Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, before the Senator from Illinois leaves the floor, I just want to thank him for his amazing leadership on this whole issue of immigration.

The Senator and I share a similar background because my mother also was an immigrant, and the thought of our moms being ripped out of our lives is just untenable. We are not going to let it happen.

I wish to thank him so much because he has been, I would say, the grandfather of the whole DREAMer movement. So thank you, Senator.

We all know Republicans won in huge numbers in the 2014 election and they took over the Senate and they run it. They run it--or at least they are trying to run it.

Let's be clear. Less than 8 weeks after they took over the Senate we are facing a shutdown, a shutdown of the very agency that protects the health, the safety, the lives of the American people--the Department of Homeland Security.

We are 4 days away, and even if they come up with a continuing resolution, a small little patch, they are shutting down the programs that fund our firefighters and our first responders back home. So any way we look at it, this is a national disgrace.

Think about what our friends abroad and those who are not our friends are thinking about this. Republicans say we are in danger. We have to go to war, put combat troops on the ground. But they are willing to shut down the Department that protects Americans in the homeland from a terrorist attack.

This is a self-inflicted crisis made up by the Republicans. It is dangerous. It is the height of irresponsibility and it is unnecessary.

Let me tell you, how does it make sense in the very same week that terrorists are threatening our shopping malls that we would shut down the very agency charged with protecting those malls?

How does it make sense at a time when we are facing serious threats to our national security to furlough 30,000 Department of Homeland Security workers and to force more than 100,000 frontline Homeland Security personnel to work without pay? Why don't these Senators go without their pay? Give up your pay. Do you want to come to work every day and stand there and look for threats to our homeland and worry about how you are going to pay the bills for your kids? Go without pay before you do this. You tell me how that makes sense not to pay people who are in charge of our security. It is a disgrace.

Give up your pay--give up your pay, give up your health care, give up your benefits, if this is so important to you.

Oh, no. They will collect their pay. Tell me, how does it make sense to shut off the grants that protect our cities, our ports from terrorist attacks, and how does it make sense to stop local communities from being able to hire police officers and firefighters?

The Department of Homeland Security is very large. When it was created I was troubled by that because it includes so many important things in one department, including FEMA. So when we have a natural disaster such as an earthquake, fire or flood, that is the Department that deals with it. How does it make sense to disrupt disaster recovery operations such as the efforts in California to recover from our devastating Napa Earthquake and the Rim Fire in Yosemite?

So not only are they disrupting Homeland Security and the protections of our perhaps most-targeted places in America, but they are disrupting recovery from natural disasters, and God forbid if we have another one. And the reason they are throwing a hissy fit is because the President stepped in and has a policy to take care of immigration. Why did the President step in? Because Republicans refused to take up a bipartisan bill, pass it, and take care of the immigration problem the way they are supposed to. They are paralyzed on that point. They cannot do it.

We had a bill that garnered 68 votes in the last Congress. All they have to do is bring it up, pass it here, and then pass it in the House. It will pass with overwhelming majorities. The President will sign it, and that would make his Executive order unnecessary. The only reason he issued an Executive order is that we are facing a crisis in this country. There are 11 million undocumented folks. Some of those undocumented folks are DREAMers. To me, that is the most important category. They are young people who were brought here when they were children. They know no other home. All they want to do is stay here and give back to America. Republicans want to deport them and their parents. They want to deport the parents of American citizens. I thank God these people were not in charge of Congress when I was growing up or else they might have deported my mother. It took her awhile to get through her naturalization. What if they passed something such as what the Republicans are proposing?

I thought they were the party of family values. Show me where that is true--ripping families apart. I thought they were the party of economic prosperity. Show me how that is true when we know from study after study that one of the greatest things we can do for our economy and job creation is to get people out of the shadows so they can go and buy a home and hold a good job. They can't or won't pass an immigration bill. They will not do their job.

So when the President steps in and does his job, they say: Oh, this is terrible. Let's shut down a totally unrelated department, the Department of Homeland Security.

Again I say, let's look at fiscal responsibility. According to the Center for American Progress, it would cost more than $50 billion to deport the entire population that the President is protecting. And here is the deal: I never heard a Republican--and I will stand corrected if any Republican corrects me--complain when President Eisenhower used his Executive power to help immigrants or when President Nixon did the same thing to protect immigrants or when President Ronald Reagan, their hero, protected immigrants or when George Bush, Sr., protected immigrants or when George W. Bush protected immigrants. They all used their authority. Show me one Republican who stood up and said: This is outrageous. Let's impeach the President. But they are annoyed because it is President Obama, and he won twice. Sorry. Wake up and smell the roses. He is the President, and he is doing the right thing for America because he loves America and he understands that these people, who the Republicans want to deport, are going to help America move on to an era of greatness and keep us going.

Let's look at some of the young people Republicans want to deport. Alexis Bux is a 21-year-old student from central California. He is the oldest of three siblings. His younger two siblings were born in the United States, but he was not. So these great family-value Republicans want to rip away the oldest child from this family. His parents were farm workers in the fields of San Joaquin Valley. Alexis received immigration relief under DACA in 2012, and he will transfer to UC San Diego this fall where he will pursue his dream of a career in biomedical engineering.

Tell me, Republicans, how our country is better off when you deport a young man such as him. He hopes to use his education to develop a sophisticated medical application and tools that will help cure deadly diseases. All he wants to do is contribute to the Nation he loves.

If the Republicans had their way, they would deport people such as Ana Albarran, who left Mexico at age 8. She came to this country with her younger

brother and sister to join her parents. Her parents worked 11 hours a day as trimmers for a landscaping company in downtown Los Angeles.

After Ana received immigration relief, she felt confident enough to begin applying for jobs, and now she is finishing her final year at UC Merced so she can begin her career as a bilingual first grade teacher.

