Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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

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

So let's review the evidence.

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

UACs are unaccompanied alien children.

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

of consequences they will receive when apprehended at the

U.S. border.''

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

UTEP [University of Texas El Paso] was informed that

smugglers of family members of unaccompanied alien children

understand that once a UAC is apprehended for illegal entry

into the United States, the individual will be reunited with

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

immigration hearing.

There will be some sort of hearing set for them.

This process appears to be exploited by illegal alien

smugglers and family members in the United States who wish to

reunite with separated children. It was observed by the

researchers that the current policy is very similar to the

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

Security faced prior to the passage of the Intelligence

Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

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

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

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

The information is apparently common knowledge in Central

America and is spread by word of mouth and international and

local media. A high percentage of the subjects interviewed

stated that their family members in the United States urged

them to travel immediately, because the United States

government was only issuing immigration `permisos' until

the end of June 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Virtually all immigration experts agree that it would be

counterproductive to offer an explicit or implied path to

permanent resident status (or citizenship) during any

legalization program. That would simply encourage the fraud

and illegal border crossings that other features of the

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

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

even address future permanent resident status or citizenship.

That is from an official government report.

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

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

Currently only 3 percent of apprehensions from countries

other than Mexico are being repatriated to their countries of

citizenship, which are predominately located in Central

America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

then they are no longer an enforcement priority.

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

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

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

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

York quotes ex-ICE official Gary Mead:

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

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

eliminating the backlog.

How obvious is that?

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

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

the border are able to game our asylum and immigration laws

because the Obama administration has severely weakened them

and many thousands have already been released into the

interior of the United States. What does President Obama plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the U.S. government fails to deliver adequate

consequences to deter aliens from attempting to illegally

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

the rate of recidivism and first-time illicit entries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam President, on June 4, 2014, I was proud to participate with the National Energy Resource Organization in bestowing its Distinguished Service Award to Senator Tom Carper.

NERO has, since 1978, recognized in a nonpartisan manner outstanding achievements in the energy field, particularly in the areas of public awareness regarding energy development, supply, and use.

Senator Carper was recognized for his long career of honorable public service and his leadership. In the Senate, Senator Carper has served as a senior member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and as one of the wisest supporters of nuclear power. Senator Carper is the past chair of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee. In that role he led the effort to pass the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act with Senator George Voinovich and conducted vigorous oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It has been my privilege to work with him on this committee as his ranking member.

As we all know, Senator Carper has been willing to work across the aisle on energy issues, and he is simply one of the best people we have in this body. He lives by the Golden Rule and sets the kind of example on a daily basis that we all admire and should seek to emulate. I wanted to share this good news with my colleagues.

Madam President, I was proud to participate on June 4, 2014, with the National Energy Resource Organization when it presented

its Distinguished Service Award to our colleague, Senator Jim Inhofe.

Since 1978, NERO has recognized in a nonpartisan manner outstanding achievements in the energy field, particularly in the areas of public awareness regarding energy development and use. In addition to working for 30 years in the private sector, Jim is the past mayor of Tulsa, U.S. Congressman, and has represented the State of Oklahoma in the U.S. Senate since 1994.

Senator Inhofe was recognized for his service as the lead Republican on the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee for 10 years, 4 of those years as its chairman. He has been a strong proponent of Oklahoma's energy resources and truly believes in an ``all of the above'' approach to American energy. Through his work on both of his committees, he has demonstrated that energy independence is not just an economic issue but a national security issue.

Senator Inhofe is well respected in the Senate on energy issues, and he has been in the forefront of every energy and environmental issue in the Senate for the last 20 years.

All of us know of Senator Inhofe's dedication to this Nation, his faith, and to a strong energy production. We also know of his giving spirit and his heart for Africa. We are amazed at all he accomplishes. Every day he gives his total and relentless effort towards making America a better place.

I wanted to share this good news with our colleagues.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. President, when a nation commits itself to a military effort, it is a very significant, august decision. I was here when we voted to utilize military force in Iraq and Afghanistan. A majority of the Democrats in this body supported that. The American people supported that.

Through tough times, success was achieved in the sense that Iraq had elections, they had a functioning government, the U.S. military was drawing down its personnel, the country had a reconciliation with the Sunni and the Shia and the Kurds, and we were on a path that gave us some prospect, I believe it is fair to say--critics can have different opinions--but it is pretty clear to me we had prospects for a successful conclusion of that effort which would allow a relatively stable, relatively democratic nation to be established that did not threaten its neighbors or the United States.

So we should have not done that. Well, we did that. That is what has happened. That was the situation when President Obama took office. He failed, in my opinion, in negotiating the kind of drawdown in the status of forces agreement that needed to be established to be able to create credibility in this new and fragile regime and help hold their military together, keep them trained, while we reduced dramatically our presence and military activities. We would be there as support, supplying equipment, intelligence, aircraft lift capability. That would have given them confidence.

It was very clear when we just said: We cannot reach an agreement. We are pulling everybody out. We had General Bednarek talk to us recently. He told us he has 100 solders. I asked him if he was the current General Petraeus.

He said, yes, with a bit of a smile, but he only has 100 people. So I guess I would say we are worried about it. One of the things that is so critical in our conduct and understanding of what we are involved in is to understand that the terrorist threat is going to be there for a long time. We are going to be dealing with this for a long time. There is a significant number, not a majority by any means but a significant number, of radicalized people in the Middle East who want to destroy the United States. They see us as an evil force. They support what we oppose. They want to take over their neighbors and continue to expand. They want to knock down reasonably functioning regimes that provide at least some freedom and order in their societies. They want to impose a caliphate. They want to impose on those countries a theocratic government and legal system.

It is not good for the United States and it is not good for the world. One of the things we have to do and have to understand is that when we capture a person committed to the destruction of the United States, and who is attacking our people, they are not criminals. They are warriors. Most of their activities are clearly contrary to the law of war. So they are unlawful enemy combatants.

When we capture a soldier in battle, whether lawful or unlawful, if they have complied with the rules of war, unlike this group, we do not try them, per se. We hold them until the war is over, until a peace treaty has been signed, until an agreement has been reached. That is not happening now. As a result, we have a confused policy that results in the release of dangerous enemy combatants, such as the five Taliban leaders we just released under this confused thinking.

It fundamentally arose when the left--determined to attack President Bush--attacked the secure terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. They argued that it became some symbol of the policies we are using to detain people who are captured enemy

combatants, lawful or unlawful. When we capture them, we hold them. We do not release them so they can go back to the war and kill us. We are going to send soldiers out to capture them, and then once they have been captured, we are going to release them so they continue into the war? It goes against all common sense. As Justice Jackson once said: The Constitution is not a ``suicide pact.''

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

So they have to be treated properly and that sort of thing, but they do not have to be released. We captured, for example, Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai last year for conspiring with bin Ladin to attack U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Somalia and for his part in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. Embassies in East Africa that killed 224 people before 9/11. He is a treasure trove of intelligence.

U.S. forces went in and captured him, took him away at risk of their lives. He had been undergoing interrogation on the USS San Antonio until he said he was sick and not doing well. So what happened? They took him to New York, where he was formally arrested and taken into the custody of the U.S. Justice Department, and put into the civilian justice system. The purpose of capturing him was to get intelligence. This is a warrior. We want to talk to him. We want to see what we can learn about him. Even the New York Times said ``his capture was seen as a potential intelligence coup because he had been on the run for years and so would, presumably, possess information about al Qaeda.'' However, when he appeared in Federal court, he was appointed a lawyer, guaranteed a speedy, public trial--the things that prisoners of war are not entitled to--yet this has been happening over and over again. Al- Ruqai's cooperation ended, leading to a major lost opportunity to obtain valuable intelligence.

This evidences a serious lack of understanding of the nature of the conflict we are engaged in. It evidences a policy that is dangerous to our safety. It is wrong to send Americans to capture people such as this and then treat them in a way that allows them to minimize the opportunity to obtain intelligence.

