Floor Statements

I thank the majority leader for allowing me this time to proceed. It is one thing to rewrite history a few years after it passes. It is another thing to rewrite it while you are still living through it. To say that this economic recovery is a Republican recovery is kind of funny and strange.

In fact, the year 2014 was the best year for job creation since 1999, and it could have been a lot better in 2014 and in prior years if our Republican friends had not filibustered every single job proposal that President Obama put forward. It is sad because we could have gotten here much quicker.

The economy added almost 3 million jobs in 2014, averaging almost 250,000 jobs a month. The unemployment rate has fallen to 5.6 percent, and most of that decline--and here is the good news--came from long- term unemployed workers getting back to work. The GDP growth has accelerated, reaching an annualized rate of 5 percent in the third quarter of 2014. This is the best GDP growth we have seen in over 10 years.

Our economic recovery has been long, it has been tough, but it is happening and I thank the President for his leadership. We have added 11.2 million private sector jobs since February of 2010. That is the longest streak of recorded private sector job gains in American history.

The stock market has bounced back from the crash and added more than 10,000 points, reaching an all-time high of over 18,000 points. Our annual deficit has been reduced by almost two-thirds.

I think it is important to put into context the job growth under Presidents Democratic and Republican. I think we need to look at private sector job growth. This is an extraordinary chart. Under George Herbert Walker Bush, there were 1.5 million jobs created in his term of office. In Bill Clinton's term of office, there were 21.2 million jobs created. I have seen that number up to 23 million, but that is probably including the public sector. But during Bill Clinton's term, there were 21.2 million private sector jobs. Under George W. Bush, there was a loss of 460,000 jobs. Under President Obama, there is a gain so far of 7 million, and he has 2 years to go, and we are just moving forward.

To me this says that we Democrats know what we are doing, and if you want to look at deficits, that is another day's speech. It was Bill Clinton who balanced the budget. It was George W. Bush who unbalanced it, put two wars on a credit card, gave a tax cut to the rich, and we had terrible deficits. Barack Obama has now reduced this deficit by two-thirds.

So I say all this leading up to my discussion of the Keystone Pipeline. How does that even connect? I will tell you. When a new majority takes over in Congress you know the first bill they take up symbolizes their priorities. Out of all the things that they pick, all the things that they pick, they pick a bill that in terms of permanent job creation will be thirty-five jobs. And that

is proven by the State Department--35 long-term jobs.

One has to wonder, Why are they doing this? I believe I know the answer. This is really a big hug and a big kiss to big oil and Canadian interests. That is what it is about. Otherwise, why wouldn't we turn to the highway bill? I think the Presiding Officer and I know we have worked across partisan lines on that issue, and it means good jobs for America--good jobs, long-lasting jobs, rebuilding our bridges and our roads and making sure we have transit systems that work. We have a terrible record in terms of the condition of our bridges today. Thousands and thousands--tens of thousands of bridges are not in good shape, and we have seen bridges fail, and we know the outcome. Why are we pursuing a project for Canadian oil business interests that they will make billions off of instead of pursuing projects for America-- America--such as building our infrastructure?

This bill isn't about helping American workers or families. Let's be very clear. It does nothing. Again, when I say 35 permanent jobs, I am not making that up. That is in the final supplemental environmental impact statement which I believe the Republicans want to make final, so they are accepting it. The Republicans are accepting the fact that there are 35 permanent jobs, because they, in their language, say, We approve of the final supplemental environmental impact statement, which is where it says there will be 35 permanent jobs.

Now, yes, there are temporary jobs for 2 years--a couple thousand-- but the fact is we can have millions of jobs when we rebuild our infrastructure. We have 400 new jobs coming to the Imperial Valley in my home State because we have lithium there and they are going to start producing it. So 400 jobs, just one little project. This is 35 jobs for Americans. They have to be kidding. This is what they have for us, after all that blood, sweat, and tears during the election? I think that wasting another minute on the tar sands project doesn't make any sense.