Tell me, Republicans, how does it make sense to deport people such as Ana and split her up from her parents when all they want to do is contribute to the country they love? How does it make sense just because you are too incompetent to hold a vote on your immigration plan? If you want to kick people out of the country, put it to a vote. Let's go. If you want to deport 11 million people, then put it to a vote. Don't hide behind the Homeland Security bill and hold the President's work hostage. You never did it to the other Presidents. Don't do it to this President. How does it make sense to deport these moms, these dads, and these young kids?

I mentioned before that I am the daughter of an immigrant mother. I tried to think of what my life would have been like without my mother. She gave me my conscience. She gave me my values. She gave me all the love and support I needed to pursue my dreams. I am the daughter of an immigrant mother who never graduated from high school. I am a Senator in the U.S. Senate. But they would have deported my mother. I would not be here today if it were not for my mom. So tell me how it makes sense to deport moms and dads and rip apart the lives of children.

Our national security is at stake, our family values are at stake, and our economy is at stake here. So get over the fact that you don't like the President. We get it. You couldn't beat him. It is too bad for you. You are in charge here in the Senate. Do your job. Bring an immigration bill to the floor. Let's let this Homeland Security bill go. It is a bipartisan bill. It is funding for the most important issue we are dealing with today. Let's get to it. Don't hold it hostage because of your hatred of this President--and I use that word because that is what I think. That is what I think.

In California alone, the President's Executive actions could boost California's economy by as much as $27.5 billion. The President's action will aid our economy. It will raise the Nation's gross domestic product by up to $90 billion over the next 10 years by expanding the labor force and allowing immigrant workers the flexibility to seek new jobs.

Why is that the case? Why does every independent study show us this is the case? The reason is simple. When workers come out of the shadows, their wages rise, they open bank accounts, buy homes, start businesses, and spend money in their communities.

So I say this to my Republican friends. There is a Presidential race coming up. Forget the last one. Get over it. Let's work together.

Listen, I served with five Presidents. I am a strong Democrat. Everyone will tell you that. But I have respect for the office of the Presidency. If I didn't agree with Ronald Reagan, I came down here and said it. We had respect back and forth. If we lost, we lost, and we moved on. That went both ways.

I know how it feels not to like the policies of a President. I get it. But don't overdo it and make it so personal. Get on with it. Grow up. Do your job. Have respect for the Office of the President. Don't suddenly say Executive orders are bad when the President you don't like does it, but you don't say one word when a Republican President does the same thing. It doesn't pass the smell test.

Three things could not be more important in this battle. We need to fund our Department of Homeland Security--especially when we are facing serious threats to our security. We need to uphold our family values and not split up loving families, and we need to protect and grow our economy.

We can do this in the simplest way. First, I say to House Speaker Boehner--because under the Constitution all funding bills start in the House: Send us a clean bill. Send us the bill that everybody supported before you took it hostage on this immigration issue. Send it over clean. Let's fund everything in that bill to protect our shopping malls, to give grants to our first responders, and to give grants to our local fire departments. Send it over. We will pass it, and immediately following that, we will bring up an immigration bill.

We have it all ready for you. It passed with 68 votes. There is not much work to do. If you do that, the President's Executive order will not be necessary because we will have taken the steps ourselves to fix our broken immigration system.

Let's stop the lawsuits. We have one judge who said there was overreach, but the next judge may say there is no overreach. Let's keep this out of the courts. Let's do our job. Let's stop the self-inflicted crisis. Let's stop the shadow that is hanging over the Nation. Let's do the right thing here.

We can protect the American people from threats to our national security. We can protect and grow our economy, and we can treat hard- working immigrants and their families with the dignity and respect they deserve. It all lies in the hands of Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell.

When you took over the Senate, you said: no more threats of shutdowns. Eight weeks later--not even 8 weeks--we are facing a shutdown of one of the most important departments. This is a disgrace, and it is self-inflicted. All you have to do is talk to Speaker Boehner. Send over a clean bill so we can vote on it. Then we will take up immigration, and you can show us all your great ideas on immigration.

Let's hear it. Do you want to deport the DREAMers? Come on with it, and we will have a vote. You want to deport the parents? Come on with it, and we will have a vote. You want to kick 11 million people out of this country? Come on with it, and we will have a vote and debate on it. But don't hold the Department of Homeland Security hostage because of this issue.

If there is one thing the American people hate more than anything else, it is attaching unrelated matters to spending bills. I don't care if they are conservative Republicans or liberal Democrats or Independent voters. They think it is the dumbest idea. They really do. They don't understand it.

Pass your funding bills. Then battle your ideological issues separately and apart from that. Don't hold these departments hostage to your decision that President Obama did the wrong thing. If you don't like what he did, put forward your own bill. You have not even done that.

I have been here a long time. I will tell you something. I have never seen anything like this. It is a self-inflicted wound. Who gets hurt? Not the Republicans--they will keep getting their pay. They are fine. The people who will be hurt are those whom we trust and count on and the families that thought they could stay together. They are on the verge of that. That is what this party--the Grand Old Party, the GOP-- have brought to us, but they can get out of it in 5 minutes.

Speaker Boehner can pass a funding bill that will pass in a heartbeat. Send it over here, and we will pass it, turn to immigration, and then we can have it out on that subject. I think it is worthy of a debate. But don't hold an important funding bill hostage to that debate. It is ridiculous, unnecessary, destructive, and cruel.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Alan Arkatov as he celebrates his recent appointment as the Katzman/Ernst chair in educational entrepreneurship, technology and innovation at the University of Southern California's Rossier School of Education.

Alan has long been an innovative leader in the field of education. His remarkable career has included roles as the founder and chairman of OnlineLearning.net, CEO of the Teaching Channel, president of Changing.edu, and a creator and executive vice president of 2U, the technology company that pioneered USC Rossier's online master of arts in teaching program. He has also served as a member of the California State Board of Education, California Postsecondary Education Commission, Los Angeles Commission for Children, Youth and Their Families, and the Los Angeles Information Technology Agency.