Indeed, the gravest danger with bringing enemy combatants to U.S. soil is that the President cannot absolutely prevent their release into the United States. And, once foreign nationals are here, there are legal limits on the government's ability to remove them from the U.S. The reality is, once here, their fate is no longer simply up to the administration but also a federal judge.

There are many examples of foreign nationals who have committed murder and other serious crimes and were released into the U.S. when our government could not transfer them to another country.

This risk extends to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. We saw that in the case of Kiyemba v. Obama. There, the D.C. District Court ordered the release into the United States of a group of ethnic Chinese Uighers who were detained at Guantanamo, many of whom had received military-style training in Tora Bora. Fortunately, the D.C. Circuit reversed the decision based on the fact that the Gitmo detainees had not been brought to the United States. If, however, Gitmo detainees are brought here, a judge may very well order them released into the United States if they cannot be removed to another country. That very real risk obviously does not exist if Gitmo detainees are not brought to the United States in the first place.

The course this administration has chosen on national security matters has steered us into a head-on collision with reality. The American people unequivocally oppose transplanting terrorists from Gitmo into their own communities, either for detention or trial. Our primary goal is to prevent future terrorist attacks, especially through obtaining intelligence. We should not jeopardize that goal in order to afford foreign terrorists who seek to harm the United States and its citizens the rights and privileges granted to ordinary criminals. The administration's policy has put this country at grave risk.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate the work of my colleagues on this legislation. They have accomplished some very good things. We need legislation to pass to help our veterans. The needs are real, and recent revelations of substantially substandard care--and too often no care at all--at our VA medical centers are shocking. There is and has been a long-term problem with the management of that agency. It is heartbreaking. It is an embarrassment. We owe our veterans better care than they have been given.

One of the keys to improve that care is improving accountability, ensuring money is being properly spent, not simply wasted by government bureaucrats. The money needs to get to our veterans.

Our national debt now is $17 trillion. It is growing rapidly. We cannot be lighthearted or cavalier about our responsibility to follow our agreement to honor the budget limitations we have. There are a lot of budgetary freedoms we have and a lot of ability we have and duties we have to set priorities in our spending. Veterans clearly are a priority. I fought hard against the recent push to cut veterans pensions and led an effort to restore those pensions payments.

In this case we are dealing with an issue of bureaucratic accountability. What happens so often is that in the crush and press of business, we are unable to reach agreements on finding money somewhere else in this monstrous bureaucracy and government of ours, and we simply break the budget and add to the debt. Our veterans deserve better than that.

I am the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee. We wrestle with these issues--the chairman of the committee, Senator Murray--and the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office indicate that this legislation, as drafted, violates the Budget Act.

Indeed, the entire bill, the way the language is written, has been declared an ``emergency'' which allows its authors to avoid finding the efficiencies and the accountabilities needed to stay within the Federal budget limits both parties agreed to. There is plenty of wasteful spending to be cut elsewhere in government, and much we can do to increase accountability at the VA.

Even more concerning is the new open-ended entitlement legislation in the bill. The bill would authorize emergency spending but sets no limits on that spending. Section 801 says ``such sums as necessary.'' Well, how much is necessary? This is an important conversation to have, to wrestle with, and to develop solutions. But by simply not developing these solutions, we invite more of the same kind of accountability problems we have seen that brought us here.

I feel strongly that we have to do the right thing for our veterans, but history suggests a blank check for the bureaucracy, an unlimited entitlement program, will not have the desired results--indeed, may even yield the opposite results from what we hope to achieve.

We need to resist the temptation to create more entitlements and more entitlements, which is one of the reasons we are heading recklessly toward fiscal crisis, as our own Congressional Budget Office has indicated, and instead focus on creating reforms and solutions that improve that quality of service and the effectiveness that is delivered. Isn't that our job? Isn't that what our veterans deserve from us--the very best we can give them? As many hours as it takes for us to get this right, instead of simply avoiding the difficult issues we must tackle to solve this calamity long-term?

There are also 3 years of emergency spending under the legislation, which I think is an unwise precedent for us to set. Again: it leads to the kind of unaccountability, the lack of oversight that helped create this crisis in the first place. We should designate--maybe if we have to do this--2014 money this year where the crisis is. We have already appropriated money. If we need some more, that could be perhaps justified as emergency spending, but a 3-year bill goes beyond what I think is proper. It fails to establish the oversight that Congress has a solemn duty to deliver. We can't just write a blank check and think it will solve these problems. We have to ask the tougher, deeper questions about the changes needed in Washington to do right by our veterans. Details matter. Every line of legislation matters. We need to get this right.

The Appropriations Committee has already reported out the 2015 VA-HUD bill. It is already on the floor and could be here as early as next week. The Senate could easily attach a bipartisan amendment to that that provides the spending called for in this bill with offsets, cuts, efficiencies, and reductions in other spending to pay for it. There are places we could do this.

So I have to tell you, there are some good things in the bill. I think there are. It improves the situation. I like the idea of giving veterans more choice to go to the doctor who is close to them. It is something Senator McCain and Senator Sanders have agreed on. I think that is progress, very much so, but I have to say I cannot suggest to my colleagues that the budget violation now before us should be waived. It should not. Ignoring this requirement will not help our veterans in the long run, but will lead to the same kind of problems we are confronting today. We should adhere to the agreement we reached on spending by finding offsets. If we don't adhere to our spending limits, other programs will crowd out the budget for veterans and mean we have less money in the future not more, to fund these programs. If we ignore our debt, we do a disservice to our veterans. Unfortunately, the bill does not do what the law we agreed to requires. It is not paid for. We all agree veterans are our priority. So then is it not our duty to them to fulfill this priority by reducing wasteful spending elsewhere so that money can be spent on veterans instead? Can we not deliver for these veterans that most basic level of responsibility on our part as lawmakers?

Finally, colleagues, a vote to sustain the budget point of order is a vote that tells the committee to find appropriate money for the bill and does not kill the bill. It does not knock down the bill. It allows it to continue to be alive and a piece of legislation before us. It would just require us to fix the funding. It would require us to fix the bill. So that

is what we should be doing. That is why I feel I must raise the budget point of order.

In summary, the bill has mandatory spending that violates the limits we have agreed to in the Budget Act, and the bill also abuses the emergency designation to circumvent the requirement for offsets and the need for accountability.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the emergency designation provision contained in Section 802(b) of H.R. 3230, the vehicle for S. 2450, the Veterans' Access to Care Through Choice Act, pursuant to section 403(E)(1) of the fiscal year 2010 budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 13.

I thank my colleague.

I serve as the ranking member of the Budget Committee and have worked with Ms. Burwell in her now just 13 months, I think, of service in the tremendously important position of Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I do not believe she has the background, the qualities, and experience--proven managerial leadership--required at that huge Department of Health and Human Services. She has 500 people working in the budget office, and that is an important office. At HHS there are over 70,000. She once served on a board of a local hospital. She simply is not the person whom we need today to bring order out of the disarray we have in the health care system of this country and the total collapse of integrity and consistency in the implementation of ObamaCare.

There are a couple things I care about, but I really think it time for this administration to stop moving around insiders, political allies, and put some people in these critical positions capable of operating them at the highest possible level.

Ms. Burwell violated the Medicare trigger, for example. If the trustees of Medicare issue a report that it is heading to insolvency, it is a critical matter. The administration by law is required within 2 weeks to submit a plan to fix Medicare. They have been submitting this report for years.

As the President's director, under 31 U.S.C. 1105, Ms. Burwell was the person responsible for submitting Medicare legislation to Congress. We asked her about that before she was confirmed. During her hearings, she said she would ``do everything in her power'' to comply with the Federal law. Yet, despite this assurance, she refused to comply with the law and never submitted a plan. Don't we need a plan to fix Medicare? Don't we need the Chief Executive of America, through the budget director, to submit a plan to fix it?