What we need is a multiyear surface transportation bill. We still have unemployed people in the construction industry. We have 600,000 construction workers who remain out of work. What are we giving them? We are giving them 2,000 temporary jobs and 35 permanent jobs? Let's do a highway bill. By the way, the trust fund is running dry and in 4 months will be completely dry. Let's step up to the plate and do our job, not do the job for the Canadian oil interests.

I don't get it. I don't think it makes sense, because I know we have worked together on transportation projects. We are worried. Billions of dollars going to our States--whether it is Oklahoma, California, Nevada, east coast, west coast--the funding is going to be delayed or stopped. And all these short-term extensions the House did are absolutely irresponsible. It doesn't provide stability to our local governments, to our businesses.

So we know what we have to do. We have to invest in our aging infrastructure. No country can be great if we don't have an infrastructure that moves people and moves goods. Again, 50 percent of our Nation's roads are in less than good condition and 63,000 bridges are structurally deficient. Let's do something for America. That is what we are here for; not to do something good for Canadian oil companies. Let's focus on what is good for the people.

Now let's turn to this infrastructure project, the Keystone Pipeline. I want to say unequivocally--and I don't have any doubts because I resource everything I say--that from extraction to transportation to refining to [waste/waist] storage, misery follows the tar sands. That is the oil that gets put in the pipeline--the dirtiest oil. I think XL stands for extra lethal.

So a pipeline is a pipeline. Fine. It is what we put in it. This is the filthiest, most polluted kind of oil. Tar sands oil contains levels of toxic pollutants and metals that are much higher than conventional crude oil--11 times more sulfur and nickel, 6 times more nitrogen, 5 times more lead than conventional crude oil. Who is saying that? Is it Barbara Boxer? No. Let me source it: The USGS, the U.S. Geological Survey, the heavy oil and natural bitumen resources in geological basins of the world--documented. Tar sands equal the dirtiest oil.

Why do some of my Republican friends and some of my Democratic friends--I admit that; I know there are a few--want to rush to bring this filthy oil into our country? The only benefit is to the Canadian oil interests. The fact is we need less pollution, not more pollution.

Now high levels of dangerous air pollutants and carcinogens have been documented downwind from the tar sands refineries. People in nearby communities are suffering higher rates and types of cancers, such as leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Again, is this me saying it? Some rightwing blog took me to task the last time I said it. They said, Oh, she was on the floor making stuff up. OK. Let's be clear. I am not making stuff up. I am telling the truth, and I am going to document it in every case: Significantly higher levels of volatile compounds and carcinogens were found downwind of tar sands processing facilities. There were elevated rates of cancers linked to these toxic chemicals, including leukemia and non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

Where does this come from? Simpson, I.J., et al., air quality in the Industrial Heartland of Alberta, Canada and potential impacts on human health. Characterization of trace gases measured over Alberta oil sands mining operations: 76 speciated C2-C10 volatile organic compounds, and they list what they are. This is from two peer-reviewed papers.

Is this what the Republicans do first? I thought we wanted to make people healthy. It is one thing to want to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which now, in my State, has reduced the uninsured by close to 50 percent--that is bad enough. Now they want to bring in this oil and help the Canadian oil people and it is going to bring all of these carcinogens and all of this pollution to our country.

We already know about the people from Port Arthur, TX, where they have these refineries. Look at this picture. A picture is worth a thousand words. I know that is a cliche, but it is a fact. I could try to explain to my colleagues what happens near the playground when this stuff is refined. One might say, Oh, that is nice, Barbara, but are you really making this up? No. Here it is. Look at it. They suffer asthma, respiratory ailments, skin irritations, and cancer. This is what happens, right near a playground. Now, there are some politicians down there saying, Bring it on. We want it. We like it. But talk to the real people there who live there with children. They have had enough of tar sands. They have had it up to here with them. They want none of it. Let's not forget about the waste. Once they burn all of this stuff, they have waste left over. It is called petcoke, petroleum coke. Look at this. This is what it looks like, as shown in this picture. It is stored in the Midwest. A lot of it is stored in the Midwest. What happens? In this photograph we can see it is not wet, so it can blow in the wind. Billowing black clouds have contaminated our children. They contain heavy metals. Children playing baseball have been forced off the field to seek cover from the clouds of black dust that pelted homes and cars.

