Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing my friend, Dr. Thomas Truhe, a generous supporter of the arts who was recently honored with a Golden Palm Star on the Palm Springs Walk of Stars in recognition of his many contributions to the civic and cultural life of his hometown.

This prestigious honor is well deserved. For more than 6 years, Tom Truhe has served tirelessly as chair of the Palm Springs Museum's Annenberg Theater Council, ATC, which supports the museum through an innovative program of music and theatrical performances. The ATC's busy season includes an Opening Night Gala, a major fundraiser for the museum; the ``performance series,'' featuring outstanding Broadway artists; and the tremendously popular Cabaret 88, a series of nine sold-out shows with top musical talents. Tom introduced the Cabaret 88 concept and is responsible for every aspect of its production, from selecting the talent and overseeing promotion to securing sponsors for each show.

In addition to his involvement with the Palm Springs Museum, Tom gives generously of his time and energy to numerous other area organizations and charities. He is a volunteer for ``One Night Only,'' Michael Childers' annual gala concert benefitting Jewish Family Service of the Desert, and he served on the event committee for a recent luncheon honoring Mr. Childers for his contributions to JFS. As a dedicated patron of the arts, Tom also makes a point of attending theatrical productions, concerts, local performances, and other charitable events in the community.

On November 16, 2014, Tom Truhe's Gold Palm Star was dedicated and Mayor Stephen Pougnet officially proclaimed the date to be Dr. Thomas Truhe Day in the City of Palm Springs. As his friend and Coachella Valley neighbor, I am pleased to join in honoring Tom Truhe for his outstanding service to the community.

I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington for her strong statement. It makes so much sense.

We have this poster here, ``510 Days.'' That is how long ago the Senate passed the bipartisan immigration bill that Senator Murray talked about and Senator Schumer talked about. That is 17 months; 510 days is 17 months.

So here is the deal. The Republicans in the House refuse to take up the Senate bill, which strengthens the border while giving a pathway of legality to hard-working immigrants here who are undocumented.

It is pretty simple but comprehensive--common sense. Here is the thing: They will not take up the bill. So then we say: What is your idea? Where is your bill? They don't have one.

So then President Obama, knowing we have 11 million undocumented immigrants living in America, realizes he can't let this matter go on. He has waited 100 days, 200 days, 300 days, 400 days, 500 days. The country has waited for 17 months.

So the President is going to do what Presidents are supposed to do, which is look at a problem that is hurting the country and do his best to fix it. The President has said to the House he would be thrilled to sign the bipartisan immigration bill the Senate passed. Take it up and pass it.

Oh, no. Do you know what their answer is? To verbally threaten the President and, frankly, the American people by such comments as--this is one that I heard the Republican leader Mitch McConnell say: If he does this, if he takes this action, if he takes action on immigration, it would be like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

No, it wouldn't be. It would be a President who understands that action is needed. Guess what. Eleven other Presidents, Republican and Democrat, have taken Executive action on immigration. I never in all my years ever heard one Republican take to task any of those other Presidents, and I will give you the list of who they are: Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George Bush, Sr., Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and President Obama used his authority for the DREAMers.

The charts are being held up to show you how many actions have been taken. We have these two charts here that show a lot of Executive actions by Presidents on immigration.

What is wrong with my Republican friends? Do they not know history or

are they just blindly attacking this President because they are annoyed that he got reelected?

Step up to the plate, smell the roses, look at the reality. The reality is all these other Presidents have taken action. Look what the immigration council says, the American Immigration Council said:

Past Republican presidents have not been shy to use the

White House's power to retool immigration policy. In fact,

Obama could learn a lot from Presidents Ronald Reagan's and

George H.W. Bush's Executive actions to preserve the unity of

immigrant families and move past congressional refusal to

enact immigration reform.

So, Earth to the Republicans: You refuse to take up the bipartisan Senate bill which strengthens our border while giving a legal path to citizenship or legality to our undocumented, making sure that those who commit crimes are deported. We look at what is happening in our ag community and fix that. They won't do it.

So they are stamping their foot and saying what President Obama wants to do is unconstitutional. Excuse me, unconstitutional? Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Eisenhower--I read the list. They never said that before. They never said that before. Carter, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Clinton, Bush, Sr., Reagan, George W., and Obama. Now they say to the President--and I don't have the exact quote. We heard a comment from the Republican leader. What they are basically saying to the President is, If you do your job, we are going to be mad. And what the President has said to them is, Please do your job. If you do your job, I won't have to take Executive action. I would prefer to have this in legislation. And as Senator Murray has said, that is the preferable road. But they either won't do it or they don't want to do it or they want another confrontation with the President.

I think it was John Boehner, the Republican Speaker, who said if the President takes this Executive action, which as I have shown you many other Presidents have done, he will ``poison the well.'' He is telling the President that if the President does his job--my words--as 11 Presidents have done, it will ``poison the well.''

And what are they going to do about it? Who knows. Are they going to try to impeach the President or sue the President? I guess they have to impeach 10 others.

And by the way, I wrote the President a letter and asked him to take Executive action. In my view, it is absolutely necessary, because if you follow the law, 11 million people could be deported--our neighbors, our friends, families would be split up.

I thought Republicans were the party of family values. Family values--I have been lectured on family values. Somehow if one supports a woman's right to choose and to get health care, it is not following family values, but one can break up families and have parents and children separated, and that, I guess, doesn't fall under the definition.

It has been 17 months since we passed our bill and either they are too lazy to take it up or they don't want to take it up. They would rather threaten this President. I just have to tell them, we have a Congress, we have a court system, and we have a President. We don't have President McConnell, we don't have President Boehner, we don't have President Reid, we don't have President Boxer. We have President Obama, and he has to do his job. If you don't like it, that is fine. Lord knows I have served with five Presidents. I didn't agree with them half the time, but I didn't threaten to shut down the government or impeach them or sue them.

Now here is the deal: Why can't they find time to take up our bill? They have voted 50 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act--50 times-- but they cannot find time to debate or pass a bill to reform our Nation's immigration laws.

I served in the House for 10 years. The rules in the House are easy. It is nothing like the Senate where you need unanimous consent to do anything, to even open up the Senate. In the House, if the majority, who are now the Republicans, wants to introduce a bill, all they have to do is introduce a bill.

They won't do it. It has been 17 months. Then the President says, oh, my God, we have got an issue here. Everyone agrees we have 11 million undocumented immigrants here. We have issues at the border. We have issues at detention facilities. We have issues in the ag industry. We have issues of families being torn apart. The President is going to do what he can do, just as 10 other Presidents have done previously. So what does he get in response from our Republican friends? Nothing that would allay our concerns. They don't say, Mr. President, we understand your frustration. Don't worry, we will get a bill done. It may not be the same as the Senate. We have other ideas. They do nothing. They are do-nothing and they want our President to be do-nothing when it comes to immigration.

Frankly, if our President did not take action, it would be a terrible mistake. I have already established that he is within his constitutional rights. He would be joining 10 other Presidents who, by the way, acted on 40 occasions over the last 60 years. So here is a group of Republicans threatening to impeach the President, sue the President, shut down the government over something that 11 Presidents have done over the past 60 years on 40 occasions. I never ever, ever heard one Republican or Democrat threaten to shut down the government when a President took action over immigration.

The Republicans won't act. So what do they think is going to happen, status quo? The status quo doesn't work. It is not working at the border. It is not working for our families. It is not working at the workplace. It is not working in our communities.

I was in the House when President Reagan signed into law a major immigration bill legalizing 3 million immigrants in 1986, and then the Congress didn't do the next step. They didn't take the next step. So he took Executive action to stop deportations that would interfere with family reunification. President Reagan--I didn't hear one Republican threaten to impeach the President, sue the President, take action, shut down the government, make life miserable for the American people. No. But they are doing it now.

In 1990, President George Herbert Walker Bush directed his Attorney General to halt deportations of an estimated 190,000 Salvadorans who were fleeing the civil war there, and he used his power to halt the deportation of up to 1.5 million spouses and children. I did not hear one Republican--not one--threaten to sue the President, threaten to take him to court, threaten to impeach him, threaten to shut down the government and make life miserable for the American people.

President Bush's family fairness policy Executive action was sweeping. It affected more than 40 percent of the undocumented population in the United States at the time. He thought big--George Bush, Sr.--he thought big, and this President should think big.

I will tell you why. If you ask economic experts what are the best measures we can do for our economy, they are clear about it. They say one measure we should implement is to raise the minimum wage. We Democrats are trying to do that and we will never give up trying to do that. Reforming immigration is another measure that is one of the best ways to stimulate our economy and create jobs, and it is all laid out in a USC study which shows that immigration reform with a path to citizenship would inject $8 billion into my State's economy--my State of California--each year--$8 billion each year. Nationwide it would increase our gross domestic product by $1.5 trillion over 10 years, increase wages for workers, and lead to between 750,000 to 900,000 new jobs. That is almost a million new jobs created, according to the Center for American Progress.

So help me out here, Republicans. What is your problem? You never complained when Republican Presidents took Executive action to fix a broken immigration system. You say you are for jobs and the economy and business, and if you look at the support for immigration reform, it runs right through our society from the Chambers of Commerce to labor and everybody in between. And if we don't act, the dire situation of undocumented immigrants will only get worse. Families will continue to be torn apart. People will continue to live in the shadows. The reason our economy will be thriving once people get out of the shadows is they are not afraid to come out. They are not afraid to buy a house. They are not afraid to spend money. They are not afraid to start new businesses. They

are not afraid to hire workers. It is a no-brainer. This is one of the most important things we can do for our economy, for jobs, for prosperity, for our communities.

In closing, because I see my friend from Connecticut is here, and I want to yield the floor, there are two priorities that are at stake: a healthy economy--and I have laid that out--and family values. The American people, including the people of California, support bold and compassionate action on immigration reform. We have already established that the President has the legal authority to act just as other Presidents of both parties have in the past.

I say to the President today, as I have said to him in writing, if you act you will have my strong support and you will have the support of so many people across this country. You will keep our families together, you will strengthen our economy, and you will make our country stronger.