A man of many talents, Alan is also a skilled communications and public relations expert and has served as a strategist for academic institutions, nonprofits, governments, corporations, and political campaigns.

In announcing Alan's appointment, USC Rossier Dean Karen Symms Gallagher said, ``With his broad and unique experience in education, communications, public policy and the arts, he is someone who can make important projects, programs and initiatives a reality at Rossier and

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor, and I have been trying to get time to do this, because I stand here in amazement that after the Republicans took over on January 6--after they won big in November and they took over the Senate on January 6--it took them 1 month to threaten a government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. Unbelievable. It took them 1 month to get into a situation where we are threatened with a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. It is unbelievable to me because we know the threat of terrorism that is all around us, and playing politics with this is absolutely uncalled for.

Why did they do that? They did that because the President under his authority said we shouldn't deport immigrants who were raised in America. That is what they didn't like.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for up to 10 minutes.

With terrorists all around us, Republicans are playing politics with the critical funding for the Department of Homeland Security and threatening a shutdown. It took them exactly a month in power to do that because they didn't like the fact that the President, who is in line with Presidents of both parties, issued an Executive order. By the way, President Obama has issued the fewest number of Executive orders in the history of any President. I never heard one Republican complain when Ronald Reagan did a number of Executive orders or George Bush did Executive orders, all on immigration. And I have those, for the record. But they didn't like this. I guess they would rather deport these DREAMers.

One of my colleagues said they are more scared of the DREAMers than they are of ISIL--a joke. What are they afraid of? Some child who was brought here at 3 years of age, went to school, is holding down a job, doing great? Those are the people the President's Executive order is affecting. They are in my State, they are in Texas, they are in Arizona, they are all over the country. If there is anyone swept up in that who is not a good citizen, they don't get to have this benefit, which, by the way, does not include citizenship. It just says action on your deportation is deferred.

I would say to anyone within the sound of my voice, if anyone from your family ever came here from another country, think about what they are doing. Think about what they are doing.

It will cost billions of dollars to deport these students. Then, by the way, they don't take up an immigration bill. If the status quo prevails, you are talking about deporting 11 million people. You have got to be kidding. We had an independent analysis done by USC which shows how important it is to resolve this immigration issue, and what a boon it is to our society if we do so.

Well, the Republicans are stomping their feet. They never said anything when Ronald Reagan issued an Executive order on immigration. They never said anything when George Herbert Walker Bush did it. They never said anything before. But when this President does something that I think is very wise to make sure we keep these young people here, they threaten to shut down the Department of Homeland Security.

Now let's talk about what that means. You would stop command-and- control activities at the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. You disrupt important programs that protect weapons of mass destruction and train local law enforcement. You force critical frontline personnel such as Border Patrol agents to work without pay.

Now maybe my colleagues would like to work without pay. Go for it. Most of us need our pay to live. Imagine the Border Patrol agents and TSA agents who work every day to support their families--they don't get paid.

It would jeopardize the safety of my constituency. During the last fiscal year California received over $200 million in crucial grant money that enabled State and local authorities to respond to national security threats and prepare for natural disasters. The Republicans are putting this crucial funding in jeopardy.

Let's be clear: Even if they back off their threat to shut down the government by shutting down Homeland Security, if they back off and say, well, let's just fund it at last year's level, let me tell you, we will not see those safety grants.

Last year, Texas, for example, received $105 million from these grants. You cannot go home and tell your Governor, too bad, we are stepping out. You step up. It doesn't work like this. We are one Nation under God. We have to protect our people.

I will tell you what else is threatened. Even if they back down and let the government stay open but they fund it at last year's level, firefighting grants such as the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grants Program would be delayed. These programs are vital to California. We have a nearly year-round fire season. Last year California firefighters received $20 million in fire grants that allowed fire departments all over our State to purchase necessary equipment.

Let me tell you, I have been to fire scenes I will never forget where we have lost firefighters. They need equipment that saves their lives. They are so great, but the wind changes and they find themselves in a canyon, and if they don't have the right equipment--horrific results.

We also received $50 million in SAFER grants last year that allowed fire departments to hire and train firefighters. Sometimes you are in a situation and if you haven't been trained on how to respond, it puts your life and other lives in jeopardy.

Other States such as Ohio received a total of $33 million in fire and safety grants last year.

I have to say, this kind of threat, after what we saw the last time Republicans threatened a shutdown, makes no sense at all. We need a clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill. When I say that, I hope people understand I don't mean scouring the bill. What I mean is keep extraneous issues off the bill. We all have our pet peeves. Listen, a lot of people don't like the fact that the DREAMers are staying here. They want to deport them. Introduce the bill to deport the DREAMers, bring it to the floor--have at it.

I will talk about what it would have been like for me, whose mother was born in Europe, and it took her a while to get her naturalization papers, if she was ripped out of my life. You know, I thought we had family values around here. We need a clean bill.

If you want to deport all the undocumented people--11 million--who are living in your communities and a lot of times fearful, that is a position you can defend. Defend it. Explain why we should spend billions deporting these people. Put up your solution. Don't try to kill a bill by holding it hostage to your demands.

We had an immigration bill this past year. It was terrific, it was bipartisan. Let's go for it. Let's go for it again. Let's have a debate. Oh, no. They are in power for 30 days and they are already threatening a government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. I tell you, this is no way to run the greatest Nation in the world.

These programs are critically important and are we going to turn our back on those who keep us safe?

TSA officers would not be paid during a DHS shutdown. The agency that seized a record 2,212 firearms last year from passengers' carry-on luggage (of which 83% were loaded)--would be

doing their important work keeping the traveling public safe without pay.

And communities that are relying on federal FEMA funding to help them get back on their feet, after disasters have shattered their lives, will have to wait to be reimbursed during a shutdown.

California emergency officials expect slowdowns in ongoing disaster recovery operations like the RIM Fire and Napa Earthquake.