This happened. This is why my friend Senator Durbin is so concerned, because it happened to his Little League players in the Chicago area. When inhaled, these particles can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks. They can aggravate bronchitis--I am coughing just at the thought of it--lung disease. They reduce the body's ability to fight infections. Where does that come from? I will say it again. 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. What is the source of that? California Air Resources Board, Air Pollution Particulate Matter brochure dated May 6, 2009.

So I don't know how exposing Americans to this kind of pollution is in the national interests. I believe instead of waiving all of the environmental reports as my Republican friends do in their bill, they ought to call for more studies on the health impact of the tar sands oil so our families know what they are going to get with this pipeline.

Also there are spills to worry about. Not only is the Keystone tar sands

pipeline harmful to human health, it hurts environments and communities located near it, because if there is a spill, it is the toughest kind of oil to clean up. Here is the source for that: The EPA NEPA compliance comment letter, State Department. That is what they talk about.

We have had spills at the tar sands--spills in Michigan, spills in Arkansas. If my colleagues don't believe me, ask those folks. Do my colleagues know in 2010 a pipeline ruptured and spilled over a million gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan? The local health department ordered the evacuation of 50 households and approximately 100 families were advised not to drink the water. The Michigan spill was the largest inland spill in U.S. history and more than 40 years and $1 billion later, it is not cleaned up.

So wait a minute. Let's review. Republicans take over and the first bill they give us is the tar sands bill. The only people it helps, in my opinion, backed up by fact, are Canadian oil interests. The only jobs it creates permanently are 35 jobs. What it does to our health is a disaster, because the tar sands oil is the most toxic, dirty type of oil, and if there is a spill, it is the hardest to clean up. Who do we think is paying the $1 billion to clean up a tar sand spill in Michigan? I can tell my colleagues. It is probably most of the government. Maybe we are trying to collect some from the private sector.

If my colleagues don't believe me about Michigan, let's turn to Mayflower, AR. This is a beautiful neighborhood of homes, as shown in this picture. This is filthy, dirty, disgusting oil and the camera is taking pictures of it. In 2013, 200,000 gallons of tar sands burst from a pipeline, because it is volatile. It burst from the pipeline and spilled into the streets of a subdivision. It forced the evacuation and abandonment of 22 homes--residents who were exposed to high levels of benzene, a known carcinogen, and hydrogen sulfide. People in this community--not some made-up, mystical community or mythical community-- in this community they suffered dizziness, nausea, headaches, respiratory problems, all classic symptoms of exposure to the chemicals found in the tar sands. So remember this picture and remember the picture of the filthy, dirty oil and the petcoke, because a picture tells a thousand words, and that is the picture my friends want to make a reality in America. Their first great bill, their first great contribution to the economy, 35 jobs. Please. We can do better. We can work together on a highway bill, on a transportation bill. We do so well on that. And we can add millions of jobs, especially in the construction industry.

Now there is the issue of climate change. We know we are dealing with a lot of deniers on the other side of the aisle. They deny climate change is real. It doesn't matter what we tell them. July was the hottest month, August was the hottest month, and September was the hottest month in 2014.

We know what is happening. The world knows what is happening. We have deniers here, so they deny any problem and they go rush to build the Keystone Pipeline. What will happen is the Keystone Pipeline will undermine our efforts to address climate change. The State Department's own analysis says a barrel of tar sands oil carried by the Keystone tar sands pipeline will create at least 17 percent more carbon pollution than domestic oil.