She also violated the law and denied Congress needed transparency with respect to the health care law, the ObamaCare law. The Omnibus appropriations bill signed into law in January required HHS to include in its fiscal year 2015 budget a detailed accounting of spending to implement the health law. But neither the budget director, Ms. Burwell, nor the agency she now will head submitted sufficient information to comply with that.

My time is up, but I will say that I am very much taken with Ms. Burwell. She is a delightful person. Many of my colleagues think highly of her, and some, like our West Virginia Senators and others, really think she will do a good job. But this is not the right position for her. This government is drifting into disarray in a whole host of ways. We need the strongest possible, capable leader, with proven health care managerial experience for the good of America and for the good of President Obama. This is not the right nominee.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Today I would like to discuss the nomination of Sylvia Burwell to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. I am going to make some criticisms of her performance and the background she lacks in taking on this huge agency.

I have met with her, worked with her some as OMB Director. I like her, and she is courteous and capable, so I am not talking personally in any bad way about her, but this is an important agency, one of the most important agencies in our Nation. The Secretary of Health and Human Services oversees several of the largest programs in the entire Federal Government. Crucially, the Secretary is also the person tasked with implementing the President's health care law. It is essential that anyone who fills this position possess great skill, relevant experience, proven managerial experience, and who will act with independence and in the best interests of the American public--one who, at this critical time, puts country over politics. They cannot be a political loyalist, but they must be someone of stature, integrity, and sound judgment who is willing to tell the President no if asked to circumvent the law, provide false information, or otherwise act against the public interest.

From the President's own perspective, he needs desperately someone who is able to evaluate these major programs such as ObamaCare with wisdom and tell him and help him--and particularly tell the American people the truth.

Ms. Burwell does not have the background one associates with a position of this magnitude. She just does not. Nor does she possess the specific skills critically needed today. The OMB office she now holds has 500 employees. HHS has 72,000.

Aside from her short tenure at the Office of Management and Budget, which has just been 13 months, she is just now beginning to find her way around, presumably, that office. She has never run any major department, any major health care department, a department or an agency, a major business, a significant city, or a State. There are many very capable people in this country who would be much more ready to assume the august responsibilities of this job.

It appears her most significant health care role prior to this was serving as a board member--part-time board member--of a local university medical center.

In fact, 2 months ago in a Budget Committee hearing, Ms. Burwell declined to answer a basic health care question until she said she would seek Secretary Sebelius's expertise on the matter, but she never provided that answer anyway.

Her time as Director of the Office of Management and Budget was controversial. The budget plan she submitted to Congress plainly violated the spending caps Congress and the President agreed to and passed into law. She produced a budget plan that would increase spending by nearly $791 billion over 10 years. That is above the Ryan- Murray agreement that passed in Congress that set these spending limits just a few weeks before, including, in that budget, a proposal to increase spending by $56 billion over the budget next year.

As the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, I have been involved in this and observing it. To my dismay, she went to enormous lengths during her testimony before the committee to try to conceal this increase in spending. It was very amazing to me.

On the day the President's budget was submitted, the Associated Press reported that the plan Ms. Burwell authored ``lays waste to the spending caps that the White House and Congress agreed to late last year.''

Also at the same time The Hill reported the budget this way--Obama's ``$3.9T budget busts spending limits.''

Remember, Ms. Burwell was the Director of Office of Management and Budget. Her staff produces the budget and defended the budget.

It goes on to say in the first paragraph the truth of the situation in The Hill. The article is by Erik Wasson.

President Obama on Tuesday released a $3.9 trillion

election-year budget blueprint that would bust the bipartisan

budget ceiling agreed to in December with $56 billion in new

stimulus spending.

This was 10 weeks after they had agreed to one level of spending. She walks in and produces a budget that is $700-, $800 billion almost more in spending over the budget of 10 years, and $56 billion more the next year.

When I asked her about that, apparently it was politically sensitive. Apparently they had decided they didn't want to admit they were spending more money. The Associated Press says they did. Politico said they did. The budget they submitted that was in law--laid before the Budget Committee--plainly demonstrated it spent more than they agreed to spend.

I asked her about it. It went something like this. It was a very long exchange. It was frustrating for me. I will quote from some of them, because I think we need to understand these issues. I asked her about the spending excess:

Mr. SESSIONS. So you're proposing that we alter Ryan-Murray

[that is the law that set new spending limits, allowed more

spending than we previously agreed to, but it continued to

set some limits] so you can spend $56 billion more next year

alone. Yes or no; is that correct?

Ms. BURWELL. We propose a paid-for [initiative] . . .

Mr. SESSIONS. Can't you answer that question simply? Yes or

no? Do you propose to spend $56 billion more than Ryan-Murray

allows?

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, we do propose a change in the law

that would be fully paid for that would invest in things that

we believe are necessary for the economic health of the

nation.

Mr. SESSIONS. Do you want to spend more than the President

agreed to when he signed the Ryan-Murray 10 weeks ago?

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, we signed Ryan-Murray . . .

Mr. SESSIONS. Now, I'm just asking, yes or no; are you

[spending] more or less?

Ms. BURWELL. Senator, I think there are some questions that

are not simply yes or no questions . . .

Mr. SESSIONS. This one is a yes or no question. You're

refusing to answer it . . .

I simply asked a public servant who is paid by the taxpayers: Are you spending more money than the Ryan-Murray budget had agreed to and the President signed? And she refused to answer. It was really frustrating. But I think it is indicative of the fact that they were allowing politics to interject itself here--because the White House didn't want to admit, and she stood up for the White House and wouldn't admit it. But, as Politico says, it plainly was true that they were spending more.

So rather than acting as an independent steward of taxpayer dollars and simply telling the plain truth to a simple question, she acted as an extension of the President's campaign arm--advancing their spin without honestly acknowledging the clear and plain facts to the American public asked by a representative of the people of the United States. There was no doubt that they spent more money than Ryan-Murray would allow, but they never acknowledged it because she politically did not want to admit it.

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is more than a political position. The Director serves the President, yes, but it is at bottom an important public servant, and the person who holds that job must act as a disciplined manager of taxpayers' dollars and do so with clarity and openness. The Director is managing the world's largest budget.

However, Ms. Burwell submitted a financial plan--a budget--that would have increased spending more than $700 billion above the current, agreed-upon, in-law budget levels while, amazingly, suggesting her plan reduced spending. It was a tax-and-spend budget that would have added $8 trillion to our debt while doing virtually nothing to reform the entitlement programs heading for impending insolvency. It completely busted the budget law the President signed. It was a grossly irresponsible plan.

According to Ms. Burwell's own budget submission, the plan would have caused interest payments on the debt to nearly quadruple, from $221 billion in interest paid last year alone to more than $800 billion 10 years from now. So this is really a serious matter. There is no attempt to balance the budget in her plan even over 10 years. Indeed, it flatly rejected the very idea of a balanced budget.

Additionally, despite her public commitment during her confirmation that she would deliver the budget in accordance with the legal deadlines, the President's budget was again delivered more than a month late.

Importantly, Ms. Burwell failed to comply with Federal law requiring her to submit Medicare improvement legislation after the Medicare trustees issued their funding warning. Medicare is heading to financial ruin. The law says that if Medicare reaches a point where its future is financially in doubt, it must notify the President, and the President, through his Office of Management and Budget Director, is supposed to submit to Congress a plan to get Medicare off the path to disaster. It was submitted to President Bush. He submitted a plan to Congress to fix Medicare. But this President has steadfastly refused to do so, and so did Mrs. Burwell as his Office of Management and Budget Director.

It states that within 2 weeks of the budget submission, legislation must be sent to Congress to comply with this so-called Medicare trigger. It requires a plan to fix the program. During her confirmation as OMB Director, she was asked about this duty she was going to have, and she made a commitment to respond and produce the Medicare trigger. Specifically, she said she would ``do everything in her power'' to comply with the Federal law, bringing an end, in effect, to the administration's several-years-long defiance of plain law.