By failing to pass a clean DHS funding bill, we're putting the safety of our cities and our citizens at risk. The United States Conference of Mayors agrees--they are urging us to pass a clean DHS bill to keep our cities functioning.

Unless Republicans stop catering to their extreme Tea Party wing, critical programs that protect us from terrorists will be undermined or frozen just weeks after the horrifying attack in Paris and evidence that our enemies are willing and able to launch cyberattacks against us.

Republicans would rather tear families apart than provide critical funding for the homeland security infrastructure that was built following 9/11. It's clear that Republicans hate DREAMers more than they hate ISIS.

The Republicans' extreme anti-immigrant amendments would have a chilling effect on the Latino community, instill fear of deportation for victims of domestic and sexual violence, and subject DREAMers, who are peacefully contributing to our economy and community, to deportation and exploitation. These are young men and women who have been living in the U.S. since they were children and came here by no fault of their own. They consider themselves just as much a part of the fabric of their communities--and this country--as their classmates and peers.

Specifically, the Republican amendments would prevent the implementation of President Obama's DACA initiatives, which would enable many unlawfully present young people who came to the United States as children to apply for ``deferred action,'' a temporary relief from removal not permanent immigration status--and work authorization.

It would also prevent the implementation of President Obama's DAPA initiative, which would enable the parents of U.S. citizens or green card holders who have lived here for years to apply for deferred action and work authorization as long as they pay fees, have not been convicted of a serious crime, and submit to a background check.

It would prevent ICE from using its expertise to set immigration enforcement priorities, to focus on the most serious public safety threats, as it has done for years.

It would put domestic violence survivors in danger by taking away their ability to stay in the United States and obtain the help that they need and ensure that the perpetrators of this violence are punished.

DACA and DAPA will strengthen community policing, improve community safety, and help more immigrant women come forward sooner to protect their children and themselves from domestic violence. Immigration law already provides abused women an opportunity to apply for protection. Why would we want to potentially curtail these protections from the women and children who need them the most?

Specifically, President Obama's Executive Actions on Immigration will improve California's economy with an $11.7 billion increase in GDP over the next 10 years, by giving California a boost in productivity from up to 1.5 million more people who could pay taxes and contribute to the state's economy.

This will increase the average wages of U.S. born workers across the country by $170 a year and raise the Nation's gross domestic product by up to $90 billion over the next decade by expanding the labor force and giving immigrant workers the flexibility to seek new jobs.

Let's come together. We had a really good meeting of the minds in a lovely setting last week, and a lunch. We agreed these differences are not personal and it is fine that we have them. I don't mind. That is healthy in a society. We want to have differing views. That is what makes everyone in our country feel represented. The fact that I have certain views and the Presiding Officer may have a different view is fine. What isn't fine, in my view, is using your views to hold the Department of Homeland Security funding hostage. Too much is at stake.

This Chamber is empty. We are not doing a darn thing. We even have Republicans on our side and saying, no, this is not the right way to go.

Why don't we do this: Why don't we fund the Department of Homeland Security--it went through the entire process--and then make an absolute commitment, which the Republicans have the ability to do, to take up immigration reform. Then let's debate it. Let's hear why some of my friends on the other side want to deport the DREAMers. Let's find out why they don't want to do much about keeping families together. That is fine. Let's debate it. Let's move on. But let's not hold hostage the Department of Homeland Security funding to some ideological debate on immigration, which should stand on its own and have the focus it deserves.

Frankly, I hope we will begin with these unanimous consent requests-- I won't do it today because I haven't warned anybody I want to--but fulfill the Department of Homeland Security and then immediately go to immigration reform where we can hash it out and become the deliberative body we are supposed to be.

Nobody is here. We are not doing anything right now, because we are stopped dead because of this dispute that has nothing to do with homeland security, in my view.

The American people agree across the board on this. You shouldn't attach irrelevant legislative matters on a funding bill. They have a funding bill. They have a job to do. In this case it is protecting Americans from terror, OK? That is over here, and over here is a very legitimate debate on immigration policy, and one that deserves the full time of this United States Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document entitled ``Executive Grants of Temporary Immigration Relief, 1956-Present'' be printed in the Record.

With that, I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to recognize my great friend and an extraordinary philanthropist in my State, Helene Galen, who was honored over the weekend with the Desert AIDS Project's ``100 Women Award.'' Helene's immense contributions throughout California--especially in her beloved Coachella Valley--have left a legacy that will benefit the people of our State for decades to come.

She has worked tirelessly to fight child abuse through the Barbara Sinatra Children's Center for almost 30 years. Her strong support for Jewish Family Service of the Desert has provided critical social services to seniors, children and families throughout the area. A devoted advocate for people living with HIV and AIDS, she has been a leader of the Desert AIDS Project's ``100 Women'' program, which supports women and children affected by HIV and AIDS with food, housing and life-saving health care.

Whenever Helene sees an unmet need, she doesn't wait for someone else to step up. She jumps in with all her heart and all her passion. She led the effort to build a new performing arts center and theater at Rancho Mirage High School, which will ensure that generations of young people can pursue

their dreams. A longtime member of the University of Southern California School of Fine Arts' Board of Councilors, Helene and her late husband, Louis, were the driving force behind the construction of USC's Galen Center, an arena that opened in 2006 and has provided the community an incredible venue for sporting events, concerts, and school activities.

A former executive in the retail industry, Helene has used her financial savvy and management experience to benefit a host of charities and institutions. She has served on the boards of the Eisenhower Medical Center, the Palm Springs Art Museum, the McCallum Theatre, and the Palm Springs International Film Festival.

A devoted mother and grandmother, Helene truly embodies the saying in the Jewish tradition, ``Whoever saves a life, it is as if that person has saved the whole world.'' Without a doubt, Helene's work has saved countless lives, and her impact will be felt in California for many years to come.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to 12 servicemembers from California or based in California who have died while serving our country in Operation Enduring Freedom and in Operation Inherent Resolve since I last entered names into the Record.