Peer-reviewed research estimates that the increase in oil consumption caused by Keystone could result in up to 110 million metric tons of carbon pollution each year--four times the State Department's estimate. So this is even more than the State Department says. The source there is Erickson et al., ``Nature Climate Change.'' That is a peer-reviewed study as well. This is equivalent to carbon pollution adding 23 million new cars to the road or building 29 coal-fired powerplants. So the State Department is very modest in its projection. Even that is too much.

Here is more. Here is the State Department. That is the 17 percent quote. And it could add up to an additional 27 million metric tons of carbon pollution each year. That is more of the State Department. This is their modest conclusion. We believe the peer-reviewed study shows it is far worse than even the State Department says.

If you don't believe climate change is a problem, I am really sorry for your constituency because let me tell you what scientists are saying. And I am saying it is 98 percent of scientists. Let's be clear. Ninety-eight percent of scientists say climate change is real, and 2 percent say: We are not so sure. So my friends side with the 2 percent.

Suppose one of my friends didn't feel well and went to the doctor, and the doctor said: I am sorry to tell you this, sir, but you have a cancer that is raging over your body, and we need to operate today.

You say: I want a second opinion.

That is good. You go get a second opinion.

The second doctor says: Absolutely, you better get that operation.

You say: Well, I want a third opinion.

All right. I understand it. You go for a third opinion. Absolutely, those two doctors were right, but you keep going, and you get nine opinions that all say: Sir, you are a dead man if you don't get this operation. And then you find the 10th, and he says: You know, just go on a vegetarian diet, and you will be fine. If you listen to that one out of 10 doctors, there is something wrong with you.

It is just like Big Tobacco. They did the same thing. They said: Oh, tobacco is fine, not a problem--until we realized there was a whole campaign by the big tobacco companies to turn us away from the fact that tobacco causes cancer. That is the truth. Guess what we found out. In a Union of Concerned Scientists expose, they found out that the same people who led that fight of tobacco denial are leading the fight of climate denial.

If this was just going to hurt you, I say to my Republican friends rhetorically, I wouldn't care. I mean, I would be really sad and sorry if one of my friends went to the doctor and didn't listen to the best advice. But you know what. That hurts him. I would be miserable, and I would try to talk him out of it. But this is about my constituents and the people of this country. I have to say this is wrong. This is just wrong.

This is an opportunity to bring the parties together. We could have done it around so many issues and in particular the highway bill. So common sense tells us this isn't the right thing to do. We are looking at unleashing this dirty, filthy oil. It is going to be harmful to our families' health. It is going to worsen the impact of climate change. It will not create the jobs we need to create.

Again, I urge my colleagues vote no. It is not ready for prime time. There are going to be amendments that will reveal the fact that if we go forward with this, it is actually going to raise gas prices for Americans because all this stuff is going to be exported. Even the tar sands that are now currently in America--they are going to export it because of the world market. We are going to have amendments that are going to show that.

This bill doesn't even have a ``Made in America'' amendment to it. We are going to offer that. Why don't we make this deal here? Why don't we put people to work here? That is not in this bill. This bill is not ready. This bill does not help us; this bill hurts us. I know my friends came here to make this country better. I think they think it helps. I don't question that. But if you look at all of the facts--and I have them lined up here, one after the other--whether it is the jobs impact, the health impact, who benefits, who gets hurt, it is pretty clear. It is on the record. All you have to do is look at it. Don't shop around for a doctor who will tell you this is a good deal because they have already spoken. It is not a good deal. We can do so much better.

Because I think it is going to be a contentious debate, after this I hope we turn to the highway bill. My friend Jim Inhofe and I, who worked so well together, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and across the Capitol on the other side, the House, can finally come together and do something that will send a strong signal to the American people that the election just ended, now let's govern. But when you bring things before the body that some of us feel are so detrimental to the American people, I am willing to vote on it at midnight. It is OK with me. We will vote at midnight and vote at 1 o'clock in the morning. I don't care what time we vote, but why are we taking this up? This is not what we should be doing.