As the President's Budget Director, under 31 USC, 1105, Sylvia Burwell was the person responsible for complying with the Federal law. Having willfully violated this requirement, it is ironic now that, if confirmed as Health and Human Services Secretary, she will serve on the board of trustees of the Medicare trust fund, she will be responsible for overseeing their finances, and she will be issuing to her former office--OMB--the same funding warnings that the administration received and ignored while she served as budget director.

Ms. Burwell has also violated law and denied Congress needed transparency with respect to the President's troubled health care law. Specifically, the Omnibus appropriations bill signed into law in January required HHS to include in its fiscal year 2015 budget a detailed accounting of spending to implement the health law. Fair enough. But neither the budget Ms. Burwell delivered nor the agency justification that later joined it satisfied the requirements set in law. They should do that. They are public servants. They should tell us how to handle the problems of financing in health care law.

As OMB Director--the budget submitted to the Congress by Ms. Burwell reclassified the budgetary treatment of the ObamaCare risk corridor program without statutory authority to do so. Under this approach, it appears HHS attempts to escape congressional accountability for its use of certain funds. So this is a clear violation of the congressional power to appropriate money, and it is pretty clear that to fund this program they are going to have to ask Congress to fund it. But by moving this around, they are attempting to spend money without asking Congress to appropriate it--against the Constitution.

Regrettably, it seems Ms. Burwell followed a consistent pattern. Rather than using OMB as the central agency to reform this massive, out-of-control spending government, to stop wasteful spending and tame the debt--as former OMB Directors such as Mitch Daniels and Rob Portman did; now-Senator Portman submitted a balanced budget when he was OMB Director under President Bush--she has not submitted any reforms to bring our government under control in OMB.

One of the concerns I had about her appointment was that it is such a critical part of our government, we have to have a strong OMB Director to control this massive government and control wasteful spending. That is the President's right arm. That is the person who brings the Cabinet Secretaries in to say: You are spending money. I hear complaints about waste. I hear about duplication. The President wants you to fix this.

We saw none of that under her leadership. Her tenure at OMB evidenced no drive to even tackle the magnitude of our financial challenges. She proposed to bust the spending caps that Congress and the President agreed while trying to suggest otherwise. She ignored the Medicare trigger. She tried to put a positive spin on a dangerous financial plan instead of trying to actually solve the serious financial challenges facing our country today.

With ObamaCare in chaos and disarray, threatening the very economy and the health care of Americans by the millions, what we desperately need in this key position is someone who will be independent, forthright, and honest, someone who will resist political pressure from the White House, and someone who knows what they are doing. This position demands that we find one of the best and most respected health care experts in the world. That is what we should be looking for. Ms. Burwell, as nice as she is, sadly, is just not that person. She does not have those skills.

ObamaCare was passed into law on a series of egregious falsehoods. The American people intuitively recognized that this was an overreach and would not work, and the American people are now paying the steepest of prices for this complex, failed piece of legislation. One of the falsehoods was that it would not add to the debt--not a dime, the President said. Well, we now know it would add more than $6 trillion to the long-term debt of the United States. That is a huge amount of money.

A Secretary of Health and Human Services must tell the American people the truth about the law's finances. If they fail to do so, if the Secretary will not acknowledge the truth and the challenges that our finances face, then the entire future, financially, of America will be at risk.

So I believe Ms. Burwell is a good and well-meaning person. Senators Manchin and Rockefeller from West

Virginia like her, and Senator Wyden of the Finance Committee and I like her. But I cannot support her bid to control the health care future of millions of hard-working Americans by placing her in charge of this massive agency that so desperately needs mature, aggressive, strong leadership--somebody who understands these issues before they take the job. I will vote no on her nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the President's Environmental Protection Agency today--a group that directly reports to him and which reflects his decisions about environmental matters--has issued a new proposed regulation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing powerplants by 30 percent by the year 2030. Those are existing plants, and they cannot be operated and have that kind of reduction unless they have carbon capture, and there is no technology feasible with any reasonable--there is technology, but it is not feasible economically to capture carbon. So it is a dramatic hammering of a major portion of the baseload electricity production in America. It just is, and it is going to drive up costs.

What I wish to say first and foremost is I am very worried about our economy. This economy is not doing well, and anybody who has paid close attention to it knows we have had one thing--one very important positive factor--over the last half dozen years that has helped our economy bounce back and even caused some industries to bring home production from foreign countries; and that advantage--that positive event--is a decline in energy prices. It is a direct result, primarily, of fracking--our ability to produce more energy from existing wells in a proven-to-be safe and effective way. It is going on over large portions of America. Although this administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have thrown up a host of roadblocks to try to keep it from occurring, it is such a powerful, positive event it is virtually unstoppable.

So that is good. That is helping our businesses prosper. I remember in Alabama, north of Mobile where I grew up, there is a group of chemical companies on the river. Those chemical companies are international companies, first-rate companies, that were hammered when natural gas, 10 or 15 years ago, surged in price so much. Many of them reduced their capacity, some have closed and were sold, and we lost a lot of good jobs.

It happened in Ohio. Ohio had a devastation among their strong chemical industries. The industry is beginning to come back now because of lower natural gas prices. But other industries too are very energy sensitive such as the steel industry. We are in a life-and-death competition to save America's steel industry. Energy is a huge portion of that.

Electricity is a big portion of that. To eliminate nearly 40 percent of our base load, to drive us on a path to drive up those costs unnecessarily above what we can rationally achieve, is a mistake, in my opinion.

Looking at Barron's this week--that is a business magazine. It comes out weekly. It has articles that sum up the state of the economy in America. Of course we know that first-quarter economic growth was revised downward, downward to negative 1.0 from positive .1. This is the first negative growth in years, since 2011. It was unexpected. Corporate profits, excluding the depths of the recession, are the lowest in 20 years in America. We have fewer people working today than we had in 2007, although there are 15 million more people in America-- fewer people working and more of them are working part time than want to work part time. We have a surge in part-time employment. That is not good either.

Wages are down. Adjusted, probably for inflation, wages are down, median income is down in America per family by $2,300. Your wages are down. Your job prospects are down. Unemployment remains exceedingly high, and we are now going to add, in effect, another tax, a regulatory tax on the price of energy so a person's electric bill and their gas bill are going to go up. That is the inevitable result of this. It just is.

We have got to be careful about it. Europe is already regretting the mistakes they have made. Spain has had to abandon their overly ambitious plan for renewable energy. German businesspeople are telling their leaders that if you do not change the energy policy in this country, we are not going to be able to compete and be successful as we have been in the world markets.

So this is not a little matter. It is about jobs. It is about middle- income,

hard-working Americans. The lower income people in this country pay as much as 25 percent of their income for energy. Oh, the rich people, the people who travel around in big jets and claim to be concerned about the environment, pay much less. For those making over $50,000 a year, you pay about 11 percent of your income on energy.

So higher energy costs are direct negatives for poorer, hard-working people in America. Retired seniors have no ability to have an increase in wages, trying to live on Social Security and a little savings. Boom, you have got another $10, $20, $30 a month for the electric bill, the gas bill. It erodes their standard of living.

Again, it erodes the ability of American business to be competitive in the world marketplace. We have got to take back more work. In fact, we are beginning to do that if we would do fewer bad things. We had a good result with lower energy prices and this is going to undermine that. It just is. We have got the pipeline. No, we will not do the pipeline either. All that does is provide another source of oil and gas, oil for America, that forces the existing American big oil companies to compete with. It helps to bring down the price.