I say to the House again, while you are still here in Washington, if you don't want the President to fill the void for your lack of action, then take up and pass the Senate immigration bill. Get to work. If you don't like that bill, then make another bill, but take care of this problem because if you continue to be a do-nothing House when it comes to immigration, I can assure you this President will not follow your lead and be a do-nothing President when it comes to immigration. That would be terribly wrong. It would be wrong not only for our immigrant community but for every single one of us.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have two articles printed in the Record, along with an article in the National Journal that details the number of times Presidents have used their authority to act on immigration.

I say to my colleagues who have come to the floor this afternoon and are still to come to the floor, thank you.

Republicans have threatened to close down this government. They are having a temper tantrum and refuse to act

on immigration and want to paralyze the Presidency.

It is time to get behind this President. It is time to get behind the American people. It is time to take a stand for this economy and for family values.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

I have a parliamentary inquiry. I am confused because Senator McConnell called the bill the Cassidy Keystone bill, and I thought we were debating the Hoeven-Landrieu bill. Could you tell me which bill it is, because that is very important.

So we are considering the Hoeven-Landrieu bill. I just wanted that to be clear.

Mr. President, I will be controlling the time in opposition, very strong opposition, to this legislation. Before I yield to the first debater on our side, who will be Chairman Leahy--and I am very honored that he will be--let me just say before Senator Landrieu leaves the floor that Senator Landrieu is the only reason we are debating this today. So anyone who wants to play games about this and name this bill the Cassidy bill, that kind of is a joke because I believe I am correct that he introduced it November 12 of this year and the Hoeven-Landrieu bill was introduced in May. But setting politics aside, let the Record be clear forever that this debate would not be before this body were it not for Senator Landrieu's insistence. I want that to be clear.

Secondly, we will hear today, I think, a terrific debate because the people who support this think not only that this is a good thing for the country--to build the Keystone XL Pipeline--they think it is a great thing for this country. I have great respect for them. On the other side, we have those of us who think it is not a good thing for this country, it is not a good thing for jobs, it is not a good thing for energy independence because it will be exported, all that oil, and it is actually dangerous.

In my case, I was thinking, what does ``XL'' stand for? They named it the Keystone XL. It has no meaning, but to me it is extra lethal. My debate will show why, as we analyze the tar sands oil that will be coming into this Nation, 45 percent more than we have now, the risky business that it has proven to be and what the health costs are for our people. That is not me speaking, those are nurses and doctors saying so. I haven't even gotten into climate and all the other issues.

At this point I yield 5 minutes to my friend Senator Leahy.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his remarks. They mean a lot.

I want to put this vote into perspective. This is a major decision. People sometimes say: Oh, what is the big deal. It is a little pipeline. We build pipelines all the time. Well, it is a major decision, and I know each of us, regardless of our party, before we cast a major vote, thinks about whether our vote is going to make life better for our people we represent, the people who send us here and who count on us every day. I am going to do everything in my power to make the case that building the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is going to make life worse for the people we represent and those generations to follow because I think I will prove today that misery follows the tar sands.

I said before it is called Keystone XL--extra lethal--not extra large but extra lethal. Senators should ask themselves three questions before they cast their vote on the Hoeven-Landrieu bill. First, why does it make any sense for the Senate to force the approval of a project that will bring millions of barrels of the dirtiest pollution you could think of into America? Why do we want to bring barrels of filthy, dirty, dangerous pollution into America? This isn't an ordinary pipeline. This pipeline is carrying tar sands oil, which is, in fact, the most polluting kind of oil and I am going to tell you why. This isn't hyperbole.

Tar sands oil contains levels of toxic pollutants and metals that are much higher than conventional crude oil. I want to make this case. President Obama said when he became President that he would do everything in his power to make us energy efficient and to make us energy independent, and he has worked on both fronts. We have seen a tremendous rise in domestic oil production. It is not tar sands oil. It is not filthy oil. Conventional crude oil is different than the tar sands. The tar sands have 11 times more sulfur and nickel, 6 times more nitrogen, and 5 times more lead. Let me say that again.

Before we invite a 45-percent increase in this filthy, dirty oil, let's take a look at what this tar sands is. It has got more sulfur and nickel and nitrogen and more lead.

I know my colleague who is sitting in the chair cares deeply about environmental justice, and in the course of my presentation I am going to show what happens in places such as Port Arthur, TX, in minority communities when this oil is refined. We can show that photograph now.

What I am trying to impress on the body today is I am proving the point that I am making. The facts are the facts are the facts. This is what it looks like in Port Arthur, TX. This is what the kids have to put up with. Here is a playground in a low-income community, and I had the activists from Port Arthur, TX, here saying, please, please, please, protect us from this oil.

Now these dangerous pollutants I cited and these metals can be very harmful to human health. Sulfur dioxide penetrates deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs and it causes respiratory diseases such as emphysema and bronchitis. You will not hear a word about that from the proponents, but this needs to be looked at. This is why I stood with the nurses, that is why I stood with the public health doctors, to say time out for a minute here.

What are we doing to our people that we are saying we are helping with the tar sands?

It aggravates heart disease, leading to increased toxic emissions and premature death. Nitrogen dioxide increases symptoms in people with asthma. When I go to the various schools in my State, I ask the kids: How many of you have asthma or how many of you know someone who has asthma? Almost half the class raises their hands, if not more.

Tar sands will exacerbate that problem. We know how dangerous lead is, how long it took us to get lead out of paint. It adversely affects the nervous system, the kidney function, the immune system, the cardiovascular system. Misery follows the tar sands. The Keystone XL-- extra lethal--pipeline.

We are talking about huge quantities coming through this pipeline-- 830,000 barrels of filthy tar sands oil coming across the Canadian border heading down to our gulf coast region every single day--again, a 45-percent increase in the tar sands oil, a 45-percent increase in those heavy metals and those dangerous pollutants. This project could be just the beginning.

We already know again, misery follows the tar sands from the extraction to the transportation to the refining to the waste disposal.

Let me show you a picture of petcoke, petroleum coke.

Again, it is an environmental justice question, because what we have is what is left after the refining, and it gets sent all across the country. This is a picture of petcoke piles in Chicago. Senator Durbin is going to talk more about this. This is a serious environmental hazard. The poison that is in this residue in a windstorm just blows around and we have stories in the press in Chicago of a Little League game being interrupted because the petcoke was blowing all over the field, and the kids were getting pitch black with the petcoke.

So, yes, I have stood with doctors and nurses and people in these communities who have faced harm along each step of the tar sands oil process. These are cancer-causing pollutants. So when somebody tells you: Oh, this is nothing. This is a pipeline. We have a lot of pipelines. This is nothing. No big deal. Why are you fighting? Why are you standing up here? Why did I demand 3 hours of time in opposition? Because this is a dangerous project.

Why should we vote to force the approval of a project that would bring this dirty, polluted tar sands into the United States when we know it is the most difficult type of oil to clean up in case of a spill?

According to the EPA, tar sands oil creates especially difficult challenges to clean up when the pipelines rupture because it is so heavy it sinks to the bottom of the water. You only have to look at the spill in Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010 which they still haven't cleaned up.

In Mayflower, AK, in 2013, we will show you a picture from there. This is what happened when there was a spill. These spills are not cleaned up. This came right into residential communities. So again, dirty, filthy oil and the toughest to clean up in case of a spill. We know as sure as I am standing here if this is built there will be a spill, because that happens; and it has already happened in 2010 and in 2013.

Of the projected 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil, most of it isn't going to our domestic use. And that is the other question. Why would you want to bring this dirty, polluted tar sands oil that you cannot clean up into our country if practically all of it is going to be exported? And we will have to bear the burdens of the refining, the filth in the air, the petcoke in our cities, as we see the products being exported to other countries.

Now I could stop here--I am sure the proponents wish I would, but I am not, because if you are not convinced this is an enormous mistake, I have got five reasons--a deeper look at the health of our people. I have already said tar

sands is the filthiest oil on the planet. And I have already told you that I have stood with nurses and doctors to make this point. Downwind from the tar sands extraction site and the refineries in Canada there are significantly higher levels of dangerous pollutants and carcinogens have been documented.

People living in the nearby communities are suffering. I have met them. I have talked to them on the phone. They flew down here to stand by my side to call attention to the health impacts. People living in nearby communities are suffering higher rates of cancers linked to toxic chemicals including leukemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. That is a fact. The big oil companies won't talk about it. The Koch brothers won't talk about it. My Republican friends won't talk about it. But I am going to talk about it and I am going to enter into the Record a University of California-Irvine, University of Michigan peer-reviewed study documenting elevated cancer rates near tar sands processing zones. This was a peer-reviewed article dated September 2013.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Once it leaves Canada and is transported to refineries in the United States, the tar sands would increase the pollution in already plagued communities such as Port Arthur, which I showed you and I will show you again.

Port Arthur is already refining tar sands oil. This is going to greatly increase the amount of tar sands oil they are going to be refining. They are on the EPA's list of cities with dangerous ozone levels, people suffering from asthma, respiratory ailments, skin irritations, and cancer.

The oil companies aren't going to tell you about this and the Koch brothers aren't going to tell you about this and my Republican friends aren't going to tell you about this, but I am going to tell you about this. Tar sands will add another threat to Port Arthur and other communities that are already in distress.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article describing health problems experienced by families living near Port Arthur refineries, and it is entitled ``Everyone Deserves Clean Air and Equal Protection From Pollution,'' dated August 12, 2014.

To get to the gulf coast, tar sands will be transported by pipeline through communities in environmentally sensitive areas in six States. We know from experience how harmful this could be, again, because of how hard it is to clean up after a spill, and we know about the petcoke. I have shown you the petcoke, which is black dust containing some heavy metals.

Open piles of this waste began to appear at unprecedented levels in midwestern communities and it sparked health and environmental concerns in many neighborhoods in Detroit and Chicago.

Let's take this back and show the Chicago picture again.

In this Chicago neighborhood, billowing black clouds of petcoke forced Little League players off the baseball field. The children were forced to seek cover from the clouds of black dust that pelted homes and cars. According to one newspaper, ``Kids that were playing ball were sent scurrying away because the stuff was getting into their eyes, on to their faces and into their mouths and everything. They just had to get the heck out of there.''