CW2 Edward Balli, 42, of Monterey, CA, died January 20, 2014, in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, of wounds from small arms fire when he was attacked by insurgents. Chief Warrant Officer Balli was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 2nd Cavalry Regiment, U.S. Army Europe, Vilseck, Germany.

SPC Daniela Rojas, 19, of Los Angeles, CA, died May 3, 2014, in Homburg, Germany, due to a noncombat related illness. Specialist Rojas was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO.

CW2 Deric M. Rasmussen, 33, of Oceanside, CA, died May 11, 2014, in Mazar-e Sharif, Afghanistan, as the result of a noncombat incident. Chief Warrant Officer Rasmussen was assigned to the Company C, 1st Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment, 1st Air Cavalry Brigade, Fort Hood,

If I could ask for the attention of my friends.

The reason I so wanted have this 1 minute even though I am not asking for a rollcall vote is because I want to make clear what we are doing in this underlying bill.

This is the only time in the history of the Senate that we have given such a big hug and kiss to a private company--any private company, American or foreign.

My amendment simply says that if TransCanada breaks the rules related to any permit they have--for example, there is an oilspill and they don't follow the oilspill plan or they don't handle hazardous waste in the right way--a whole list: They use the wrong steel. It is dangerous. They are dangerous to their workers. It doesn't matter what they do, under the underlying bill, S. 1, they can never lose their permit. We don't do that for any other company, let alone a foreign special interest company that is going to take this oil and siphon it right out of America. There are 35 permanent jobs. A trail of misery follows the tar sands.

I am not going to ask for a rollcall vote because I get the writing on the wall. I would hope we would have a voice vote, and I would urge my folks to yell a ``yes'' if they can.

Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life and work of Teamsters Local 350 Secretary- Treasurer Bob Morales, who died in South San Francisco on January 26 at the age of 71. Bob was a great labor leader and a dear personal friend, and I will miss him terribly.

Born in El Salvador in 1943, Bob came to the United States with his family as a teenager. After completing his education in San Francisco, he served in the United States Army for 2 years, reaching the rank of Sergeant Fifth Class.

Bob began his extraordinary career with the Metal Polishers and Platers Union of the AFL-CIO. He joined the Teamsters Local 350 in 1973 as a business representative, quickly becoming secretary-treasurer after only 2 years. In this role, Brother Bob negotiated some of the best union contracts in the Nation, providing his members with outstanding wages and benefits. A fearless advocate for California workers, Bob held several positions within the Teamsters, serving as the first and only director of the union's Solid Waste, Recycling and Related Industries Division, secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Joint Council 7, and Chairman of both the California and National Teamsters Hispanic Caucuses. As a testament of his successful leadership, Bob's colleagues named him a trustee to the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust--the largest labor pension fund in the western United States. In 1992, Bob was honored as Labor's Man of the Year in San Francisco.

Beyond his tireless work in the labor movement, Bob was involved with numerous charitable organizations, including the United Way of California, the Martin Luther King Jr. Society of San Francisco, the A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Hispanic Foundation, and the San Francisco Senior Centers.

On behalf of the people of California who Bob so diligently served, I send my deepest condolences to his wife Maria, son David, their extended family, and Bob's many friends, colleagues, and admirers.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 35

Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank both of my colleagues for working so hard. I am trying to be a facilitator in this process as well, as the ranking member now on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I want to remind everyone that this bill deals with environmental law.

Amendment No. 130 to Amendment No. 2

I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that I can call up amendment No. 130.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I have a very simple amendment. I hope it will be unanimously accepted. I think anyone within the sound of my voice who cares about the health and safety of people would support this amendment because we know this underlying bill facilitates the building of a Canadian project, with all the benefits going to Canada, none to America. We have established that there will be 35 permanent jobs. We have established that we could have oilspills because we have already had several serious oilspills and this oil is very hard to clean up. We have established by the Republicans' votes that they will not vote to keep the oil in America, so it doesn't even help us with energy independence. They even voted against the amendment to make sure the steel was from America. They voted against that.

So this is a Canadian bill. This is a wonderful bill for Canadian oil interests. Frankly, that is not why I was elected. I was elected to fight for California, fight for American jobs, fight for middle-class jobs, and not sit by while we see what is happening here, which is that the very first bill brought to us by this new Republican Congress turns out to be a bill for Canadian oil.

One of my colleagues--I don't know if it was Senator Cantwell who coined this or Senator Markey--said it is basically a big straw that runs from Canada and has the potential to spill all the way down, and then it is refined here, and all the filth and dirt gets stored here and goes into the air, and then it goes out of the country. It doesn't do a thing to help us. So all I am asking for is a little bit of relief for the people of this Nation.

Right now, S. 1 says that all permits ``shall remain in effect'' for this TransCanada pipeline regardless of any actions taken in building the pipeline, even if the company violates the permits.

So we know this company had to go and get a number of permits. What this bill does is it says: Once you get a permit, TransCanada, no one can take it away from you.

Imagine. We don't do that for our companies. They have to walk the walk and talk the talk.

All we say here is, if you violate your permit, it can be revoked. You cannot willy-nilly get permits from the Commerce Department, EPA, the Corps of Engineers, or other entities and then violate them and know that the permit can never be taken away. I was stunned when I learned this.

So this would very simply say that if, in fact, there is new information that requires a permit to be changed or modified, it can be done. We do not waive protecting the health and safety of the American people.

Let me give an example. Back home I have a bridge that was built, unfortunately, with foreign parts, and those parts failed. It is a nightmare to try to fix it.

If TransCanada violates their permit and uses the wrong materials-- let's say the bolts rupture--they still get to keep their permit. We are saying: No. Your permit can be revoked.