If you do not have another source from Canada, you have got less competition. Competition helps bring down price. I do not believe this administration wants to bring down the price of energy. In fact, I think the opposite is true. In fact, President Obama said, before he was elected, that we could have--if anybody built a coal plant it was going bankrupt. That is not possible, to phase out the entire coal industry so rapidly. We have done so much to clean it up. They have spent billions and billions of dollars reducing the pollutants that come out of smokestacks. It helped a lot. That is why our air is cleaner than it has been in years. We have made a lot of progress. A lot of money has been spent. But this is an excessive action, in my view, focused primarily on CO2, carbon dioxide.

We all know about photosynthesis. We know how plants grow. We know they take in carbon dioxide and breath out oxygen. We breathe in oxygen and we let out carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is odorless, it is tasteless, it is not poisonous, it is not harmful. In fact, plants grow faster if there is more carbon dioxide than if there is less carbon dioxide. This is a scientific fact that is not disputable.

So what do they say? They say, well, the Clean Air Act gives the responsibility of eliminating pollutants from our atmosphere. It was passed in 1970 before anybody even dreamed of global warming. So carbon dioxide--when the law was passed, the Clean Air Act in the 1970s, they had no thought whatsoever in the Congress that we would be banning carbon dioxide. John Dingell, a long-term Democratic Congressman, one of the longest serving ever, was a Member of Congress who voted on that. He recently said they had no idea we were voting to regulate carbon dioxide.

So how did it happen? Well, the environmentalists filed a lawsuit. They said the Congress passed a law in 1970. That law said you should reduce pollutants. You have a responsibility to reduce pollutants and carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Why? Well, the IPCC, the International Panel on Climate Change, said that CO2 creates global warming, this perfectly positive small amount of gas in our massive environment, that makes plants grow better, is increasing. It is. It is increasing in the environment because of burning carbon fuels.

They said this increase is going to warm the planet. We are going to have more storms, more tornadoes, and the coasts are going to flood and all of this. Therefore, EPA should regulate it. Must regulate it. By a 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court agreed. Congress has never voted for that. Congress has voted against global warming legislation multiple times. It would never ever pass this Congress if it were brought up for a vote. Never pass.

So unelected folks in the Environmental Protection Agency, unelected, lifetime appointed Federal judges, at least five of the nine, concluded that this is a pollutant. So here we are.

I do not know whether we have got warming. I have assumed it is. Temperatures, I believe over the last hundred years, have increased about 1 degree. But I do think we need to be a lot more modest about this. It is well below what the alarmists have been telling us.

How did it all happen? Why did the Supreme Court decide that this plant food, CO2, is a pollutant? They said it was because these models are saying the planet is warming and all of the scientists agree, which is not true. But the scientists have said the planet is warming, so therefore CO2 is a pollutant. They so ruled. But things are not happening as the experts told us. It is just not happening. I am beginning to wonder what is going on here.

This chart, the red line--this is zero. The red line is an average of all of the computer models that projected what the increase in climate--in temperature would be based on steadily increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. Back in dinosaur days, we had a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have today. But it has been reduced. It has been increasing as we go into the ground, get coal and get oil and get natural gas and burn it. That emits more CO2. It is released back into the atmosphere, actually. It was sucked out of the atmosphere through plants and animals.

This was the chart. Every single climate change model that is the foundation of the argument for dangerous global warming predicted more than has actually occurred in the last 15 years.

This is the chart. You go back to about 2000 here. This green line is the actual result from--I believe that is balloon temperature gauges. It actually has not gone up at all since 2001. That is what, 13 years? This is not the temperatures they were predicting. Besides, the charts looks a little more dramatic than they are. This is zero. This is two- tenths. They were predicting, from 1979 I believe was their key date, that the temperature would increase 1.2 degrees. It has increased about three-tenths of 1 degree. That is in this part.

But if you go here, when the chart is going off here, saying it should be accelerating every year, it has been flat. So I do not know. Some people say the Sun is involved in it. Some people have other theories. I do not know. I have assumed we are going to have some warming out there. But it is certainly not coming in at the rate the alarmists have told us. That is indisputable fact.

We in Congress need to be asking ourselves how much burden we can afford to put on the American people at this time. The President--I have got to tell you, one of the most frustrating things and disappointing things to me is that the President in the last several years--he has not in over a year now because I have been asking his people before the environment committee to be sure and tell him not to say it anymore. But he has two times said that the temperature is increasing faster than the experts predicted over the last 10 or 15 years. Think about that. The President of the United States, in the face of obvious data to the contrary, is repeatedly going out and saying, it is increasing faster than the red line. That worries me. I believe the President of the United States has a responsibility, when he advocates for policies, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

That is not so. It is not increasing faster. It has hardly increased at all in the last 10 or so years.

Then they say the storms--the President and his team when Sandy hit go out and say this is all a direct result of global warming. See? Every time there is a storm, every time there is a drought, and every time there is a problem, it is always climate change, global warming.

Dr. Roger Pielke laid out the numbers. I don't have the details here, but he testified before the Environment and Public Works Committee and he said: It is not so, hurricanes are not increasing. It is not hard to see how many hurricanes you have.

You simply go back each year. They are quite calculating. He went back and calculated the hurricanes--how many category 5's, 4's, 3's, 2's, and 1's. The result is pretty astonishing that we have had fewer of them. This chart is hard to read. I will quote what it says:

Hurricanes have not increased in the US in frequency,

intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900.

He has not been disputed either. They have tried to push back and attack him, but nobody has produced

data that dispute what he says because it is easier to calculate that data.

This is important. Dr. Pielke recently produced an analysis that said it has been 3,140 days since this country has had a category 3 hurricane. Camille was a 5, and we have had some others in the past. But we have had almost 10 years since we had a category 3. Sandy, this storm which hit the Northeast, which was very rare, happened to miss the southeast, missed Florida, and hit the Northeast. It was not even a hurricane when it hit land. It was below the speed, I understand, of a hurricane. At best, it was a category 1. It just happened to hit the Northeast where people are not used to it, and it did a lot of damage.

How can it be argued, I ask colleagues, that global warming is causing more storms? Moreover, the 2012-2013 tornado season was one of the lowest in the past 50 years. Only 5 out of 50 years have been that low.

We are not seeing an increase in tornadoes. We read about them more. We have The Weather Channel, and they talk about them more. But, in truth, the numbers aren't there.

Now, if hurricanes are down--and it has been 3,100 days since we have had a category 3 hurricane--it is about the longest in history that we recorded. It is an unusual drought of big hurricanes. It means a lot to me. I live in Mobile, AL, and I remember Hurricane Frederic in 1979 barreling up Mobile Bay. I remember the fear people had who had been there when Camille hit nearby in Mississippi. I know something about hurricanes, and they are very real factors. It surprises me we have had as few as we have had. We have also not seen an increase in tornadoes.

What we are proposing is that we have to carry out a policy that would go beyond our technology to produce electricity in a cost- effective manner, and it has the impact of massively closing base-load coal plants. Existing plants are going to be hammered, and new ones will not be built.

I am also on the subcommittee of Environment and Public Works that deals with nuclear power. Not a single American since the beginning of nuclear power 50 years ago has been killed as a result of a nuclear power accident. How many die in natural gas pipelines, drilling rigs, coal mines, transportation of coal, and so forth?

We basically shut down nuclear power. I am telling us this is a big problem for our country, the erosion of nuclear power. We had four plants close--existing nuclear plants close. They have been hammered with regulations, and they have never been safer. We have never known more about how to operate a nuclear plant safely than we know today.

But they know only one or two are being constructed, and this assault on nuclear power has the potential to erode the 20 percent of our electricity that comes from nuclear power. So if we lose the coal and we lose nuclear power--and most of these plants are 30-plus, 40 or 45 years old, and they will soon be at the end of their lifetime. If we don't replace them, where will our energy come from, pray tell?

In any finding, anything that we do today to try to impact CO2 is only a drop in the bucket worldwide. They are building coal-fired plants in China, India, the East, the Middle East, other places, and Africa in large numbers. We are a very small part of the overall picture, and our actions are not going to reverse this trend.