I would like to enter into the Record at this time an article that says, ``In Chicago, piles of petroleum coke suggest the future of Canadian tar sands oil,'' dated November 17, 2014.

I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record as well.

Now when this petcoke started to blow all across the communities, residents felt they could not safely open the windows during the summer for fear the black clouds would trigger their children's asthma, and with good reason. We know this type of toxic air pollution can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis, or contribute to other diseases.

Asthma. The Federal Government has said that asthma has become a national epidemic. This is a picture of a little girl who is having a hard time breathing.

I say to my friend from Kansas, I have another 15 minutes, just for his information.

This is a photo of a little girl who is having difficulty breathing because she has asthma. The Federal Government has said asthma has become ``a national epidemic''--which is that 1 out of every 12 people, or 26 million Americans, and 7 million of these are children. We don't need more asthma. American communities don't need more petcoke. My Republican friends are not going to talk to you about asthma. They are not going to quote the oil companies saying what a great job they are doing preventing it. Ultimately, the Keystone tar sands pipeline decision should be based on whether the project is in the national interest.

Today I ask rhetorically of my colleagues: How are more Americans with asthma in the national interest? How are more Americans with cancer in the national interest? How is it in the national interest when kids playing baseball have to duck and cover from dangerous pollution?

The health of our children and our families is at stake, and we have a right to know how tar sands oil will affect our health. Unfortunately, we don't have all the information we need to have.

Senator Whitehouse and I wrote to Secretary John Kerry and asked for a comprehensive health impact study on the tar sands oil and how the Keystone Pipeline will impact the health of communities across the Nation. We don't have the studies. Again, Senator Whitehouse and I are not physicians. That is why we stood with the nurses and the doctors.

A Gallup poll has found 12 years in a row that nursing is the most trusted profession. So National Nurses United, which is the Nation's largest professional association of registered nurses--185,000 strong-- has joined our call for a comprehensive health study.

I ask unanimous consent to have their letter printed in the Record.

The nurses concur with Senators Boxer and Whitehouse that what is known today about the health hazards associated with the expansion of tar sands is just a sampling. They believe the consequences of Keystone XL have been substantially ignored in the State Department's final EIS, and it needs to be addressed.

The American Public Health Association wrote a letter, and I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record as well.

They say the same thing.

There is an increasing recognition that the environments in which people live, work, and learn have a tremendous impact on their health. The administration will certainly benefit by having a better understanding of how the proposed Keystone Pipeline could impact the public health.

They go on to say: The full spectrum of health considerations are often overlooked, and their omission can lead to policies and practices that are unnecessarily harmful to the public health.

Maybe Senators feel they know more than doctors and nurses. Maybe they do. Good luck. They don't. We should listen to doctors and nurses just like we should listen to scientists when they talk to us about climate change.

This whole thing of saying ``I am not a scientist,'' yes, that is right, you are not, Republicans. Listen to the scientists. This answer is perplexing to me. If you are not a scientist, then be humble and listen to the peer-reviewed scientists. If you are not a doctor or a nurse, be humble. They don't have a special interest; they have an interest in giving us information on which we should base our decisions.

Now I am going to talk about the environment. This pipeline is going to go through the Ogallala Aquifer--one of the world's largest underground sources of freshwater. It provides water to farms in eight States, accounting for a quarter of the Nation's cropland as well as municipal drinking wells. Remember what I said before: When this oil gets into water, it is the most difficult oil to clean up because it is so heavy. Well, there are 2,537 wells within 1 mile of the proposed pipeline, including 39 public water supply wells, and 20 private wells within 100 feet of the pipeline right-of-way. If the pipeline were to leak near the aquifer, the tar sands oil would quickly seep into the sandy soil and contaminate the water supply for millions of people. I have already shown you a spill in Arkansas. These spills happen. If a spill occurred near any of these aquifers, it would be tragic.

Local residents know the harm the pipeline could cause. I will show you pictures of locals objecting to the pipeline.

In April, a group of ranchers, farmers, and tribal leaders gathered in Washington, DC, for a rally. They wanted to send a strong signal to Congress that they want their way of life protected--their farms, their tribal lands, and their ranches.

You are going to hear from proponents of the tar sands who will say the Keystone Pipeline will be a safe alternative to rail shipment of oil, but experience tells us otherwise.

In 2010 that pipeline ruptured, spilled over 1 million gallons in Michigan. The local health department ordered the evacuation of 50 households, and approximately 100 families were advised not to drink water. One resident living near the Kalamazoo River had to abandon her home because the stench from the spill made her dizzy, nauseous, and sick--classic signs of acute exposure to tar sands. Another resident who was pregnant said she could not breathe. She said:

My eyes were burning, and my nose was burning. It smelled

like a diesel tanker had turned over in the front of my

house.

You will not hear this from the proponents.

The Michigan spill was the largest inland spill in history, and more than 4 years and $1 billion later, it is not cleaned up. This summer parts of the Kalamazoo River were closed as dredging efforts continued to remove oil from the bottom of the river.

Earlier I spoke about Arkansas. Residents were exposed to benzene--a known carcinogen--and hydrogen sulfide. People suffered from dizziness, nausea, headaches, respiratory problems--all classic symptoms of exposure to the chemicals found in the tar sands.

There is a section of tar sands that has already been built in the gulf region, and it is already experiencing problems that could result in a pipeline spill, but you will not hear that from

the proponents. According to Bloomberg Businessweek, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, found a systemic problem with substandard wells on a portion of the pipeline. In fact, during 1 week when the pipeline was being monitored, regulators found that over 70 percent of the wells were flawed and required repairs.

Senators should pay attention to the facts. People are sick around the tar sands. When it spills, it threatens their way of life and physically harms them. All you have to look to is the evidence to see that ``XL'' stands for ``extra lethal'' and misery follows the tar sands.

Now I am going to talk about the climate. I wish to explain that once we begin transporting the dirty tar sands oil through that pipeline, it will unleash more carbon pollution and harm our Nation's effort to address dangerous climate change. The State Department says a barrel of tar sands oil will create at least 17 percent more carbon pollution than domestic oil. The State Department says that compared to average crude oil, burning the amount of tar sands oil from the Keystone ``extra lethal'' Pipeline could add an additional 27.4 million metric tons of carbon pollution each year. That is a fact. You don't hear the proponents talk about that.

(Mr. SCHATZ assumed the Chair).

The Senator from Hawaii has now taken over the Chair. He already knows what climate change is doing to Hawaii. I was in the State, and I took a tour. I was at a conference that he organized, and we know we can't afford this.

If we allow this to happen, we would see the carbon pollution that would come from adding 5.8 million new cars to the road. It would wipe out the carbon pollution reductions we gained from the first round of fuel economy improvements for heavy-duty trucks--wiped out.

I believe this is a fact: If we do this, the damage to the environment will be the equivalent of eight new coal-fired plants, and those are dirty. That is the equivalent of what we would be getting here in terms of the carbon pollution every year.

In August 2014 a study in the peer-reviewed journal ``Nature Climate Change'' estimated that the increase in oil consumption caused by Keystone XL could result in up to 110 million metric tons of carbon pollution each year. That is four times the State Department's high-end estimate.

I already talked about the eight coal-fired plants. This peer- reviewed study says it is 29. We have two estimates. One says it is the equivalent of building 8 new, dirty coal-fired powerplants, and another peer-reviewed study said it would be equal to building 29 new coal- fired powerplants here in the United States--29. Think about it in your mind's eye.

All you need to do is look at China to see what happens when you throw the environment under the bus. Is this the kind of world we want to see for our kids? Is this the future? This isn't hyperbole; this is a picture of the pollution in China.

I was in China on a fantastic trade trip for 10 days, and I never saw the Sun except for one day when it sort of peaked out. The guide said: Isn't it a beautiful day? No, it was not at all a beautiful day. There was a semblance of a little Sun behind the cloud.

Why do you think people love the Environmental Protection Agency in our country--70 percent strong? It is because they know this could be America. If you throw the environment under the bus, this is what it will look like here.

Some of my colleagues say they don't want to the act on climate change--especially my Republican colleagues. I don't know of one who is ready. They say: Well, China is building coal-fired plants. Well, the President just came back, and the President did have an agreement with China to move forward because the Chinese people can't live like this anymore. The social unrest that is the big fear of Beijing that starts to bubble up has a lot to do with this. We have a breakthrough agreement. Is this the time, in the face of this progress, to approve this pipeline? I say it is ridiculous timing. It is ridiculous.

I remember a time when saving the environment was bipartisan. I remember leaders such as John Chafee and John Warner. Now I don't see one Republican ready to step forward and say: It is time to put a price on this pollution and stop this pollution. My State has done it. My State is doing just great. We have new jobs, and I will put some information into the Record on that.

Canada's Natural Resources Minister said:

In order for crude oil production to grow, the North

American pipeline network must be expanded. So we know this

is just the start.

Now climate. Everyone can say what they will: I am not a scientist; I don't know. Over the past few months we have seen everything from the hottest August, the hottest September on record, and the hottest October on record. We have seen historic droughts and extreme wildfires. I have seen them in my State. We have seen vanishing wildlife habitat in Alaska, toxic algae out of control and contaminating drinking water supplies in Toledo, OH, because the water is getting hot and the algae that couldn't survive in the colder waters survives in the warmer waters. We see these wake-up calls every day. But instead of confronting that crisis, we have the party of no saying: No, I am not a scientist and, no, I will not listen to them, and we do nothing. This project does the opposite. It makes matters worse.

There is a lot of talk about how we need this oil to become energy independent. Let me tell my colleagues, we are going to see gas prices go up if this goes forward, and I will explain why. This is from economists, not from me. This is not a win for America. Big Oil will be the winner. We have to know that U.S. gasoline demand is on the decline, and economists say it will continue to be through 2040. Since 2011, the United States has exported more gasoline, diesel, and other fuels than it imported. So Big Oil will be the big winner now if this project moves forward, not American workers or families filling up at the gas pump.