S. 1--I looked at some of the S. 1 bills the Democrats have put forward, and they mostly have to do with creating a lot of jobs or making sure there is equal pay for equal work or making sure the minimum wage is increased. We could be doing all of those things together.

It is with pride that I stand here again for my State. It is with no animosity about the election. It was hard-fought and hard-won. But I believe this is an enormous mistake, and I will continue to stand on my feet as long as it takes to make the case as to why I think it is wrong and make the case where I think there is so much else we could do for the good of our people.

I thank the Presiding Officer for his courtesy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to celebrate and thank the 13 outgoing Senators who have worked tirelessly to represent their home States in the Senate: Senator Mark Begich, Senator Saxby Chambliss, Senator Tom Coburn, Senator Kay Hagan, Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Mike Johanns, Senator Tim Johnson, Senator Mary Landrieu, Senator Carl Levin, Senator Mark Pryor, Senator Jay Rockefeller, Senator Mark Udall, and Senator John Walsh.

I have worked side by side with these men and women for years--some for decades--and witnessed firsthand their extraordinary commitment to public service and the people they so proudly represent.

Even when we didn't see eye to eye on every issue, I always deeply respected and admired their service to our Nation and their dedication to fight for what they believe in.

It has been a privilege to serve alongside each and every one of these extraordinary colleagues. I will miss their leadership and their friendship, and I wish them all the best as they embark on the next chapter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleage, Senator Mikulski.

Mr. President, I am joined by the chair of the Appropriations Committee to discuss a provision in the fiscal year 2015 Omnibus appropriations bill, which we will vote on shortly in the Senate.

The provision is section 425 of division F of the fiscal year 2015 Omnibus appropriations bill, which preserves the status quo with regard to the regulation of the lead content of certain items. As House Report 113-551 and the Omnibus Joint Explanatory Statement each explain, section 425 prohibits the use of funds to regulate the lead content of: (1) ammunition, (2) ammunition components, and (3) fishing tackle. The Toxic Substances Control Act regulates the chemical content of products. However, the Environmental Protection Agency has denied petitions to regulate the lead content of ammunition and fishing tackle under this statute. The omnibus provision simply reaffirms EPA's decision not to regulate the lead content of ammunition or fishing tackle under TSCA.

While I oppose restricting EPA's ability to regulate the content of bullets and fishing tackle, I think it is important to be clear about what this provision does. I would ask my colleague, Senator Mikulski, if she agrees with this interpretation of section 425.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the life and extraordinary accomplishments of former Congressman John Krebs, who recently passed away at the age of 87 in Fresno, CA.

John was born on December 17, 1926, in Berlin, Germany. After Hitler came to power, he escaped with his family to Tel Aviv. There, he became a diamond cutter and joined the Haganah, a Jewish underground organization that supported independence from Britain and the establishment of an independent Jewish state.

John moved to California in 1946 to attend the University of California at Berkeley and after graduating in 1950, he became a United States citizen in 1952. Following two years in the U.S. Army, John graduated from the University of California Hastings College of Law and practiced law for three decades.

Throughout his remarkable life, John Krebs sustained a strong commitment to public service. He worked on numerous state and local campaigns and was a respected Democratic activist and community leader before his 1970 election to the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, where he was a courageous and eloquent advocate for his constituents.

In 1974, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he

successfully championed a bill to permanently protect 25,000 acres of the Sierra National Forest known as Kaiser Ridge, saving this beautiful area above Huntington Lake from logging. Then, in 1978, Congressman Krebs took on an even greater challenge: fighting for legislation to transfer Mineral King Valley from the Sequoia National Forest to Sequoia National Park, thereby blocking plans to build a ski resort that would have destroyed this pristine alpine valley in the southern Sierra Nevada. Facing significant opposition, this was the toughest fight of his political career--one that may have cost him his seat in Congress--but John was proud of what he accomplished in preserving this natural treasure for future generations to enjoy.