I don't know and I don't pretend to know all of the answers, but I would say that if we have more CO2 and we have more global warming and global climate change, how do we know it won't result in fewer hurricanes? We have had fewer.

How do we know it won't result in fewer tornadoes? We have had fewer tornadoes.

Life on the planet has tended to be more healthy and prosperous in times of higher temperatures than lower temperatures. I certainly don't want to see a surging temperature in America and rapidly changing conditions. I think we could have real damage. As I said, I don't know what the full answer is.

I am just saying in my judgment, this administration is pushing this beyond what is reasonable. It is going to adversely affect the economy of America. It is going to drive up the cost of every household's electric bill, every household's gasoline bill. Every business in America that hires American workers is going to try to export products, and those products are going to be more expensive because they had to pay more for their energy.

The last thing we need to be doing at this point in American history is driving up--artificially--the price of energy. One expert said a number of years ago that the lifespan--the average lifespan of a person in a nation where electricity is readily available--is twice that wherever it is not readily available.

I have been in poor places in the world where there is not electricity. You see the difficulty they have with water, you see the difficulty they have with cleanliness and so forth, and cooling and keeping food refrigerated and the disease that comes from that.

Energy is a positive force. It has made this world--the western world, the developed world--so much more prosperous. It is creating wealth that we can then use for good causes--to clean up the environment, and to produce healthy foods for billions worldwide.

I don't think we should see energy as an evil thing. I think energy is a good thing, and we don't need to drive the price up. It makes life harder for people, especially those of limited income.

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to share these thoughts. It means a lot to me. We will keep working on it. We will analyze in detail, as time goes by, the proposal the President has presented. I remain very concerned, as a matter of constitutional order, that this is being done without a vote of the people. This is being done by a 5- to-4 Supreme Court ruling, an aggressive President, and an aggressive

Madam President, I am joined by the chair and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee to discuss section 1051 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act--WRRDA-- conference report, which we will vote on shortly in the Senate. I thank the chair and ranking member for their leadership on this bipartisan and important legislation. I rise today to discuss a provision within the legislation pertaining to a long-running regional dispute in the Southeastern United States over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' operations within the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint, ACF and Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa, ACT, river systems. At the heart of the conflict are concerns from downstream stakeholders about the amount of water withdrawals--and the legal authority for those withdrawals--from Lake Allatoona and Lake Lanier.

A similar provision was included in the Senate-passed version of this bill, S. 601, which was reported favorably out of the Environment and Public Works Committee after careful consideration. Part of that consideration was a July 22, 2013, hearing focused on this dispute among the Army Corps and other stakeholders in the region. That hearing examined issues related to the withdrawal of water from Lake Allatoona and Lake Lanier; the authorized purposes of those two reservoirs; the Corps' actions in light of the 1958 Water Supply Act; the legislative history of the reservoirs; and the Corps' management of water storage contracts in the river systems.

While it highlighted a number of concerns related to Army Corps of Engineers authority under the Water Supply Act, the hearing brought to light a point of agreement that all stakeholders share. The best way to resolve the conflict is through a negotiated interstate water compact.

Section 1051 highlights Congress's concerns with the Corps' actions under the Water Supply Act related to the allocation of storage at Corps projects to local water supply without congressional approval. While it notes these concerns, it urges the agreed-upon best resolution to the conflict: an interstate water compact negotiated by the Governors of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. The provision adds that the committees of jurisdiction should consider further legislation on the issue absent such an agreement.

Madam President, I wish to express my support for the confirmation of my former staffer, Elisebeth Collins Cook, to serve on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Ms. Cook loves her country. She is a true patriot, and a person of character, courage, and integrity.

Ms. Cook has had a distinguished legal career. She received her undergraduate degree from the University of Chicago in 1997 and her law degree from Harvard Law School in 2000. She graduated from both prestigious schools with honors. Following law school, Ms. Cook served as law clerk to Judge Lee Rosenthal of the Southern District of Texas, and Judge Laurence Silberman of the D.C. Circuit.

In 2002, she joined the prominent law firm Cooper & Kirk here in Washington, DC. After working for the firm for 3 years, Ms. Cook was appointed Special Counsel to the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice. In 2008, she was confirmed by the Senate without opposition to be assistant attorney general for OLP.

In 2009, Ms. Cook joined my staff as chief counsel for the Supreme Court nomination of now-Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Her work was superb. She helped me to examine the important issues raised by that nomination on a high level without resorting to personal attacks on the nominee.

In 2010, she returned to private practice as a partner with Freeborn & Peters in Chicago, before returning to Washington, where she is currently counsel at the well-regarded law firm Wilmer Hale.

Ms. Cook has had a wide-ranging law practice, including general civil litigation, policy initiatives, and Federal criminal investigations. The quality of her work has not gone unnoticed. Among her more recent accolades are the Intelligence Community Legal Award, multiple attorney general awards, and recognition as one of Legal Times' ``40 Under 40.'' In 2008, she received the Edmund J. Randolph Award for Service to the Department of Justice, the Department's highest award for public service and leadership.

Ms. Cook combines a powerful legal mind, broad experience, good judgment, and a strong interest in serving her country. She has excellent people skills and works well with others, even when she disagrees with them. Her tenure on the board thus far proves as much.

I have nothing but praise for Ms. Cook's abilities, and am confident she will continue to acquit herself as a member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. I am pleased to recommend Ms. Cook to my colleagues and I hope they will support her confirmation to this important position.

I thank Chairman Murray and join her in commending Mr. Blau for his many years of dedicated and outstanding service to CBO, the Congress, and the American people. We wish him all the best in his well-deserved retirement.

We hope our colleagues will join us in thanking Mr. Blau--and really all of the hardworking employees at the Congressional Budget Office-- for his and their service.

I would like to thank Senator Barrasso for his leadership on this issue. As a longtime practicing physician before he came to the Senate, he has provided great leadership and expertise and is able to evaluate and comment so wisely on the important issue of health care.

I thank the Senator.

Immigration

Today, Majority Leader Reid--the leader of the Democratic majority of the Senate--and Senator Chuck Schumer came to the Senate floor to demand that the House of Representatives pass their immigration bill. They labeled Republicans as extremists for not giving in to their demands. And they are correct about one thing: The House is not giving in.

At this point in time, the House is refusing to yield to the pressure of special interest groups and political lobbyists and Senate Democrats to pass a bill that would be bad for America. It just will be bad for America. So I think once again the special interests will lose and the voice of the American people will be heard.

Senator Schumer said Republicans are xenophobes because they won't pass his plan. Let's talk about what is extreme. A new report just out revealed that this administration has released 36,000 criminal aliens from ICE detention. Our Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers receive them as prisoners from a State or Federal penitentiary where they have been convicted of some criminal offense unrelated to immigration, usually in a State court. 36,000 are now being released into the general population.

This report found there were 193 homicide-type convictions, 1,153 sexual offenders, 303 kidnapping convictions, and 1,075 aggravated assault convictions. These are serious crimes. If you will recall, these criminals are the only group this administration says they are the deporting. They don't deny that they are not deporting others who violate our immigration laws. They promised they are faithfully removing people who commit crimes unrelated to immigration. This report proves that claim not to be so.

These dangerous offenders should be kept in custody. They should not be released into the general population. We had a study of such releases several years ago. The statistics showed that when a person who entered the country illegally was released on bail, they didn't show up for court. If they are willing to enter the country illegally and a judge has them set for trial and he releases them on bail, we then have an incredibly high number who don't show up for trial. This was called catch and release and was roundly criticized. This is now being done with immigrants who have serious criminal charges and convictions.

Do you know what else is extreme? Extreme is trying to pass an immigration bill that would double the flow of guest workers into our country and triple the number of new permanent residents when 50 million working-age Americans are out of work. We have a very serious unemployment problem. Is no one concerned about that?