Another example: This is the handling of hazardous waste. We know this is filthy, dirty oil, and we know what is in this oil. It is toxic. Peer-reviewed research established significantly higher levels of carcinogens. We know this. We have met with the people who live in Canada who have had to breathe in that air. Data collected by the Texas Cancer Registry indicates that cancer rates among African Americans in Jefferson County, Port Arthur, TX, are 15 percent higher than for the average Texans. They live right near the refineries.

We know these permits are only as good as they are enforced. If they are enforced and we find they haven't lived up to their commitments on the handling of hazardous waste--by the way, to get their permit from Commerce, they also have to put out a plan that deals with a spill. Let's say there is a spill and they don't live up to the permit. They still get to keep the permit.

This is an extraordinary piece of legislation. I have never ever in my time here or ever in history known of any American corporation getting a free pass in terms of the health and safety and the protection of the air and water that this company is getting. They could literally avoid following any of the steps they committed to in their permit, and this legislation gives them a free pass.

My amendment simply says that we are able to revoke a permit if it is not followed.

I would ask the Senator from Washington if I could at this point yield the floor. My amendment is pending. I appreciate the work of the Senator from Alaska in allowing this amendment to be offered, and I appreciate the work of my colleague from Washington.

Madam President, we are trying to figure out how to do a fair division of the time that remains. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Stabenow and Peters have 5 minutes between them to discuss an amendment they have been working on, followed by Senator Cardin, who would have 3 minutes to explain his, followed by myself having 2\1/2\ minutes to discuss my amendment, then Senator Heitkamp would have 5 minutes after that, and then the remaining time for Senator Sessions. Because that would be equal. That would add to our having as much time as Senators Sessions or Murkowski, whoever at that point wants to speak.

Well, some will ask for amendments to be pending. I know I will. Some will not ask that; they just want to be heard. But there is 30 minutes left in the debate. Your side just finished. Obviously, if we do not want to be fair, somebody could grab the time on our side now and talk for 30 minutes. We do not think that is right. We are trying to divide it up between our side and your side. So I have divided about 15 minutes on our side and given 15 minutes to Senator Sessions, who wanted to be heard on the matter.

Reclaiming my time, we have already wasted 4 minutes of the 15. The Senator can object if she does not want to allow us to have an amendment pending, but I am going to start off here. Is the Senator still objecting? Instead of Senator Sessions, I will give--now it is about 12 minutes to you at the end. Is that all right with the Senator?

Well, if I might say this: Every Senator has a right to ask unanimous consent on anything. If the Senator does not like it, she can say, ``I object.'' I do intend to--I cannot speak for anybody else. I want to make my amendment pending because it is germane. I want to make sure it is heard. It is about public health. So if my friend does not want to agree to this unanimous consent, then I think what we will do is I will hold the floor and I will yield to colleagues for questions and they can make their points.

I do not understand my friend's objection to the way we have it laid out.

Well, I am going to take the time now--the entire time-- and yield to colleagues for them to ask me questions. So I will speak for 2 minutes or less and then I am going to ask unanimous consent on my amendment.

We want to have a study of the significant human health impacts of the Keystone Canadian XL tar sands pipeline. I do not believe they were adequately addressed in the supplemental environmental impact report or completely analyzed.

I held a press conference with doctors from Canada who spoke about the adverse impact on the health of people living near the pipeline. We have had spills along the pipeline in Michigan, in Arkansas. Those spills are not adequately cleaned up as we speak.

As Senator Cantwell informed me, there have been an additional two spills since the new Congress came into session. From extraction to transportation to refining to waste storage, misery follows the tar sands. We know there are dangerous air pollutants and carcinogens that have been documented from tar sands refining--all of this to help a Canadian private company make a whole bunch of money, and we cannot even keep the oil in this country.

Are you kidding me? Thirty-five permanent jobs. The least we can do is have an in-depth health impact study before we approve this pipeline.

I am very sad to say--you know, we still have this kind of gag-athon going on from the other side. They would not even let people speak for 1 minute on their amendment. That is why I am grabbing the floor here. I could not even get agreement to divide up the time, so I am taking the time.

I will be happy to yield to my friend from Michigan, through the Chair.

I could not agree more with my friend. Her question is pertinent and to the point of this debate. We are giving permission to a Canadian company to come through and use America as a passthrough. They are going to leave behind petcoke, leave behind spills--they have already done it before with the tar sands pipeline. This is the hardest oil to clean up.

I absolutely know that my friend Senator Peters has a question as well.

Without losing my right to the floor, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up my amendment. I will wait for the objection to be heard. I am not going to plow through this.

That was my amendment No. 128. I am very disappointed, because what the Senator is talking about, making sure the pipelines are safe, and what I am talking about, a health study, are quite related.

I know my friend from Michigan wanted me to yield for a question. I am happy to do so.

If I could answer the question posed to me by my friend-- he asked do I think there ought to be an open amendment process. Not only do I think there should be, we were promised an open amendment process. What occurred here at midnight on Thursday night, before the Senate left--some of our colleagues who are running for President went out to my beautiful State to make their case, as they have every right to do. But instead of staying on Friday, we adjourned on Thursday night. It was anything but an open amendment process.

I see the Senator from Massachusetts on the floor. He had a critically important amendment. He asked for 60 seconds to explain his amendment. I have been here over 20 years. I have never seen a situation, ever, where five Members in a row, five great Senators representing their great States, were told: Sit down; we are gagging you. That is what happened. This is wrong. So we are going to be asked to proceed today and shut down the amendment process even further. I do not know how the Senate is going to vote. However the Senate votes, it votes. But the bottom line is, this has been anything but an open amendment process. My friend is absolutely right.

I know the Senator from Maryland wanted to ask me a question.

I thank my friend for the question.

Again, we were promised an open amendment process.

I wish to make a point to my friend who has worked so hard on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I am so appreciative of his work. Do you know, if an amendment like yours does not pass, what it means is that American companies will be treated in a much harsher fashion than a Canadian foreign oil company--in other words, because the other side is just saying: No more facts, no more information, no more environmental impact statement--even though we know there are health impacts due to the tar sands.