Years later, I was honored to introduce legislation designating 40,000 acres of land, including the Mineral King Valley, as the John Krebs Wilderness. President Obama signed it into law in 2009, and that summer some 200 friends, family and admirers gathered in Mineral King Valley to dedicate this worthy tribute to John's courage and vision.

On Friday, November 14, more than 250 of John's friends and family joined together at Temple Beth Israel in Fresno to share memories and honor this remarkable man's amazing legacy. John Krebs's extraordinary life was a uniquely American story, and he will be truly missed. I extend my deepest sympathies to his wife and partner of 58 years, Hanna, children Daniel and Karen, and their families.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Placer County Sheriff's Detective Michael David Davis, Jr., an experienced detective, dedicated public servant and beloved husband, father, brother, son and grandson who was tragically killed in the line of duty on October 24, 2014.

Michael Davis, Jr. was born on October 29, 1971, in Bellflower, CA. After spending his childhood in Southern California, Michael moved to Placer County to pursue a career in law enforcement, continuing a family commitment to public service. Detective Davis's father, Michael Davis, Sr., was a Riverside County Sheriff's Deputy who also tragically lost his life in the line of duty. Detective Davis's aunt and uncle both retired from the Placer County Sheriff's Department, and Detective Davis's wife, Jessica, and his brother, Sergeant Jason Davis, worked by his side until Michael's life was so senselessly cut short on October 24.

Following his graduation from the Butte College Law Enforcement Academy, Detective Davis began his career in public safety as a Reserve Deputy for the Placer County Sheriff's Department in 1996. He later joined the Auburn Police Department as a Patrolman before returning to the Sheriff's Department in 1999 as a Deputy. In 2005, he was promoted to become a Homicide Detective in the Crimes Against Persons Division.

At a memorial service on November 4, Placer County Sheriff Edward Bonner recalled that Detective Davis approached his job with ``respect, tact, and empathy.'' Others remembered Michael Davis as a quick-witted family man who lived his life to the fullest, spending time with his loved ones at family gatherings, coaching Little League, rooting for his beloved San Francisco 49ers and Los Angeles Dodgers, and riding motorcycles with friends.

On behalf of the people of California, whom Detective Davis served so bravely, I extend my gratitude and deepest sympathies to his wife, Jessica; daughters Angelique and Samantha; stepchildren Ivey and Chayse; mother Deborah; brother Jason; and grandparents Bob and Joan.

We are forever indebted to him for his courage and sacrifice, and he will be deeply missed.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Sacramento County Sheriff's Deputy Danny Oliver, an experienced peace officer, dedicated public servant, and beloved son, husband and father who was tragically killed in the line of duty on October 24, 2014.

Danny Oliver was born on February 9, 1967, and grew up in the Del Paso Heights neighborhood of Sacramento. Both his father's career as a firefighter and his own experiences growing up in a high-crime neighborhood helped shape Danny Oliver's commitment to strengthening his community through public service. After graduating from the Sheriff's Academy at the top of his class, Danny joined the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department in 1999.

During his 15-year career with the Department, Deputy Oliver worked in the main jail, patrol, and most recently as a member of the Problem Oriented Policing, P.O.P., team, working closely with the community to reduce crime and improve public safety. Deputy Oliver knew that this job came with great personal risk. He understood it required a unique ability to gain the trust of local leaders and residents. As Deputy Oliver's colleagues and family recall so admiringly, he excelled at it all--arriving to work an hour early, answering every email, and attending countless community meetings in the neighborhoods he worked so diligently to protect.

Deputy Oliver's partner in life was his loving wife of 25 years, Susan Oliver. While Danny attended the Sherriff's Academy, Susan worked two jobs to support their family so her husband could follow his dream. Together they raised two beautiful daughters, Melissa and Jenny. The family enjoyed spending time together and traveling, making many happy memories before Danny's life was so senselessly and tragically cut short.