The reality is Keystone ``extra lethal'' will increase the price Americans pay for gas at the pump. It is cheaper to buy gas in the Midwest today than it would be if the pipeline were built. That is because moving tar sand oil to the gulf coast gives it access to international markets, which will increase the price Canadians can charge for it. So right now that oil stays in America. Now it is going to be pumped out, they can get higher prices, and our prices are going to go up. The exports will reduce the supply of gasoline right here in America and drive up the price.

As Bloomberg reported earlier this year, three separate studies have shown Keystone XL Pipeline could raise domestic prices by 20 to 40 cents because it would divert Canadian oil away from refineries in the Midwest where it is easier to export. Gulf coast refiners plan to process the cheap Canadian tar sands crude that would be supplied by the pipeline into diesel and other products for export.

During a congressional hearing at the end of 2011, my Senate colleague, then-Congressman Ed Markey, who is now a member of our environment committee--Senator Markey--asked TransCanada's pipeline head if the company would commit to keeping the Canadian oil and refine products in the United States ``so that this country realizes all of the energy security benefits your company had promised.'' Mr. Pourbaix said, No, I can't do that.

So the head of TransCanada is not promising to keep the oil here or the products here. We know that. So all of this talk of energy independence--let me tell my colleagues how we get energy independence. We produce what we can here, and we have been doing that where it is appropriate, and we also utilize the Sun and the wind and the geothermal and the clean energies of the future that, believe me, when we embrace that clean energy agenda, we have far more jobs. We don't have pollution. We have safer communities.

One refinery in Port Arthur owned by Valero is expected to be a major customer for crude oil. Let's show that picture of Port Arthur. Because that refinery is in a foreign trade zone, Valero can operate tax free. In the fist 9 months of this year, Valero has reported a net income of $2.475 billion. Today we will also hear from tar sands advocates that the tar sands oil will just be shipped by rail even if the tar sands pipeline is not built. It is very

expensive to ship it by rail, and the truth is it is not a clear-cut case. In fact, both the rail companies and tar sands producers that pioneered transporting Canadian tar sands oil by rail are on the verge of insolvency because of the high transportation costs. So don't buy into the argument that if we don't build the pipeline, we will just ship it by rail. Then they say it is safer, and we know it is not safer.

We just heard the operator of the pipeline say it is 35 permanent jobs. I don't belittle the 1,900 construction jobs for 2 years we would have. I don't belittle that. But I can truly tell my colleagues that coming from my State--and later I will talk about the successes--we can dwarf that by the hundreds of thousands if we truly embrace a clean energy economy.

The materials needed for the pipeline--that is not a domestic boon. A 2011 analysis found 50 percent or more of the steel pipe would be manufactured outside of the United States. We need clean energy policies. As we know, it is appropriate to drill for oil in our country where it is safe, where it is appropriate, and if we can get to clean coal, it is appropriate, and it is appropriate if we can get to safe nuclear. The fact is this pipeline is going to bring filthy, dirty oil. It is going to bring misery all across the country.

Let's look at the wind industry which supports over 560 manufacturing facilities and supported over 50,000 full-time jobs in 2013 alone. So 50,000 full-time jobs compared to 35 full-time jobs for the pipeline? Come on. The solar industry in 2013 employed 142,000 Americans, an increase of 24,000 additional jobs just last year. This is the future, not the misery that follows the tar sands, not communities that have to suffer with the filthiest of oils, dirtiest of oils, and not having this petcoke stored all over the Midwest where it blows on kids so kids get asthma.

Here is the spill in Arkansas. They still can't clean it up. It happened in 2013. This photograph isn't what we want the future to look like--not this, having to wear masks. We want the air to be clean and the water to be clean. This is China. This is what happens when we ignore our people who are telling us they are having increased asthma attacks, increased respiratory disease. We are not going to hear a word about it from my colleagues. They are going to make a jobs argument that falls flat on its face.

Look. We know climate change is real. Whether someone says they are not a scientist--we all know you are not a scientist. I am not a scientist. Climate change is real. Unleashing this filthy, dirty oil unleashes far more carbon and makes the problem worse. We are not going to hear any of that. We are going to hear claims that just aren't true. We are going to hear about all of these jobs--35 permanent jobs compared to tens of thousands in clean energy. We are going to hear about how this is the greatest project. We are going to hear, Oh, it is better to transport it by pipeline than by rail, when in fact that is not a fact in evidence that they would do that because it is so expensive. They are not going to talk to us about the spills, as shown in this photograph.

We have a very important process to go through before this pipeline is approved. This legislation derails that process, and that process was established by an executive order and was updated by President George W. Bush. Before a finding is made as to whether this should go forward, the President must consult with experts in many Federal agencies to determine whether this pipeline is in the national interest. This includes the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies before a permit is granted. This bill before the Senate short circuits this review. It cuts off expert opinions of our military leaders and others when determining whether the pipeline is safe. Is it in the interests of the country? Is it going to be another target? We need to know, and we don't have the answers on the full public health implications.

What is also interesting is the tar sands supporters gloss over the fact that this bill tramples States rights--the rights of citizens in South Dakota to have a say in their State's ongoing proceedings concerning construction of the pipeline. How about this fact. Here we see it. These voices have to be heard. I will tell my colleagues, 2 million people submitted comments on the tar sands project, and passing this bill now does not allow those comments to be given due consideration by our country.

I am very surprised at this, given my colleagues who speak of States rights, public comments, local viewpoints. They want to bypass all of this because they have decided they know better than 2 million people, many of whom have to live side by side with this pipeline and many of whom would have to breathe the kind of air they are breathing in Port Arthur, TX, right now. I will guarantee my colleagues this: Not one Senator in this Chamber will live next to a refinery that refines this filthy, dirty oil--not one. If I have not spoken the truth, please correct the Record. Tell me. I will apologize. We don't live near refineries here. I will tell my colleagues who does: a lot of kids who get asthma, just ask the nurses.

If I told people that if we embrace a clean energy agenda we could create far more jobs, be far more healthy, and save this planet, wouldn't people say yes? I think people would. But, no, not in this Chamber. They listen to Big Oil and the Koch brothers, and these are the people who will profit. They are not going to live next to the Port Arthur refinery. Their children aren't going to live there. Their grandchildren aren't going to live there.

They brush aside that this is filthy, dirty oil--the dirtiest--with the most dangerous pollutants, including lead, including sulfur. When we meet with the citizens of Port Arthur, TX, as I have done, and the activists there who want to protect the kids, they say: Please, we have enough of this stuff; we don't want any more. Misery follows the tar sands, and that is why I call this pipeline the Keystone XL ``extra lethal'' Pipeline.

The evidence is clear. The Keystone tar sands pipeline will be harmful to our family's health. It will hurt the environment. It will worsen the impact on climate change. It will raise the price of gas. These statements are not made by me. I respect economists, and this is clearly the economists' view. It is just plain dangerous because it will transport the dirtiest oil on the planet.

Forcing the approval of the Keystone when so many concerns remain does not allow for the kind of review our affected communities deserve.

I hope enough of my colleagues will vote no on this. I see the handwriting on the wall. I do. I know what happens in this Chamber. I know the votes will eventually be there. This is an issue which impacts the health and safety of our families and our planet, so if it means I will have to stand up here time and time again to tell the story of the Keystone ``extra lethal'' Pipeline, I will do it. I will do it for as long as it takes. If I didn't think it was important, I wouldn't do it.

I just hope that if this body does pass this pipeline today, the President will veto this dangerous legislation. I feel so strongly that the way to a prosperous job-producing future is the embracing of clean energy. Yes, we will continue with our coal and make it as clean as we can. We will continue with our drilling here. Yes, we will have an ``all of the above'' where it is safe to do. We don't need a project that is so harmful to our families and to our communities.

I talked to the people in Canada who live near there. You won't hear that from my friends. It is all in the Record. I hope they read the articles I placed in the Record about the kinds of cancers we are seeing around this stuff.

I don't want to see a trail of misery extending from one end of the country that I love to another, so I hope we will vote no on this-- enough of us will. But if we can't stop it today, then I hope the President will veto this and tell the story of why this trail of misery should not be put upon the American people.

One of the biggest shocks I think I had when meeting those Canadians who have been putting up with this and then meeting the Americans who live around these refineries and hearing from them what happened and hearing from my friends from Chicago who remember that story--we will close with this--of these kids sitting around getting ready to play Little League Baseball when all of this petroleum coke that is stored all over the Midwest just blew, and it got into the mouths of

these kids and it got on their clothes. They ran away. How can anyone believe this is what the future should look like when I can show you case after case on the Record, substantiated by the numbers, that clean energy produces far more jobs--far more jobs--and will lead us in the right direction in terms of our health.

People don't want to become like China. They don't want to look like this. They don't want to have their air look like this.

I come from a State where before the Clean Air Act--by the way, it was done by a Republican President; thank you, Richard Nixon--we had dirty, filthy air. You couldn't see a foot in front of you. We cleaned it up because we stood up to the polluters and said: You know what, we know we want to work with you, and we want to have your product. Do it in a clean manner. Do it in a safe manner.

The EPA--again, created by Republicans--came in there and cleaned up the air, along with the local people in our State.

We have rebounded in California from the recession, with clean energy jobs leading the way. We are so proud of it. And our people can still see the sky.

I will tell you, I am not going to go in this direction, if I have to stand on my feet until they hurt. As you know, I have to wear heels because I am very little, but I don't care--I am not going to let us go in this direction. No way.

I hope we defeat this today. If we don't, I hope the President will veto it, and I hope we can move to a positive, bipartisan clean-energy agenda that is really the future of this Nation and this planet.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

I am about to yield to Senator Cardin.

A point I want to make is this is an interesting debate. The proponents have said for years: Build the pipeline because we need the oil here. Then confronted with the fact that the oil will not stay here--it is going to go elsewhere--they say: Oh, what is the difference. It is going elsewhere, but what is the difference. The difference was your argument was to make us self-sufficient. You can't have it both ways. The fact is this oil is going to be exported.

With that I yield 12 minutes to my colleague, a great leader on the environment, Mr. Cardin.

Madam President, I thank Majority Leader Reid for his remarks. Sometimes it does feel the world is falling apart and we have to speak out, as we are doing every time these terrorists rear their heads.

I know we have some time over here by Senator Barrasso, but I just wanted to make a point on the environmental impact statements, although it is hard to get back.

