

I am not a lawyer, but I did learn enough in school to know you don't find somebody guilty without assessing the evidence. And frankly, just because CNN says something doesn't always make it the case. So what we need is a serious independent investigation into the very serious allegations about Phoenix and any other facility within the VA. I have said I will hold hearings immediately--more than one hearing, if necessary--to get to the truth of the matter regarding the VA situation in Phoenix.

I would also tell my friend that when we talk about the VA, when we talk about health care in general--and I am sure he would agree with me--as a nation we have a whole lot of serious problems, don't we? We have about 30 million people today who have no health insurance at all. Harvard University estimates about 45,000 people die each year because they do not get to a doctor when they should, because we are the only country in the industrialized world that doesn't guarantee health care to all people.

There was a study that came out recently that indicates that some 200,000 to 400,000 patients a year die in hospitals in America because of medical errors, in ways that could have been prevented--200,000 to 400,000 people a year. So, yes, as chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, I am going to do everything we can do, along with my colleagues, in a bipartisan way to make sure the veterans of this country get all of the health care they need, and get the best quality they can.

This is a very serious issue, and with an independent investigation taking place in Phoenix now, we are going to get to the truth of that.

When we talk about the VA, as I am sure my colleague from Louisiana knows, in fiscal year 2013, the VA provided 89.7 million outpatient visits, and the VA has 236,000 health care appointments every single day. Today, over 200,000 veterans in 151 medical centers in 900 community-based outreach clinics all over this country are walking into the VA to get health care. I assure my colleague from Louisiana that every single day there are problems within the VA. When there are over 200,000 people walking in, there are going to be problems. But I also assure my friend there are problems in every other medical facility in America today as well.

I just mentioned the very frightening situation that, according to a very significant study, we are experiencing between 200,000 and 400,000 patients dying from what are preventable deaths because of hospital errors all over America. My point about saying that is to say, let's put the VA within a broader context. If you want to criticize the VA, fine, I am there with you. You got problems, I will work with you. But let's not paint a broad brush.

The VA has 151 medical centers, they have 300,000-plus employees-- many of them veterans themselves--and in my view, and in the view of the veterans community--the veterans associations--the Veterans' Administration is providing high quality care to the veterans across this country.

It is not just me. My colleague from Louisiana may have recently read that an independent customer service survey, done by the American Customer Satisfaction Index--these are people who assess how people feel about medical facilities around the country--found that in 2013 an overall satisfaction rating for the VA was 84 percent for inpatient care and 82 percent for outpatient care, which in some respects was higher than for the hospital industry in general.

For the past 10 years, the American Consumer Satisfaction Index has found a high degree of loyalty to VA among veterans of over 90 percent. I would suspect my colleague from Louisiana finds--as I have found when I talk to veterans in Vermont--and he asks them, as I am sure he does, what do you think about VA health care, veterans will say: You know what. It is pretty good health care. Is it perfect? No. Are there problems? Yes. In general, they think it is pretty good health care.

What I am going to do, Madam President, is I am going to object, and I am going to ask for a unanimous consent request on legislation that I have offered, and I want to say a word about that.

I want to ask a question of my friend from Louisiana. My colleague from Louisiana has indicated he wants to work with us. I think I heard that in his statement today, and I applaud that. I am not quite sure he has done that yet, but I look forward to working with him and his staff. I would invite my colleague from Louisiana to come to my office at a mutually convenient time to see how in fact we can work together.

Will my colleague from Louisiana take me up on that offer, I ask through the Chair?

Madam President, I just asked a brief question of my friend from Louisiana.

I do object. And I am going to----

Madam President, unfortunately, I didn't quite hear that the Senator from Louisiana wanted to work with us. So I will have my office call his office and see if we can sit down with our staffs and find out what the Senator's concerns are about the legislation.

It is not Bernie Sanders' legislation. It is not the Veterans' Committee's legislation. This is legislation supported by the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and virtually every other veterans organization in America.

In preparation for the discussion I look forward to having with my colleague from Louisiana, this is not changing the world. This is not legislation that is going to solve every problem in the world. But it does do a whole lot to improve the lives of millions of veterans and their families who are hurting, and I think it is appropriate that we do that. I want my colleague from Louisiana to be thinking about these issues and to come into the office and tell me: No, Senator Sanders. I disagree.

Does he disagree with restoration of full COLA for military retirees? As he knows, for current people in the military and new people who are coming in, they are going to get less of a COLA than longstanding members of the military. Maybe he disagrees; maybe he doesn't. Let's talk about it.