On behalf of the people of California, whom Deputy Oliver served so bravely, I extend my gratitude and deepest sympathies to Susan, Melissa, Jenny, and Danny's parents, Bill and Jeri Oliver.

We are forever indebted to him for his courage and sacrifice, and he will be deeply missed.

Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Martin Litton, a legendary conservationist and great outdoorsman who died on November 30 at the age of 97.

Clyde Martin Litton was born in Los Angeles on February 13, 1917. As an English major at UCLA, he met his future wife, Esther, and became a conservation activist--forming a student group that kept roads out of California's wildlands. After graduating in 1939, he worked as the publicist for an Arizona dude ranch and as a tour guide at the Los Angeles Times. When war broke out, he joined the Army Air Corps and became a glider pilot flying missions behind enemy lines. In gentler times, he piloted his own plane and loved taking environmental and political leaders for wild rides into the wild.

After the war, Martin returned to the Times as a freelance writer, filing stories and photos from long backpacking trips with his wife and young family. He later worked at Sunset magazine, first as travel editor and later as senior editor.

In 1952, David Brower, the first executive director of the Sierra Club--which had hitherto been a hiking and outdoors group with little involvement in public policy--enlisted Litton to help him fight the Bureau of Reclamation's plan to build two dams at Dinosaur National Monument, and the group successfully lobbied Congress to scuttle the plan by 1956. That battle helped transform the Sierra Club into the powerful national advocacy organization we know today, with Litton supporting the Club's activism as a member of the national board from 1964 to 1972.

Along with his good friend Brower, Litton is widely recognized as one of the founders of the modern environmental movement. Brower called Martin his ``environmental conscience'' because he never compromised his principles as he led the conservation movement to some of its greatest victories. With his eloquent writing, beautiful photographs, and fiery rhetoric, he inspired the efforts to keep dams out of the Grand Canyon, a ski resort out of the Sierras' pristine Mineral King Valley, and logging out of the Giant Sequoia National Monument. He was instrumental in the creation of Redwood National Park in 1968; 2 years later, dissatisfied with the park's boundaries, he led the successful fight to protect an additional 48,000 acres.

A longtime oarsman and whitewater enthusiast, Litton also started a company in 1971 to take tourists through his beloved Grand Canyon in small wooden boats. He maintained an active role in Grand Canyon Dories and at 87 became the oldest person ever to pilot a boat through the Canyon.

A fierce and determined defender of our nation's wildlands, Martin Litton was a force of nature--and a force for the preservation of nature. On behalf of the people of California, who have benefitted so much from his life work, I send my deepest gratitude and condolences to his beloved wife, Esther; children John, Donald, Kathleen, and Helen; five grandchildren and four great-grandchildren. Martin's memory and legacy will live on with everyone who loves America's priceless natural heritage, which he did so much to preserve and protect.

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

Madam President, I am about to ask for unanimous consent to pass a substitute amendment to the Coast Guard bill. Senator Vitter and I hope to get into a bit of a colloquy over it, but first I want to explain what we are doing here.

The Coast Guard bill includes the text of S. 2963, a bill that I introduced to permanently eliminate the requirement that small fishing boats obtain a permit for discharges incidental to normal operation.

This is really important for our small boat fishermen. The bill has 14 cosponsors. I am very happy that Senator Murkowski is now a cosponsor of that important legislation.

This substitute that is at the desk includes that permanent fix so that never again do small fishermen have to worry about being subjected to these permits.

It exempts commercial vessels less than 79 feet from having to get this discharge permit.

We first enacted a moratorium on permits in 2008. We have extended it twice. The current moratorium expires next week. If we don't act, these small vessels will require a permit for the first time. So instead of kicking the can down the road again with these moratoria, I think it is time to say, once and for all, these small vessels do not and will never need a permit. I think a temporary moratorium leaves thousands of the boat operators and the fishermen in limbo instead of giving them permanent certainty.