The Senator has pointed out the possibility of having a bad impact on drinking water. We have seen what has happened in West Virginia when we don't worry about that.

So my friend is absolutely right, and I am honored that he asked me to comment on this particular amendment. And I hope that he will ask--I know you are pending. I hope that you are going to get a vote on this amendment one way or another.

I know some other colleagues may want to ask a question.

I am pleased to yield to the Senator.

I say to my colleague from North Dakota, of course, I agree with her. We don't agree on the tar sands pipeline, but we do look for common ground, and she has found it. The importance of inspecting the infrastructure can't be overstated.

I say to my friend, before she leaves the floor, this is a picture of a recent spill. Actually, it was 2013. It still has not been cleaned up in Arkansas because the pipeline burst--200,000 gallons of tar sands burst from the pipeline, and it spilled all over the streets of a subdivision. Residents were exposed to high levels of benzene, a known carcinogen, and hydrogen sulfite. They suffered from dizziness, nausea, and headaches--all classic symptoms of exposure to the chemicals found in tar sands.

Rainfall causes oil to float to the top of the soil and off gas. What is happening here is it still has not been cleaned up.

My friend has an amendment that would say: Let's inspect the infrastructure to make sure things such as this do not happen. Of course, I support it. I hope she will vote her conscience and hopefully vote to keep this amendment process open.

I know my friend from Massachusetts has a question, and I yield to him if he does.

The Senator has to ask if I would yield for a question.

I would say in response to my friend's question, I was so shocked when the Senator asked for 1 minute to explain his amendment and we heard multiple Republicans saying: No, no, a thousand times no.

As Senator Durbin said, this is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. I grew up thinking that was true. I never saw this before where colleague after colleague after colleague after colleague was essentially shouted down. I haven't seen it here.

It has reached a new low with a Republican majority since. They absolutely won a huge election victory. There is no question about it. There was the promise that it would be an open process, and then we can't even have colleagues talk for 1 minute.

I know the Senator from New Jersey has a question as well. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey, because time is running out at 5:30.

Yes, I will.

Senator Booker should be proud of this contribution to this debate and what he is doing in the environment committee.

Let me say quickly--because I know we are running out of time--here is the deal. You raised the golden standard--NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. The underlying bill says everything is satisfied. All you want to make sure of in your amendment is that if there is new information which shows this could harm the public--maybe cause more cancer, cause more asthma, and cause other problems--that we need a supplemental EIS, that we need a supplemental study before we approve this pipeline. Right now, they are not letting you offer that amendment.

My time has expired. I thank the Chair very much for his patience.

I thank the Presiding Officer. I heard the words of my friend, and he was eloquent in his remarks, but I don't think he would be surprised to know that I see this issue very differently.

Before Roe v. Wade was decided in the 1970s, women died because they could not end a pregnancy even if they were raped. There are bodies buried in America, and we don't know the cause of death because if a woman tried to end an unwanted pregnancy--sometimes as a result of rape or even incest--she would be considered a criminal. And that is what you hear from my colleagues on the other side. They say, let's go back to the last century--let's undo Roe v. Wade.

It is hard for me to believe that here I stand in this century arguing that women should be respected, that families should be respected, and that everyone's religion should be respected. I support a woman's right to choose, and that means if your religion says you will never end an unwanted pregnancy, I support you.

I believe this decision should be between a woman, her doctor, her family, and her God. I don't think any Senator should get in the middle of a woman's private life. It is dangerous to do so, it is wrong to do so, and to do so in the name of doing something that is going to help the family--it doesn't make sense to me.

The Republican Party used to be the party of individual freedom and individual rights. When I was on the board of Planned Parenthood so many years ago, before Roe v. Wade, do you know who was very active and on their board? George Herbert Walker Bush. This was an issue that was embraced by Republicans and Democrats--individual respect and rights for women and caring about a woman's health. It was not a partisan issue.

I don't see how interfering with a woman's health, or her right to choose, in any way is helpful to her in a time of need. It should be her decision within the law. We don't want to go back to the last century.

I was glad to see that the Republicans in the House pulled a bill off the floor because it was so nasty to women. It didn't even allow women the right to terminate a pregnancy at a certain date if the woman was a victim of rape. They pulled it, but then they replaced it with another terrible bill that also limits a woman's right to choose.

My Republican friends would make doctors criminals and put them in jail for years and years. They would make women criminals. They have even had a bill that said that a grandmother should be put in jail if she helps her granddaughter. As a grandmother, that was too much for me. How dare some Senator come down here and tell a

grandma what to do for her granddaughter? This is the party of individual freedom that always decries too much government? Come on. This is putting the government right in the middle of our most personal decisions. It never used to be that way, but that is the way it is now.

Everyone deserves respect for their views. They should not be taunted for their views, and that is why the right to choose makes so much sense. You don't tell someone that the government says you must do A, B, or C. You tell the person within the law--within Roe, which was a modest decision at the time--you make a decision, we respect that decision, and we don't need to know about it.

Putting Senators in the middle of our private lives is not why I came to the Senate. We have a lot of work to do. We have to work on good jobs. We have to pass a highway bill. We have to make sure this planet is habitable for people. Talk about kindness. Think about future generations who have to live on a planet that is increasingly inhospitable. Scientists tell us if we don't do anything about climate, at the end of the day it may be an uninhabitable planet.

We have a lot of work to do. We all do. It seems to me we should start off by doing what government should do, not putting ourselves in the middle of private lives.

Again, I greatly respect my colleagues whose views are different than mine. All I ask them to think about is this: If we embrace the right to choose, then we are saying to women all over America that this is a tough decision and we understand that. Make it with your God. Make it with your loved ones. But we are not going to be right there in the middle of people's living rooms telling them what we think is right, because that is not why we were elected.