It is not xenophobic, but it is compassionate to say we should focus our attention on struggling and hurting American workers. It is not xenophobic. It is our patriotic duty to defend the integrity of our borders and enforce the long-established laws of the United States. It is the oath we all took as Senators to defend the Constitution of the United States. It is the oath the chief law enforcement officer, President Obama, took. We have a duty to defend our citizens and our people at a time when they are struggling financially. There is just no doubt about it.

There was one group of people not referenced when Majority Leader Reid and Senator Schumer talked earlier this morning. Do you know what group it was? Completely omitted from the conversation was the American worker. The American worker is not being discussed by amnesty supporters in this debate. We know the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's view. They would like more workers creating slack labor markets and lower wages. We know certain special interest groups want more immigration. We know certain politicians think this will be good for them politically.

According to the Congressional Budget Office--our own professional team that is selected in a nonpartisan way and gives us advice on the ramifications of legislation we pass--has looked at the Reid-Schumer bill that passed the Senate. According to CBO, the Senate Democratic immigration bill--which was supported by a small number of Republicans, but it is overwhelmingly a Democratic bill--would increase unemployment while reducing wages. It would increase unemployment while reducing wages of American workers for the next 12 years, and it will reduce the per person wealth or GNP for the next 17 years.

If we bring in 30 million people over the next 10 years--as this bill would do--it will triple the number that normally would be given legal status in America. It will bring down the per person wealth and it will bring down wages. Surely the U.S. Chamber of Commerce understands the free market, do they not? Surely Senator Reid understands that, does he not?

We were on a conference call yesterday regarding the American steel industry. A large amount of steel is being dumped into America. What is the impact of that? What is the concern? If we bring in more steel, there will be lower prices for steel. If we bring in more cotton, there will be lower prices for cotton. If we bring in more labor, it will result in lower wages for American workers.

CBO told us that. There is no dispute about it. Yet we have Senators who come to the floor and repeatedly say this is going to increase wages. Give me a break. You can't just say something and think it is going to make it reality when it is the opposite of reality.

Under current law, we are admitting more than 600,000 guest workers each year. Guest workers come to America not to be citizens but just to take jobs that someone contends we don't have enough workers. We grant permanent residence to 1 million immigrants each year and perhaps ultimately become citizens. That is the current law. Right now wages are falling and it is serious, but this is the law that has been established and that is what the nation has agreed to.

The bill Senator Reid maneuvered through this Senate would admit more than 1.2 million guest workers each year, thereby doubling the number of guest workers, and it will give permanent residency to 30 million immigrants over the next 10 years and that is triple the normal rate.

Research from Harvard professor Dr. George Borjas--perhaps the most preeminent student of labor, wages, and immigration in America--shows that American workers lose more than $400 billion in wages each year due to competition from low-cost workers from abroad. That is $400 billion in wages each year--not million but billion.

Dr. Borjas's research also shows that from 1980 to 2000--he did an empirical study using the census, the Department of Labor, and other official data--wages declined 7.4 percent for lower skilled working Americans. These are the people who go out and work every day. These are not people who have a college degree. I am talking

about the working people in this country. Their wages declined from 1980 to 2000 by 7.4 percent as a result of this very large flow of legal and illegal immigration.

There is no doubt--and my colleagues have to understand this--a vote for the Reid-Schumer immigration bill is a vote to lower the wages of American workers. Not only that, it will make it harder for Americans to get a job, period. It appears the people who are hurt worst by the Democratic immigration policies are young Americans, low-income Americans, and minority workers.

According to Dr. Borjas's studies--and others--minority workers are particularly damaged by high levels of immigration. This includes Hispanics who have lawfully come to America. They are trying to get started so they can make their way up. They would like to have a pay raise, but their wages are also being pulled down by an extraordinary, unjustified flow of labor that the economy can't absorb effectively. We don't have jobs for them now. That is the problem.

I don't dislike people who want to come here. I know most of them are good people who would like to advance themselves. But, as Senators we have a responsibility to the citizens of our country and we need to ask: Is this good for America? Can we absorb this number of people and maintain decent wages or are we in a long term trend that will allow lower and middle-income workers' wages to continue to erode? I think it is a serious issue that we need to be honest about and I hope we will do so. Young and low-income Americans are also hurt.

Senator Schumer says we should do the bidding of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce--buddying up with them now. He says there is a hijacking out here, but it seems Mr. Schumer's party has been the one that has been hijacked by special interests, and they have lost sight of whom they claim to represent--working Americans. That is my charge and that is what I say.

We have a generous immigration policy, and we need to make sure it is enforced correctly and lawfully carried out. That is what the American people have asked of us. They have demanded this from us. They want a lawful system that we can be proud of and treats people fairly, where a person fills out an application and lays out their qualifications. Those qualifications are then evaluated on an objective basis, and the best qualified person, the one who is most deserving, is then admitted to the country. What is wrong with that? That is what Canada does. That is what the UK does. That is what Australia does. There is nothing wrong with such a policy. That is what we should be doing.

We should decide how many people the country can absorb and in what wage categories before we admit huge numbers of people and certainly before we double the number we presently bring in.

A number of Senators have complained on the floor of the Senate that the tech industries can't find qualified Americans. We have all heard that charge. I sort of accepted it at first, but in fact the data shows something different and it is rather surprising. In fact, we have twice as many STEM graduates each year as there are STEM jobs--science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Here is a recent paper by Professor Hal Salzman from Rutgers University. He carefully analyzed data from the Department of Education and the Department of Labor. He concluded that we first need to get accurate data to truly inform policy decisions. If we are going to make a policy decision about how large our immigration flow should be--not to end it but how large it should be--shouldn't we have good data?

He says:

The first data to consider is the broad notion of a supply

crisis in which the United States does not produce enough

STEM graduates to meet industry demand. In fact, the nation

graduates more than two times as many STEM students each year

as find jobs in STEM fields. For the 180,000 or so annual

openings, U.S. Colleges and Universities supply 500,000

graduates.

They supply more than twice the number of graduates as we have jobs for now, so I am a little dubious about these big business types claiming they can't get enough people.

What about IT specifically? We hear some of our Silicon Valley executives promoting any kind of immigration as long as they get more IT workers.

Mr. Salzman says:

The only clear impact of the large IT guest worker inflows

over this decade can be seen in salary levels, which have

remained at their late-1990s levels and which dampens

incentives for domestic students to pursue STEM degrees.

Did you know that? IT graduates' salaries are stuck at 1990 levels. It is causing students in college to wonder if this is such a great field to go into. In fact, the author says there are other fields that do better. If that is true, does that change Senator Reid's view of the legislation he jammed through the Senate and he is so proud of and he is demanding the House pass? If that is true, if Mr. Salzman is correct, will Senator Reid change his mind?

Then he goes on to say--and I agree with this line. He is talking about all STEM graduates now:

If there is a [talent] shortage, where are the market

indicators (namely wage increases) . . . ?

So Mr. Donohue and friends at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who believe in the free market: Why are wages down if we have a shortage of workers? Why aren't wages going up?

Another businessman said recently:

There are 600,000 jobs in manufacturing going unfilled

today. This immigration bill can go a long way toward helping

us fill these positions.

Well, great Scott. I have seen instances where thousands of people apply for just a few jobs. Does he have any interest, first of all, in promoting sound national goals? Our goal as policymakers for the United States of America should be to say: Wait a minute. You have jobs at your manufacturing plant and we have to get unemployed people ready to take them. Americans are on welfare and on dependency who need to go to work. Give us a chance to get our people into those jobs first before we start bringing in more foreign workers to take a limited number of jobs.

From 2000 to 2013, the grim fact is that all net job gains went to immigrant workers. Can you imagine that? That is what the numbers show. Under the Democratic plan, this bill, if it were to pass the House, job decline will accelerate.

From 2000 to 2013, the number of working-age Americans increased by 16 million. Yet the jobs for American workers--the number of American workers actually working--fell by 1.3 million. That is why the unemployment rate and the workforce dropout rate is so high.