As I understand it, in the Hoeven- Landrieu bill, the EIS is approved. So if the Nebraska bureaucracy determines there is a new route--and I think this is what my friend from Maryland was getting at--it doesn't matter what the new route is, the EIS is deemed approved. I have to say I don't think that is right. I think the people who live along that new route have a right to have a new EIS if in fact now the pipeline is being moved in a different direction.

I understand the bill calls for property rights to be respected, and that is called eminent domain. I know a lot of my friends on the other side hate eminent domain, usually, but now they are embracing it because that is what is in this bill. But the fact is, if as a result of a court case brought by property owners the route changes, it is our counsel's understanding the EIS is still automatically approved.

I wanted to get that on the record because my friend was in fact questioned, and I think he was right.

I yield the floor.

I will yield to Senator Merkley, but before I do, I was so glad to hear a Republican say he wants to work on jobs. I would just say to my friend before he leaves, the CEO who runs the pipeline says there will be 35 permanent jobs. OK. I would like to suggest to my friend that if he truly wants to help the middle class, he ought to join with us first in raising the minimum wage, which is critical, and, secondly, embracing a clean energy future while we still use, where it is safe, domestic oil production, clean coal, things we can do that don't threaten the air our children breathe, pollute the water they drink, and destroy the planet.

To hear a Republican stand and talk about jobs is music to my ears, but I would like to put into the Record a report I just got from my California people at home who say:

California's climate policies are reducing carbon

emissions, saving consumers at the pump, cutting oil use, and

cleaning our air.

California's economic recovery has outpaced the rest of the

country since the so-called ``great recession,'' while our

state has implemented the nation's strongest climate

policies. . . .

California can reduce greenhouse gas pollution while

growing the economy; we have been doing it for the last 35

years. Innovative energy policies over the past three decades

have saved Californians $56 billion on household energy costs

and allowed them to reduce expenditures on imported fossil

fuels and redirect spending to create 1.5 million full-time

jobs.

And they go on to talk about the fact that they are looking toward 1.5 million full-time jobs. I am just saying to my friend, if this is truly about jobs, let's pass a transportation bill. Let's make sure we do the things that help our people.

I am going to hold up a picture of the air in China. This is what it looks like when you throw the environment under the bus. We know, because in California we had some bad air until a Republican President passed the Clean Air Act, signed it into law.

You want to know public opinion. I will tell you. The public supports the EPA and they support clean air, clean water, safe drinking water. This tar sands isn't about the building of a pipeline, it is what is going into it--the filthiest, dirtiest oil, and we have put in the Record all the elements, the pollutants, that are in this oil. You can laugh it away if you want. That is fine. But I have to tell you, when you hear about the health impact that is going on in Canada from this tar sands, when you go down to Port Arthur, TX, or meet with the people here as I did, what you will see there is a community suffering because this is the dirtiest oil.

So, yes, jobs--that is where it is with this Senator. I come from a family which is first-generation American on my mother's side. We worked for everything we got. Education was key to it.

Hey, how about joining with us on that? How about reducing interest rates on student loans? But to stand here and say this is the absolute job producer is phony. It is phony baloney.

With that, I yield to my friend for 12 minutes.

Madam President, I think we are going to take a recess shortly. I just wanted to thank everybody on both sides for their statements.

To sum it up from my perspective, you have a situation here that, frankly, I am very glad we are confronting because there are lots of people who say: Oh, this is no big deal, it is just a little pipeline, and we have so many pipelines.

Senator Thune said: Oh, it is so much safer to transport this oil by pipeline than other ways. Just try telling that to the people of Marshall, MI. There was a spill in 2010 in the Kalamazoo River. They are still trying to clean it up. It is not the pipeline that is the issue, folks, it is the dirty tar sands oil that is so much more dangerous, has more heavy metals, and more carcinogens. It is a problem. By virtue of its weight, it sinks to the bottom, and they cannot clean it up. I can't believe the statement was made about how safe this is. We have seen stories that there are problems with the welding in the existing pipeline. We might want to speak to the people in Mayflower, AR. Do my colleagues know that Exxon had to buy back the homes because they couldn't be lived in anymore because this stuff spilled and contaminated an entire neighborhood?

So I call this the extra lethal pipeline. The pipeline itself is benign. It is what is going through it and what it will unleash in terms of 45 percent more carbon over time and 45 percent more tar sands than we would otherwise have, so we figure that everything gets increased by that amount. There is going to be more carbon, there is going to be more sulfur, more mercury, more lead.

This is important today. I am so glad we are having this debate. My colleagues say we never allowed a vote. There was a lot of boxing around in the boxing ring on that one. We tried. I don't mind having a vote on this. I have never minded having a vote on this. I think it is an important debate. People disagree. It is OK. We should air it out. But the bill before us would stop a process that is in place that is very important, not because it is a ``process'' but because 2 million people wrote comments about the Keystone Pipeline. We should not say to them: Your voices don't matter; we are going to truncate the process; I don't care what you said.

We already know there is a court case. This bill would approve the

Before the Senator from Iowa leaves the floor, I thank him not only for his heartfelt remarks, because what we are doing here--we are here a short period of time in essence, whether we are here 6 years or 26 or 36 or even longer.

How long has the Senator been here?

Forty years. When we look at the universe, we are here a very short time. He always thought about our kids and grandkids because that is what our job is.

We are so fortunate that we had a life in America that gave us the opportunity with policies that kept us healthy enough to do our work.

The tar sands are the dirtiest kind of oil there is. My friend makes that point. We need to protect the health of our families and the health of the planet, as my friend pointed out.

I just want to say to him how much I think it means to all Americans, the leadership the Senator has shown his entire career and the passion he is still showing today.

Yes.

Thank you so much.

I see that Senator Murkowski is here. We will reserve the balance of our time.

I am going to yield Senator Sanders 10 minutes.

I heard ``clean energy.'' Just for the record, let's be clear. The tar sands oil is one of the dirtiest known on the planet. Heavy metals--we went through it chapter and verse. The hardest to clean up-- it is a nightmare. So if my friend wants clean energy, she should vote no.

With that I yield 10 minutes to Senator Sanders.

Will the Senator yield without losing his time?

I ask unanimous consent that the time I use in this colloquy be taken off the time I have left.

I say to the Senator, your point is so well taken. I just want the Senator to know that this morning I said that the CEO of Keystone commented that there will be only 35 permanent jobs with the pipeline. I stand corrected. I went back and looked: 50 jobs--50 jobs.

The reason I want to take a minute to engage in this colloquy is that my friend has been, I think, one of the strongest and most effective voices for job creation and building a middle class that we have in the Senate. I was just looking at the numbers and wanted to go through a couple of things without my friend losing any time. In 2012 the U.S. installation of solar panels grew at a rate of 27 percent. I know my friend is trying desperately--and we work together on a lot of issues-- to get us to put more of these solar panels on. In 2013 the solar industry employed 142,000 Americans in good-paying jobs. In 2013 the U.S. solar industry added 24,000.

So just looking at solar--and wind is another great story. At the end of 2013 the U.S. wind industry supported 560 manufacturing facilities and supported 50,500 full-time jobs in development, siting, construction, transportation and manufacturing, operation and services--direct jobs.

When we look at putting 50,500 full-time jobs, 142,000 jobs from solar, and you compare it to 50 full-time jobs, I think the Senator was so right to make the jobs argument what the Senator is making of it. It is not 50 jobs to do something that is going to make life better for our people. It endangers the planet, and it has these terrible pollutants which cause respiratory illness, cancer, and the rest.

But I just wanted to thank the Senator for bringing up the issue of jobs because it is the biggest phony-baloney argument when you have the CEO of the company itself--of the pipeline--admit that it is 50 full- time jobs permanently. I think we have to shatter this illusion and continue to talk about clean energy future and really good jobs. I yield to my friend.

I am so pleased the Senator made the point.

Today we had Senator Thune make an eloquent statement about jobs-- eloquent--and I thought he was going to change his position on minimum wage. How about that. Try raising a family on that.

These wind tax credits and these solar tax credits, this is creating a boom. I will say in my State, as in yours, I put something in the Record today, we have bounced back from this recession better than almost any State because of clean energy. It is such a win/win.

But our friends on the other side, when it is something the oil companies want--oh, they are out there, oh, yes, yes, jobs. But we know this is 50 jobs. This is the CEO of this pipeline company admitting that is it, 50 jobs. So it is not about the jobs, it is about their view of energy, which is the old way, which is the going backward. This was not embracing the clean energy future so that we can, in fact, create many more jobs and keep the planet clean.

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

Madam President, how much time remains?

And on the other side?

While we are waiting for Senator Whitehouse--he is on his way--I want to focus the attention of those who are watching this debate on truly what we are talking about. If this was about building a pipeline that was carrying something that didn't hurt anybody, I wouldn't be standing here. But this is about building a pipeline that is going to carry the dirtiest oil we know of, and this dirty oil is already causing lots of problems.

Where it is refined in Port Arthur, TX, I met with the people there. I met with the people there. Senators don't live near refineries. Again, if I am wrong on that, I would like to be corrected. People live near refineries sometimes because it is where affordable housing is, and this is what it looks like. They do not want this stuff.

With all the talk of jobs, jobs, jobs, let's be clear. The CEO of the company said 50 jobs. So if you want to lay this kind of misery on people who live in this community, vote aye. That is fine. But just take a look at this. We don't see many kids playing on this playground because this pollution is vicious. It adds more heavy metals. It causes asthma. The pollutants cause cancer. We are talking about lead and we are talking about sulfur in very heavy quantities.

So let's be clear. We don't see my friends who support this talking about what happens when you refine, but that is what happens. If this was the only thing we could do to make ourselves energy independent, that is one thing, but I have already shown, with the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders, how many incredible jobs are being produced across this Nation in clean energy: solar, wind, geothermal. We are looking at a potential of millions. In California, those clean energy jobs have led us out of the darkest recession we have seen since the Great Depression, and I have put those statistics into the Record.