Does he believe the veterans community--people who go into the VA-- should be entitled to dental care? I don't know about Louisiana, but in Vermont that is a very serious issue. All over this country veterans are dealing with rotting teeth, and they can't get that care in VA facilities right now.

There is widespread support for advanced appropriations for the VA. I think virtually all the veterans organizations understand that the VA could do a better job if they had advanced appropriations. I support it. Many people support it. I don't know if my colleague from Louisiana supports it. Let's work together, and I will find out.

The next time we come down to the floor and go through this exercise, we can tell the people what we agree with and what we don't agree with.

On ending the benefits backlog, the truth is that the current VA Administration--General Shinseki and others--inherited a paper system. Can you believe that? In the year 2009 the VA benefits system was on paper--maybe the last remaining system of its size in the world to still be on paper and not digital. What people at the VA have done-- General Shinseki and others--is they transformed that system from paper to electronic records. Guess what. The backlog is going down. But that is not good enough for me. We have language in this bill which will make sure the backlog continues to go down.

There is an issue I am sure my colleague from Louisiana is very familiar with: instate tuition. There are veterans from Louisiana who may want to go to school in Vermont or veterans from Vermont who may want to go to school in Louisiana, but they can't get instate tuition. It is a serious problem, and we address it. What does my colleague from Louisiana feel about that issue?

Then there is extending health care access for recently separated veterans. As he knows, we have legislation now that extends free health care to all those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan for 5 years. I think it should be extended for 10 years. Does he agree or does he not agree? The veterans community feels very strongly about that issue.

We have high unemployment rates for returning veterans. We want to do something to expand employment opportunities.

We have the issue of sexual assault--a very serious issue, as we all know--and we want to make sure the VA is providing excellent-quality care to those victims of sexual assault.

We have, in my mind, a really tragic problem. The good news is that a few years ago Congress did the right thing and said to the post-9/11 veterans, those men and women who came home seriously injured: We are going to pass a caregivers act to give support to your wives or your sisters or your brothers who are providing often 24/7 care for you-- every single day, long hours--at great stress. We are going to help you.

But what we didn't do is reach back to the Vietnam-era veterans, the Korean war veterans, even World War II veterans. There are families today in which a 70-year-old woman is taking care of her husband who lost his legs in Vietnam, and day after day, year after year she is getting virtually no support from the government.

This legislation has the strong support of the Paralyzed Veterans of America and many other organizations that say we can't ignore those people. I don't know what my friend from Louisiana feels about this. Let's talk about it.

Here is the bottom line. The bottom line is, as I have said many times, I do support the provision the Senator from Louisiana speaks about. We do need these facilities. But we need a lot more. We need cooperation and people coming together.

I believe the Senator from Louisiana said there were 44 people who voted in opposition. He is right. He forgot to mention that there were 56 who voted for this bill, with the support of every veterans organization in America. One person was absent who would have voted for it, so 57 voted for it and 44 voted against it. Unfortunately, in the rules of the Senate, when we have a Republican filibuster, we do need 60 votes. I am looking for three more Republican votes. One of those votes I would very much appreciate receiving is from the Senator from Louisiana. That would make me two votes shy. And we think we are making some progress with some other Republicans who understand that we must address the serious needs facing the veterans community.

I again extend my request to the Senator from Louisiana to work with me. But pending that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 297, S. 1950, with the Sanders amendment, which is at the desk and is the text of S. 1982, the Comprehensive Veterans Health and Benefits and Military Retirement Pay Restoration Act.

Madam President, I hear what my colleague from Louisiana says. I hear that he objects to passing legislation which has the support of virtually every veterans organization in the country that represents many millions of veterans. I hear him objecting to legislation which has the support of 57 Members of the U.S. Senate. I hear him objecting to what I believe is legislation which has the support of the vast majority of the American people, who do believe we should do right by our veterans. It is very easy to send people off to war; it is a lot harder to take care of them when they come home.

I would simply say that I look forward to sitting down with my colleague from Louisiana and other Republican colleagues--and we are doing that right now but specifically with my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter--and seeing where we can agree and how we can create some significant legislation to address the very serious problems facing the veterans community.

Madam President, I simply reiterate my hope that Senator Vitter would sit down with me, his staff would sit down with my staff, and we can work out our differences. I have always been willing to compromise and make changes in the legislation.

But for the veterans of this country who have suffered so much and who have been hurt so much, we owe them so much, and we have to do right by them.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.