But during that same period, 2000 to 2013, the number of working-age immigrants increased by 8.8 million while 5.3 million immigrants got jobs. So all the jobs created during this period of time have been, in effect, mathematically speaking, taken by foreign workers. Is this healthy? Isn't this one of the reasons why people are having a hard time today?

There are 50 million working-age Americans who are not working today. Wages are lower today than they were in 1999. Median household incomes, adjusted for inflation, have dropped nearly $2,300 since 2009. We have the smallest workforce participation in 36 years.

So I say to Mr. Reid and Mr. Schumer, I am glad to talk about this issue. I am glad to talk about immigration, but we are going to talk about what is in the interests of the American people. We are not going to talk about your politics and your ideology and your special interests. We are going to talk about what is good for America and what is good for America is to get more of our unemployed working, to get wages going up rather than down. I am not surprised they didn't talk about workers and wages in their remarks when they demeaned people who disagree with them and who oppose their great bill they drafted that will not work.

We are not going to be scared off. We are not going to be intimidated into handing over control of our immigration laws to a small group of special interests who are meeting in politicians' offices and maybe promising support. I feel strongly about this. I don't feel there is anything wrong, morally or public policy-wise, to say we need to have a lawful system of immigration we can be proud of. That is what the American people have asked of us for over 30 years and Congress refuses to give. Congress is not listening to the

people. And we can do it. It is possible. I have been in law enforcement almost as long as I have been in the Senate. I know this can be done, if we have a leader who wants to see it done. But if the President doesn't want to enforce the law and says he is only going to enforce it against people who commit serious crimes, and we now find out even those criminals aren't deported when they are caught, then I think we have a deep problem. I think we can do better.

Let's don't go down this road of pushing, pushing, pushing, just pass a bill, any bill--oh, we have to do it fast. That has been the message all along. We have to ram it through, but this thing has been out there in the public now for a long time. The mackerel has been in the sunshine for a long time and it doesn't smell so good when it is examined, and the American people are not prepared to eat it and they shouldn't.

I thank the Chair and the Senate for giving me a chance to express these concerns. I believe we need to put American interests first, and when we do we will draft an immigration bill that is far different from the one being promoted today.

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

Mr. President, on rollcall vote 140, I voted aye and it was my intention to vote nay. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote, since it will not affect the outcome.

I thank the Chair.

I would note that the issues revolving around judicial confirmations in which we are routinely voting on cloture after the execution of the nuclear option, we are having more of these votes than we used to have.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I thank Senator Hoeven.

The Senator is exactly right; it will do all of those things. It is a step in the right direction in every area.

I appreciate my leader on the Judiciary Committee and ranking member, Senator Grassley. I would ask a rather simple question of Senator Grassley which ought not to be forgotten in this process. If a pipeline is built and an additional source of gasoline is brought into the Midwest or other areas, if it is not cheaper than the gas that is already being supplied, isn't it true that nobody will buy it?

So won't this mean an opportunity for people in the whole country to be able to have another source of fuel which would be less costly and help bring down costs?

I thank the Senator.

I thank Senator Hoeven for his steadfast, consistent, principled leadership on this important issue. He has been there consistently. I don't think there is any Senator in this body who understands the details of this issue more than he does. It is just a positive thing for America. It just is, and I thank the Senator for his efforts.

We have been reviewing this for 5 years. Legally, as I see this situation, it is this: There is no Federal law at this time dealing with this issue. Presidents have issued Executive orders that created a mechanism to allow the State Department to review a request for a pipeline like Keystone XL. But clearly there is no doubt that Congress has every right to legislate on this issue. Just because we haven't yet, that doesn't mean we never will or never should, and I strongly believe that with the failed leadership of President Obama on this question, we are going to have to pass legislation. It is just that critical.

The Secretary of State has essentially asserted that under these Executive orders the State Department must evaluate the environmental issue. They have dealt with that, and they have satisfied that environmental process. There is the question left of the national interest.

So if we don't have a serious environmental issue--which I don't think we do, and pretty clearly we don't--then the question is: What is in the national interest?

Senator Hoeven represents a state on the border with Canada, and we have good relations with Canada.

First, I don't think there is any nation in the world with which we need to maintain and enhance our relationship more than with our good partner, Canada.

Second, let me ask the Senator this. The Senator is close to Canada. He knows the situation. If this pipeline is not approved, will it weaken and harm our relationship with our good neighbor, Canada, or will it make it better?

The Senator is so correct. In my time here in the Senate, this is one of the most inexplicable actions by a President I have ever seen. He has persisted in this after months and years have gone by and when the facts continue to come forward that justify this pipeline--for jobs in America, for lower energy costs in America, for importing oil from our ally Canada, where the people buy a great deal from us. Any wealth that goes to Canada, we can be sure a lot of that will come back to the United States because they purchase a great deal from us. But does Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or other countries that we buy oil from buy a lot from us? No.

So this is a partnership and relationship which benefits both parties. I just am astounded that it has not been approved to date.

The Washington Post editorial board wrote last week that the President's decision to delay the Keystone Pipeline was ``absurd.'' This is an independent, liberal-leaning newspaper that cares about the environment. So it seems the President is clearly acquiescing in favor of special interests.

Senator Thune is familiar with Mr. Tom Steyer, who a recent Associated Press article characterized as ``a former hedge fund manager and environmentalist, who says he will spend $100 million--$50 million of his own money and $50 million from other donors''--to defeat Republicans to promote environmental issues. He asked for some things if he is going to put up $100 million.

I am not happy about it. I believe the interests of the people of this country have been subordinated to either an extreme environmentalist agenda or to plain money. There is no other rational basis for the position we find ourselves in. It is really tragic.

We need jobs in this country. We have the fewest percentage of people working in America today in the working age group since 1975. Median income has dropped over $2,000 to $2,600. We are not doing well. These are high-paying jobs. It keeps growth and creativity here in the United States and in North America through our partner, Canada.

I am grateful to see others who are so interested in this issue. I feel really strongly we should move forward with this. It is the right thing to do. It is not politics. It is the right thing.

A lot of Democratic members favor this pipeline. Union groups, who tend to be Democrats, favor this pipeline. It is not a Republican- Democratic issue. This is an extremist issue against a commonsense issue. Sixty-two Senators voted for a budget amendment last year during the Senate budget debate that was supportive of the Keystone pipeline.

My good staffer Jeff Wood found a Charles Dickens quote about the fictional ``Circumlocution Office,'' of which Dickens wrote:

Whatever was required to be done, the Circumlocution Office

was beforehand with all the public departments in the art of

perceiving--how not to do it. . . . [W]ith projects for the

general welfare . . . , which in slow lapse of time and agony

had passed safely through other public departments . . . got

referred at last to the Circumlocution Office, and never

reappeared in the light of day. Boards sat upon them,

secretaries minuted upon them, commissioners gabbled about

them, clerks registered, entered, checked, and ticked them

off, and they melted away. In short, all the business of the

country went through the Circumlocution Office, except the

business that never came out of it . . .

(Chapter 10 of Charles Dickens' ``Little Dorrit,'' 1855).

In my opinion, this bill would create thousands of good jobs if it is passed and this pipeline is built. It would strengthen, not weaken, our relationship with Canada. It would bring a new

flow of oil into the United States and the Midwest which will provide competition and which would reduce costs. It would be a competitive source of energy for America.

Canada is a good trading partner. They buy a lot from us. The oil will be sold somewhere else if it is not sold in the United States.

By the way, pipelines are everywhere in this country. In my State of Alabama, pipelines crisscross the State. We don't have any problems with this. The idea that we can't build another pipeline in this country is about as ludicrous as one can imagine.

So I thank Senator Hoeven for the great leadership he has provided. I appreciate the opportunity to join with him. It is the right thing for the people of this country, and we need to get this done.

I yield the floor.