I have to say this. In all the years I have been in public life, starting when I was a county official, not one constituent ever came up to me and said: Barbara, the air is too clean. Oh, God. My air is so clean. The water I drink is so pure. Please don't get in the way of making it dirty. I have been in office for a very long time. No one has ever said that. On the contrary, what they say is: Please, my child has asthma. Please don't back off. Don't let Big Oil or big coal or the Koch brothers or whoever it is stand in the way of my family having a good quality of life.

We can take a look at a country where they have thrown the environment under the bus. Here it is. This is what it looks like. That is what it looks like in China. I am sure you have heard a lot of the speeches in China that we will be hearing here: Oh, we need the jobs and we need the energy. They realize now they are in trouble. The President just made a pact with the leader of China to cut back on pollution. But this is what happens when you throw the environment under the bus. People can't breathe. Kids have to wear masks. That is a fact.

Go to any school and ask the kids--and I know my friend, our great Presiding Officer--ask the kids: How many of you have asthma or how many of you know someone who has asthma? Honest to God, more than half the class will raise their hands.

We need clean energy. We need clean energy. We need clean energy jobs. And if we can clean up our coal, I will be right there. If we can do safe nuclear and not build these plants on earthquake faults, as they did in my State, fine. But don't unleash the dirtiest oil known to mankind when the CEO of the company says it means 50 jobs.

We all know that oil is going to be pumped right out of here. We all know it is the toughest oil to clean up because we have seen the spills in Kalamazoo, MI. We have seen the spills in Arkansas. Because of the nature of this oil, the heaviness of this oil, they are still cleaning up that oil 3 years later.

It is now my pleasure to yield to Senator Whitehouse for 10 minutes.

Before my friend leaves, since he said those of us who vote against this have the dumb disease--and I think it is funny. I am not insulted in any way, shape, or form. But I just feel very differently because I don't think it is dumb to say no to a resource that you think is going to hurt the people because it is such dirty, filthy oil.

The CEO of the pipeline company says it means 50 permanent jobs, when you could have so many more millions of jobs if you embrace clean energy.

Also, I don't think it is dumb at all to say what the economists are now saying, which is that it is going to raise gas prices at home because it is going to be exported.

So I think ``dumb'' is in the eyes of the beholder. And I think my colleague is very smart, but I don't think those of us who say no to Keystone are dumb. I think we are smart. I think we are looking at the future. I think we are standing up for the health of the American people. I think we are standing up for jobs and a clean energy economy, and I feel very strongly about that. And what we are talking about is the dirtiest, filthiest oil on the planet.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. He calls it the Keystone ``export'' pipeline, and that is exactly right. I call it the Keystone ``extra lethal'' pipeline given the type of pollutants that come with this oil.

At this time, I ask unanimous consent to propound a UC request on an issue that is completely different and ask that it not count against my time. It is a 60-second UC. I believe Senator Vitter is here to oppose it, but I don't want it to count against any debate time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 18, 2014, to conduct a business meeting where we would have three votes for two TVA members and one Nuclear Regulatory Commission member. All three nominees have had extensive hearings. In the case of Mr. Baran, he has had 88 written questions and answers.

Mr. President, I ask that we continue the agreement that this not count on Keystone time.

I need to make the point that Mr. Baran, who is the subject of Mr. Vitter's complaint, has already been confirmed. What we are doing is putting him in a different seat on the same commission that has a different expiration date. He has already had a hearing, and Senator Vitter asked 56 questions.

I think it is sad--the Republicans have won the election. Yes, they did. And they said: Oh, we are going to get busy and we are going to work.

All I want to do is have a meeting so we can do our work off the floor on people who have had extensive hearings. Now they say: Oh, no, we can't possibly do that. And then my friend talks about the nominee's lack of experience when, in fact, he was already confirmed. When Republican Commissioner Spinickey was nominated, she had never even visited a powerplant. Nobody ever said anything about that, and we all let it go.

Sadness is in my heart. Really. This is our work. We are here to work. I thought that is what the Republicans said they wanted to do-- they wanted to work. Oh, no. They come here and object to a meeting off the floor of the Senate so that we can move forward.

I wish to make a point: The TVA, Tennessee Valley Authority, is a very important authority. They deliver electricity, and they do it in a good way, they do it in a cheap way, and they do it in an environmentally sound way. That is their job. They need commissioners.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission--my God, after Fukushima, you would think people would want to work together. We have a great nominee who worked over in the House for years. He has already been confirmed.

Let it be known to the world, as I stand here today, after an election where I admit we lost and they won, and they said they were going to be good soldiers and cooperate, but we can't mark up the first thing that happens.

So now I will have to use another technique that I have in my rules, and I will, but I don't want to do it. I wanted to have a bipartisan meeting, but if they force me to just do it with the majority, which we now have, so be it. But I will not allow these vacancies to continue.

In the case of the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it is actually dangerous. I have nuclear powerplants sitting on earthquake faults and in tsunami zones. I want to have an NRC that is functional.

In any case, I will calm down and get back my Keystone Pipeline voice, and I say to my friends who are not here: They blocked this now, but unfortunately we will have to use the rules to get this done because that is our job. We have to fill these slots.

I thank my colleagues very much.

Senator Walsh is here and wishes to speak under the time of Senator Hoeven, and I will get out of the way and allow him to proceed.

How much time remains on the opponents' side?

How many remain on the proponents' side?

I yield the floor.

Could I ask the Senator to yield? I want to ask whose time is the Senator taking at this point?

That is fine. Thank you.

Reserving the right to object, could that be off my friend's time?

Then we need to add 5 minutes to our time.

A question through the Chair.

I think it would be very helpful if the three of us could get together for 1 minute to work out the details of how to close out, and then we could make a unanimous consent request so Senators would know exactly what to do.

May I suggest that we go into a quorum call and that it come off of all three sides and have a couple of minutes to discuss this. Is that all right?

We rethought this situation.

I ask unanimous consent that we take no time off of anybody's time at this point and that we just meet and discuss how we are going to close this debate.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Washington State.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order with respect to debate time on S. 2280, the time until 5:45 p.m. be equally divided between Senators Hoeven, Landrieu, and myself, or our designees, and that at 5:45 p.m., Senator Hoeven be recognized for up to 2 minutes for closing remarks; that upon the conclusion of his remarks, Senator Landrieu be recognized for up to 2 minutes; that upon the conclusion of her remarks, Senator Boxer be recognized for up to 4 minutes; that upon the conclusion of Senator Boxer's remarks, the Senate proceed to vote on passage of S. 2280, with all other provisions of the previous order with respect to the bill remaining in order; and finally, I ask unanimous consent that the time used by Senator Murray count toward Senator Boxer's time.

Mr. President, it is with great pride that I call on my colleague from California as she gets herself ready to speak to this issue. Senator Feinstein and I represent a State that is creating so many clean energy jobs, and I am very proud to yield to her 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be taken off everybody's time here.

Madam President, could the Presiding Officer tell us who has how much time at this point.

Well, Madam President, I will take three minutes of that time.

As we get ready to have a vote here in a while, what makes me very sad about this debate is that if we would all actually embrace an ``all of the above'' energy future, we wouldn't have to have these arguments. But we cannot get any support over there for clean energy. We just cannot. Let's just call it what it is.

It is sad because when I look at my home State, we are booming. We are booming because our State has always been an environmental leader and with it comes jobs and, as Jerry Brown has shown, balanced budgets. People are smiling.

I don't want it to look like what it looks like in China. We have a photo here. This is what it looks like in China. I know you have been there. People are walking around with masks on their faces because they cannot breathe the air and you cannot see. Yet still we go down this path. The heaviest polluting oil is what the tar sands oil is--the heaviest polluting oil.

I stood with doctors and nurses. They joined in my call for a health review. My colleagues say: Oh, well, this project has been studied up and down, up and down, and down and up. Well, I don't think so, neither does Senator Whitehouse and neither do the nurses who all joined with us. They are the most respected profession. So don't listen to me, because I am in one of the least respected professions, I am sad to say. Listen to the nurses. They say we need more studies on the health of the people. We don't want our people walking around like this. I remember the days in Los Angeles when the air looked like this. I don't want to go back to that. This is the filthiest, dirtiest oil. That is why I call XL ``extra lethal.''

The pipeline itself is a pipeline. It is what you are putting in it, it is what you are unleashing that is going to mean a 45-percent increase in the tar sands oil into our Nation, and there will be consequences.

I've got news for you. Senators don't live near refineries. Take a look at what that looks like. Senators don't live near pipelines when there are spills. This is what it looks like--lovely, isn't it--in Port Arthur, TX. I stood with the community leaders. This is what it looks like. This is filthy, dirty oil with pollutants that kill, and that is the truth.

Yet it is all: Oh, how many jobs? I will tell you how many jobs. The CEO of the pipeline company says it is 50 jobs.

Thank you very much. I will yield 1 more minute.

So the CEO of the company itself said 50 jobs. This is why we are risking the health of our children? The fact that they have to run away from the playground because they cannot breathe--this is worth it? This is supposed to be in the national interest? And the kicker is, as Senator Markey pointed out, all of the oil is going to be exported. It is going to drive up the price of gasoline here at home. I know this is counterintuitive, but it is a fact. The oil is going to come in here, it is going to go straight out, and all of this stuff that is refined here is going to move out of this country and our gas prices are going to go up so that kids have to suffer this because oil companies want to make more profit? Not in my world.

So I reserve the balance of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally.

Madam President, what is the time situation?

And that is before we get to the final debate?

Madam President, I want everyone who is watching us from Louisiana to know that without Mary Landrieu, we would not be having this debate. She makes a point when she says it is good to have this debate. It is really good to have debates. We have had debates before on war and on health care. I put them in a bit of a different category, but this is an important debate.

I do want to cover a little ground here. First of all, it is important to note we Democrats are under a big umbrella. We have Senators who agree with the Big Oil philosophy. We have Senators who agree with the ``all of the above'' philosophy, and we have Senators who are pushing for clean energy. This is true about our caucus, and I am proud.

Mary Landrieu and I worked hand-in-glove on Katrina. She asked me to do something for her in my capacity as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee that I had to say no to. She is a great Senator. The way I feel about Keystone is not the way she feels about it, and that is the beauty of our party.