I am glad I happened to be on the floor to follow the remarks of Senator Hatch. I feel very strongly about this. As many of my colleagues know, the Democratic women of the Senate and several of our Republican women colleagues will continue to fight against saying to a woman that she has no right to make a most private, most personal decision without satisfying U.S. Senators, most of whom are men, by the way. It is just not right.

Speaking of polls, because I think Senator Hatch mentioned one, people want us to have a moderate approach on this. They don't want abortion on demand and neither does any pro-choice Senator. Roe v. Wade spelled it out. In the early stages we know a woman has that right; later, only if her health or her life is threatened. It is pretty modest. It makes sense. Leave it alone. That decision was made in 1973. Don't turn the clock back in this century.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

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

I call up amendment No. 113.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes just before the vote starts to explain this amendment.

Excuse me for interrupting. I assume we have at least a minute to talk about our amendment.

Thank you. I have a minute. I actually asked for three, but as I understand, I have a minute. Is that where we are?

I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes.

Thank you so much. I know what a hard job it is to get this bill moving, and I am trying to be very helpful. I am offering an amendment I didn't expect to offer because basically my amendment says that we should acknowledge the benefit that parks provide to our local and regional communities and their economies for small business and enhanced local tourism and how much they contribute to employment and provide opportunities to

our families. Can my colleagues imagine America without Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, the Statue of Liberty, Natural Bridges in Utah, Scottsbluff in Nebraska, Muir Woods in California, Glacier Bay in Alaska?

These were all protected by Republican and Democratic Presidents, and in many cases, by Congress. Why do I offer this? It seems to me we shouldn't have to argue about this. It is because my friend, the Senator from Nebraska, Mrs. Fischer, has an amendment that I think is very dangerous. I know she modified it, and I appreciate that, but at the end of the day, it is so vague that I think it is going to lead us right to the courthouse door.

For example, if a President now or in the future, Democratic or Republican, decided in California--because the community really wanted it--to declare a national monument as we just had recently, in many cases, I would tell you this: Under this Fischer amendment, what would happen is there would have to be under consideration what does this do to other monuments, to other parks, to the budget deficit.

If someone who did not like this said, I am taking this to court because the President didn't consider this, you would not have any more national monuments, and you would not have all the beautiful iconic things we have such as the Grand Canyon and Scottsbluff. I think it is a bad amendment. I know my friend is trying to make a point, but I think we should defeat it and pass the Boxer amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry--I wish to speak on the Hoeven amendment and take the 1 minute.

Excuse me. I withdraw my request.

Mr. President, we are about to vote on something that I think will be recorded as a breakthrough moment in the climate debate. For the first time we will go on record saying the following: Climate change is real and human activity contributes to climate change.

What a breath of fresh air this amendment is, and I urge an ``aye'' vote very strongly.

The front part of the amendment accurately quotes the EIS, parts of which a lot of us agree with and parts of which we don't. Let it be known that the parts we don't agree with are under review by various agencies, but this is accurate. This is a quote from the current EIS.

You are not voting to endorse the EIS, you are just voting to acknowledge that is what it says. But you are voting on original language written by Senator Hoeven that says climate change is real and human activity contributes to it.

I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize my great friend and former colleague Sam Chapman, who is retiring on February 1, 2015, after a long and distinguished career in public service.

I first had the opportunity to work with Sam when we were both county supervisors in northern California. When I was elected to the Marin County Board of Supervisors in 1976, Sam had already served 2 years on the neighboring Napa County Board of Supervisors after successfully defeating an incumbent. He was only 26 at the time, but he had been motivated to launch his underdog run after watching the incumbent fall asleep at a public meeting. Although he called his 1974 win ``the beginning of my career in politics,'' Sam had already shown a deep dedication to the ideals of public service.

After receiving his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, Sam joined Volunteers in Service to America, VISTA, a national public service program envisioned by President John F. Kennedy and implemented by President Lyndon Johnson to fight poverty in America. He worked with VISTA as a volunteer attorney in the field of poverty law and later became a staff attorney for the Napa County Legal Assistance Agency. He then opened his own general practice law office in Napa prior to running for supervisor.

Sam and I have always shared so many values--he has always been a strong advocate for the environment and other progressive causes--and during the 6 years we served together, we worked to improve the lives of people throughout our North Bay communities. When I was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982, I knew right away that I wanted Sam on my team. For more than 20 years--as press secretary, legislative director, and finally as my chief of staff--Sam worked tirelessly every day to serve the people of the State of California.

In 2004, seeking a new way to serve his community, Sam left the U.S. Senate to become the publisher of the Pacific Sun, a weekly newspaper focused on Marin County. He always had an interest in the news media, having worked as a reporter and editor for the Napa Valley Register prior to receiving his law degree. In 2010, following his lifelong interest in the environment and renewable energy issues, he became the State and Community Affairs Manager at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, where he has worked to strengthen the lab's ties with the local and regional community. Throughout his career in public service, Sam also found the time to serve on a number of environmental commissions, lending his expertise to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and California Air Resources Board.

For more than three decades, Sam has been a trusted ally, advisor, and friend. As he begins his retirement and embarks on the next exciting phase of his life, I send him and his family, especially his two beautiful daughters Allegra and Sabrina, my best wishes, deep affection, and abiding gratitude.

Mr. President, I congratulate the Presiding Officer on his election and welcome him to the Senate.

Mr. President, I remember when I first came to the Senate and I sat in that chair, it was a moment to really learn a lot about the heartbeat of the Senate--the ebb and flow. So congratulations to you.

I was a little shocked to hear the majority leader, Senator McConnell, say that the economic uptick coincided with the election of the Republicans in this last election. There is no question that the Republicans won many seats here, and it is clear that the Democrats lost, but to say that is why we are having this economic uptick, I believe, would win my friend, the majority leader, the award for most creative spinner. I see he is here because I think he wants to stop me from speaking at this point.

Without losing the floor, I yield to my friend.