They are different from large ships that discharge ballast water and introduce harmful invasive species into our coastal waters. That is why a broad array of groups, including the American Sport Fishing Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Marine Retailers Association of America, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, and many others, support this permanent exemption for our small boats.

I hope colleagues will support this, but I understand there is another proposal coming forward.

I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2444; the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the substitute amendment containing a permanent exemption for discharges from small commercial vessels and fishing vessels--and that is at the desk--be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read three times and passed; the title amendment be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I reserve the right to object, but I do not intend to object.

I wish to say I am going to agree to this 3-year moratorium but I am a little stunned as to why we are doing this again. We could give these small boats a permanent exemption. It is an important economic issue.

I don't like this approach, but it is the best we can do. I want the American people and the fishermen to know we tried so hard to get this fixed permanently. But I am glad we have a 3-year moratorium. It is better than nothing, and I will therefore agree to the modification.

Madam President, I want to make sure I thank Senator Murkowski and Senator Begich. When I started this, Senator Begich was my first cosponsor and Senator Murkowski made this bipartisan.

I think the important thing was that we could have done it permanently and I just don't want that lost. We could have done it permanently, and we didn't, and that is sad. There are reasons for that. I wasn't born yesterday, as most of you can tell.

I know why it wasn't done. People are going to use this as the little engine that could to drive some other stuff behind it which is not good stuff. I want to see that we can protect our small boats, and I am going to continue to do that. I hope we will work together as we move forward in this new Senate, run by--in the case of the committee I proudly chair--Senator Inhofe, who I think will be very good on this issue; Senator Thune, who we know is good on this issue.

So we have the pieces in place. And whatever objections there were, I don't think they are really objections to the permanency, they are political objections to try and use this to get some other bad stuff attached to it, and I am not going to let that happen, let me tell you right now, no way, no how. So whatever someone has in their mind that they are going to connect to this little baby, it isn't going to happen, because we can't do that. We can't take one good thing and destroy it. I am not going to let that happen.

Right now we have a 3-year deal put in place. We can breathe easy. If I am someone contemplating buying a small boat, this is one less worry I have. I could have had it permanently; I have it for 3 years. It is too bad, but at least I have it, and that is good.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 526, S. 2519.

I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment be withdrawn; the Carper substitute amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time; and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the

consideration of Calendar No. 578, H.R. 4007.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be considered; the Carper- Coburn amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to; the committee substitute, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2952 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the Carper substitute amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Carper title amendment be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 10, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SR- 328A of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Commodity Futures Trading Commission: Effective Enforcement and the Future of Derivatives Regulation.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 10, 2014, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Cybersecurity: Enhancing Coordination To Protect the Financial Sector.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 10, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Passenger Rail: Investing in our Nation's Future.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 10, 2014, at 10 a.m., room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 10, 2014, at 10:30 a.m., to hold a Subcommittee on African Affairs hearing entitled, ``The Ebola Epidemic: The Keys to Success for the International Response.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on December 10, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Executive Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on December 10, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Keeping Families Together: The President's Executive Action On Immigration And The Need To Pass Comprehensive Reform.''

Madam President, I know we have a lot to talk about. This will be very quick.

I want to point out that is an opening at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is such an important agency because they work on the safety of powerplants, many of which are aging. We voted for Mr. Baran for a short-term seat. He had extensive hearings, 88 questions asked in writing. I feel very strongly that he is very suited for this position. He worked for the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House and worked in a very bipartisan fashion.

In any case, I think this is a very important position and a very qualified individual, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. President, one would think this is the first time any President ever nominated someone who is a political appointee. That is ridiculous. Just because somebody is a producer of a very popular show doesn't disqualify them. It is ridiculous. I could point out people who had the support of the Senator from Arizona who perhaps didn't work at all.

So let's be clear. This nominee is an intelligent woman. She knows how to be successful. She will do a good job. I think she will do very well in this position because I know her well. She knows how to make friends. She is not angry.

I yield the floor.