I want to make it clear for the Record, I met with Canadians who live near the extraction of the dirty tar sands oil, I have met with the people in Port Arthur, TX, who live near the refineries of the dirty tar sands oil, and I have talked to community activists who saw a Little League team that had to flee a field in Chicago because the petcoke--petroleum coke, which is so filled with particulates that you can't breathe around it--started to fly all over the Little League field.

The Canadians I met with were not happy with their government. I am not here to pass judgment, but I will put in the Record:

In October 2014, the Canadian Office of the Auditor General

issued a scathing report detailing the Canadian Government's

failure to adequately protect the environment during the tar

sands development.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have this summary printed in the Record.

I can't get into how good Canada is on a daily basis, but I can tell you that when it comes to the tar sands, they don't have a good record.

I have stood with doctors and nurses from America, and they all said: This is dangerous, dangerous stuff because it has heavy metals, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, carcinogens, and all of these things.

So welcome, tar sands oil, to America to cut through our country and then be exported to other countries. I have to say that it leaves me in amazement.

Senator Markey laid it out. We are going to see higher gas prices because of this bill. They will just unleash more of their oil and get it out of here because they get a higher price abroad than they do in America.

When you stand with the people who live along the excavation route, when you stand with people who live right near the refineries, when you stand with people who had their kids playing Little League and soccer right near the petroleum coke, you have to say, what is in the national interest?

Madam President, I ask for 1 additional minute.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 1 minute.

I would add 1 minute to Senator Landrieu's time as well.

To me, all of these health reasons are reason enough to say let's not interrupt what the administration is going through now, which is careful study of whether this is safe for our people. Two million people sent in their comments. Don't shortcut that.

Then there is the whole issue of the climate. We know this tar sands oil is far more carbon intensive and it is going to hurt our planet, and we want to have a planet that is habitable for our children and our grandchildren and generations to come.

I embrace this debate. I think it is an important debate to have. But we really have to ask ourselves the question: Is it worth exposing our people to these risks, with whom I stood shoulder to shoulder, and is it worth exposing the planet to these risks when we can create millions of jobs in a clean energy economy as we are doing in my State? And we are going gangbusters.

I thank my colleagues, and I say to the people from Louisiana, they could not have a better fighter. We are in the ring together and it is tough, but that

is the beauty of the Democratic Party, that we are an inclusive party.

I yield my time.

Madam President, I wish to make a point of personal privilege. We would have voted on this bill a long time ago if my Republican friends had not blocked the Shaheen-Portman bill from being part of the unanimous consent agreement. Let's stop the hypocrisy that is going on here.

We would have had a vote, but it is only about Big Oil and the Koch brothers and all of that--fine. I am looking for this vote--win or lose--because we had to have it at some point. I was for having it a long time ago. If we want to grow this energy economy with good jobs, if we want to protect our families and protect our planet from devastating climate change, the vote is no on the Keystone XL Pipeline, which I call ``extra lethal.''

I will tell you, if the President vetoes this, I hope we will sustain the veto if it passes today.

We should work together for the future of clean energy which will create far more jobs than the 50 permanent jobs even the CEO of the Keystone Pipeline says is the right number. That is how many permanent jobs will be created.

I come from a State that is booming with hundreds of thousands of jobs, with balanced budgets, and clean energy future. I come from a State that embraced cleaning up the environment and building the economy and jobs. They go hand in hand. Anyone who tells you they don't really doesn't understand anything.

I can tell my friend--he talks about polls. I want to talk to him about another poll he won't like. That poll says that huge majorities of Americans want the EPA to clean the air, clean the water. They want them to do the job.

It is very popular even though some of my colleagues have tried to undermine the work of the EPA. So why don't we work together on a clean energy future, and if you want to know the way, come to my State.

We are looking at millions of jobs all across this nation in clean energy.

Why vote against this pipeline?

We know misery follows this pipeline. That is not rhetoric. Here is Port Arthur, where my friend says the mayor is all for this. Fine--I didn't meet with the mayor. My friend didn't understand. I met with the community leaders who live around here and breathe this stuff. Senators and mayors, with all due respect, don't live in these communities. What is in all of this black smoke that goes into your lungs if you happen to live there? It is huge amounts of pollution--more sulfur dioxide, far more nitrogen oxide, far more lead--and this is serious stuff. It is not rhetoric. It is fact. There is something called PAHs which are cancer-causing pollutants. That is proven. We put a peer-reviewed study into the record. I will show you a picture. This is what happens after you refine this tar sands oil. It goes to these holding areas.

I will tell you what happened in this particular case in Chicago. There was a little league baseball game going on right near this petcoke. The wind came up. The petcoke blew around, and this is a direct quote from the newspaper: Kids that were playing ball just had to get the heck out of there because all this stuff was going into their eyes and their mouths. For what? Fifty jobs? Fifty jobs and a lot of profit in the pocket of the people who own the tar sands oil? What is in the national interest?

I will just close with this.

I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds additional.

I want to show you a picture of a little girl. She has an oxygen mask on over her face. I am telling you, as sure as I am standing here, the nurses stood with me and the public health doctors stood with me and they said, you know what, let's be very careful here because this pipeline is going to unleash 45 percent more of the dirtiest, filthiest oil. That is why I call it the Keystone ``extra lethal'' Pipeline, and I hope we won't vote it up today. I hope we vote it down. I hope the President will veto it if it passes, and I will be on my feet because I came here to protect people like this.

I yield floor.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the 2014 World Series champions, the San Francisco Giants. By defeating the Kansas City Royals in a fiercely contested and exhilarating World Series, the Giants became the second team in the storied history of the National League to win three World Series in a five-season span.

Led by manager Bruce Bochy and general manager Brian Sabean, this outstanding roster of all-stars, unflappable veterans, and exciting young talent showed great resolve, determination, and character as they battled a tough National League Western Division to emerge with 88 wins and a spot in the playoffs.

The Giants began their title march by shutting out the Pittsburgh Pirates 8-to-0 in the one-game National League Wildcard game. In the National League Division Series, the Giants showed their championship pedigree by winning several tightly contested games against the Washington Nationals that included a thrilling 18-inning marathon, the longest in postseason history. In the National League Championship Series, the Giants captured the pennant by defeating the St. Louis Cardinals, four games to one.

Driven by the historic performance of pitcher Madison Bumgarner, World Series MVP, and with contributions from every player on the roster, the Giants triumphed over the Kansas City Royals in a hard- fought, seven-game series. This team battled to win a game seven that came down to the last pitch of the ninth inning when third baseman Pablo Sandoval caught the final out--making the Giants the first team in 35 years to win game seven on the road.

With a combination of excellent pitching, great defense and clutch hitting, the Giants are bringing the World Series trophy back to China Basin for the third time in five seasons. They have evolved from the 2010 championship team that was fondly described as ``a band of misfits'' to a team that has etched themselves into baseball history. With this eighth World Series title--their third in five seasons--the San Francisco Giants have taken their rightful place among the nation's greatest franchises and chief executive officer Larry Baer and the entire Giants organization should be very proud.

I also want to congratulate the loyal San Francisco Giants fans, who have supported their team through good years and bad, and from the windy Candlestick Park to the picturesque AT&T Park. Whether it is nearly 42,000 fans turning the stadium into a sea of orange on an ``Orange Friday'' or wearing panda hats for Pablo Sandoval or bringing funny Hunter Pence signs, Giants fans have created an electric atmosphere at AT&T Park and provided its team with one of the most formidable home park advantages in all of baseball.

As the San Francisco Giants and their fans celebrate the 2014 championship campaign, I congratulate them on their unforgettable season and look forward to their continued success in 2015 and beyond.

Madam President, we yield back all time on this side.

Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Geoffrey ``Craig'' Hunt, a 13-year veteran pilot with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, CAL FIRE. Craig was an exceptional firefighting pilot, a loyal friend, and most of all a devoted family man who was tragically killed in the line of duty fighting the Dog Rock Fire near Yosemite National Park on October 7, 2014.

Craig Hunt was born in Richmond, IN, and dedicated his life to serving his country, first as a U.S. Navy P-3 pilot from 1975 to 1984 and then in the Naval Reserve for 20 years after leaving active duty. Craig was also an enthusiastic and accomplished scholar who received a master's degree in business from the University of Southern California. A lifelong interest in science and the natural world led him to also earn a master's degree in biochemistry from the University of California at Santa Cruz. His passion for learning led him to teaching. In the winter months, when the fire season was over, he worked at UC Santa Cruz as a course assistant teaching general chemistry and organic chemistry labs.

Always at home in the cockpit of a plane, Craig loved his job as a pilot with CAL FIRE. For 13 years he valiantly answered the call to protect public safety and the environment by piloting aircraft during emergencies. He had a vast knowledge about wild land fires and was skilled in pinpointing aerial attacks in places that were difficult for ground crews to reach.

Colleagues remember Craig as an experienced and respected pilot who loved his job. He was happy and outgoing, quick with a smile, and had a fantastic sense of humor. A friend and neighbor recalled that Craig would ``drop anything in a heartbeat if you needed help or assistance.''

When he was not on duty, Craig was an avid outdoorsman with a passion for golfing, fly fishing, hiking, bird watching, and scuba diving. Standing beside him through it all was his beloved wife Sally, whom he met in college and married in 1975. Craig was also a devoted father to his two daughters, Sarah and Nancy. His daughter Sarah said about him, ``My dad died a hero. There was not a day that went by that I didn't talk to my dad. He was my best friend.''

Craig Hunt dedicated his life to his family, his community, and his country, and his courageous service will be forever remembered. On behalf of the people of California, whom he served so bravely, I extend my gratitude and deepest sympathies to his family, friends, and colleagues. He will be deeply missed.

Madam President, what is the order?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak until I conclude. It may go over that time, but not by much.

Thank you so much, Madam President.

I am here because I want to respond to the colloquy that was held on the Keystone Pipeline, but before I go there, I do want to make remarks about the very important vote we are going to be taking today both to keep the government open and to give the President the ability to train and equip vetted Syrian moderates so they can help us take the fight to

Madam President, I said I was going to talk about an issue I know the Presiding Officer and I don't agree on. I have total respect for her view. The people of her State are so lucky to have her fighting their fight on energy. The people of my State have a disagreement. We are very fearful about climate change. So we are also worried about the health impact of the tar sands.

I am going to make a few comments about why I think we should disrupt the process that is happening now with Keystone. It is a well- established process for considering projects such as this. The purpose of the review process isn't just to waste time. It is to determine whether the construction of the Keystone tar sands pipeline is in fact in the national interest. This is important. It is a major project.

In the past, Republicans have attempted to circumvent the review process for Keystone by creating shortcuts that in my opinion put our families' health at risk.

I want to show you a chart. It shows you that tar sands oil is one of the filthiest kinds of oil on the planet.

Let's look at a place in Texas where we see the tar sands oil being refined. This is Port Arthur. We have had visits from the Port Arthur community, and they said, please, we want to bear witness to the fact that this is what it looks like when these tar sands are burned. It hurts the health of our people. Residents along the gulf coast are suffering from asthma, respiratory illness, skin irritation, and cancer, and to get to the gulf coast the tar sands will be transported by pipeline through communities in environmentally sensitive areas in six States. It will pass through key sources of drinking water.

Look what happened in West Virginia when they couldn't drink the water there. It was a nightmare.

We have had experience with tar sands. People talk about how the pipeline is one thing, but it is what goes through it that is critical, and what is going to go through it if it gets built is the dirtiest, filthiest kind of water we know.

What happens in places such as Detroit and Chicago, where they store the byproduct known as petcoke--take a look at this. This is what it looks like. It looks like filthy, dirty pollution, and unfortunately for the people, that is what it is.

When the wind is blowing, we see black clouds containing concentrated heavy metals. Children playing baseball have been forced off the field to seek cover to avoid the black dust that pelts their homes and cars. Petcoke dust is a particulate matter, which is the most harmful of all air pollutants. Why? Its particles are so small, they lodge in your lungs and cause terribly severe asthma attacks, aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body's ability to fight infections. Asthma affects 12 out of every 26 people--and 7 million of those are children.

If I could, I would ask the people in the gallery how many of them have asthma or know someone who has asthma. I know a lot of them would raise their hands. It is ubiquitous. We don't need more asthma.

There are other ways to go, and my State and other countries are proving it. We can move to clean energy. We need to have a comprehensive human health impact on the tar sands that would go through that pipeline because human health is important. If you can't breathe, you can't work. It is as simple as that. If you can't breathe, you can't go to school and get an education. If you can't drink the water, it is a serious problem.

While my Republican friends come down and say: Let's bypass all of this evidence and move forward, that is a dangerous idea. It is a dangerous idea.

I went to China about a year ago. You cannot see one foot in front of the other in China. That is how bad the air is because they don't care about the environment. They say: Oh, we don't need rules; we don't need regulations. Build, build, build. Do it, do it, do it, do it. Go and get it out of the ground.

There are moments we need to look at what we are doing. We are doing great right now on energy. Under this President we have become more energy efficient. Yes, there are places to drill, there are places to get energy, but it has to be clean and it has to be good.

We have just come out of the hottest August ever known to humankind since we began keeping the records in the 1800s. Climate change is so real, the only place they don't know it is here is the United States Senate. They don't know. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Everything is great. Everything is good.

My colleague from Vermont is brilliant on this point, and we know the Keystone tar sands pipeline will create 17 percent more carbon than domestic oil. This is a dirty, filthy oil that is the equivalent of adding 5.8 million new cars to the road, or eight new coal powerplants.

The State Department has concluded that the annual carbon pollution from just the daily operation of the pipeline will be the equivalent to adding 300,000 new cars on the road. If we do this, we will go backward on climate change. We cannot afford to do it.

I know people get impatient with decisionmaking--whether it is deciding how to take the fight to ISIL--and I am glad I have a deliberative President who didn't just say: Do this and this. He thought about it and came up with an idea for a coalition to do it right. When you are looking at something such as the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is going to vastly increase the importation of this filthy, dirty oil, we ought to take our time.

My very last point. I am so proud to chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. Four former Republican EPA Administrators who served under Presidents Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush spoke out on the need to address the danger of climate change.

Really, this is not about bipartisanship. Ninety-seven percent of scientists tell us climate change is real and caused by human activity. Please, let's take our time. When we are faced with a project that will set us back--the dirtiest, dirtiest oil--a picture is worth a thousand words, and this is not what I want to leave to our children.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

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 September 18, 2014, at 11 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Assessing and Enhancing Protections in Consumer Financial Services.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public

Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 18, 2014.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 18, 2014.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 18, 2014, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 18, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Fulfilling the Promise: Overcoming Persistent Barriers to Economic Self-Sufficiency for People with Disabilities.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 18, 2014, at 11 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 18, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Tax Audits of Large Partnerships.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 18, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Today I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 100th birthday and extraordinary contributions of former Congressman Don Edwards.

Don was born on January 6, 1915, in San Jose, CA, where he attended public schools and graduated from the San Jose High Academy. He then attended Stanford University, where he was a star on the golf team, winning a State medal for match play along with several amateur titles. After graduating in 1936, Don earned his LL.B. at Stanford Law School.

In 1940, Don was hired as a special agent by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. When World War II broke out, he was activated from the Navy Reserve and served for 4 years as a naval intelligence officer and gunnery officer in the South Pacific, attaining the rank of lieutenant.

In the 1950s, Don founded the Valley Title Company and built it into one of the Nation's leading title insurance companies. In 1962, he was elected to Congress.

During his 32 years in the House of Representatives, Don Edwards became known as ``the Congressman from the Constitution,'' the leading congressional defender of civil liberties and chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. I was lucky enough to serve with Don for 10 years and see firsthand his steadfast dedication to his home State of California and the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans.

In the 1960s, he helped guide landmark civil rights and voting rights legislation through Congress. In the 1970s, he led the efforts to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. A master consensus-builder, he helped forge large bipartisan majorities to pass the Voting Rights Act extension of 1982, Fair Housing Amendments of 1988, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and Civil Rights Act of 1991.

One of Don's proudest achievements was the creation of the Nation's first urban national wildlife refuge on the southern end of San Francisco Bay. Established in 1974, it was renamed the ``Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge'' in 1995.

In 1981, Don married his longtime partner, Edith ``Edie'' Wilkie, director of Congress's Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus, and even after they retired, she remained active in arms control and international peace for the rest of her life.

Today Don lives in beautiful Carmel among a tight circle of friends and family, including his sons, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. They will join him in January to celebrate his 100th birthday. As he reaches this milestone, I send him my best wishes, deep affection, and abiding gratitude.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the 40th anniversary of Swords to Plowshares, one of the preeminent organizations providing quality, compassionate care and services to veterans in the San Francisco Bay area.

In 1974, six veterans concerned about the challenges facing soldiers returning home from Vietnam established a program to help ease their transition to civilian life by providing education, job training, and employment assistance. Swords to Plowshares quickly earned a reputation as a trusted resource for veterans, and over the years it has grown to meet the needs of each new generation of veterans.

As veterans came home from Vietnam, Swords to Plowshares created extensive health, social services, legal services, and housing programs to support them. Following the gulf war, Swords began offering programs to address mental health and substance

abuse among veterans. As veterans returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, Swords worked with vets and their families to identify gaps in VA services and established the Institute for Veteran Policy to make recommendations to the military and VA to better address the needs of our newest veterans.

Today, with the help of more than 100 dedicated staff, Swords provides employment and job training, legal services, and housing assistance to more than 2,000 veterans in the San Francisco Bay area each year.

I want to extend my special thanks to Michael Blecker, a U.S. Army veteran who joined Swords in 1976 and has served as its executive director since 1980. I am lucky to have known Michael for more than two decades, and there is no one who has been more dedicated to ensuring that veterans are treated with the dignity they deserve.

Our service men and women and their families who have made tremendous sacrifices in service to America deserve not only our deepest gratitude but also our commitment to help them lead healthy and productive lives. As Swords to Plowshares celebrates its 40th anniversary, I offer my profound thanks for all it does to fulfill our sacred obligation to our Nation's veterans.

Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 85th birthday and extraordinary contributions of my dear friend, the Reverend Cecil Williams.

For more than half a century, Reverend Williams has served as the founder and minister of Liberation at Glide Memorial United Methodist Church in San Francisco, CA. As a minister, community leader, author, lecturer, and champion of the poor and marginalized, Reverend Williams is widely recognized and revered as a national leader in the struggle for civil rights, human rights, and social change.

Cecil Williams was born in San Angelo, TX, and from a very young age, this caring and sensitive boy was fondly known as ``the Rev'' by his close-knit family. Cecil grew up in the segregated South, but his strong, loving mother always told her son, ``You are going to be somebody.''

After graduating from Huston-Tillotson University and the Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University, Cecil Williams became the pastor of Glide Memorial United Methodist Church at a time when its congregation was dwindling. Reverend Williams embarked on his life's work: to make this church the center of a vibrant community that would reach out to all, particularly the poor, oppressed, and marginalized.

Reverend Williams welcomed worshippers of all backgrounds, races, and sexual orientations. In 1964, he helped establish the Council on Religion and Homosexuality an organization dedicated to educating religious communities about gay and lesbian issues and stood up to police who attempted to shut down a dance benefit to raise funds for the new organization. Reverend Williams was also one of the first clergymen to take a stand for same-sex couples by presiding over their weddings four decades before today's struggle to legalize gay marriage.

Under his leadership, Glide Memorial thrived and became a cornerstone of the community. He hosted poets, jazz musicians, and political activists at the church and launched a free meals program that serves 750,000 meals a year, feeding more than 3,500 hungry people daily. Today more than 17,000 people participate in Glide programs, volunteering in its community clinic, childcare, and afterschool programs, housing services, and Daily Free Meals program.

Reverend Williams is married to Janice Mirikitani, Founding President of the Glide Foundation, and together they direct Glide's many innovative social and cultural programs.

In his life and work, Rev. Cecil Williams has embodied Glide Memorial's revolutionary mission: ``to create a radically inclusive, just and loving community mobilized to alleviate suffering and break the cycles of poverty and marginalization.''

I am proud to join his family, friends, and many admirers in celebrating the 85th birthday and extraordinary contributions of Rev. Cecil Williams.