Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to commend the Senators who are working on the amendments on the Keystone Canadian pipeline. This is the highest priority of the new Republican majority, a pipeline that is being built on behalf of a Canadian company.

You would think there would be a lot of other possibilities here to create jobs for America, but the Senate Republicans are focused on this one. Ultimately it will produce 35 permanent jobs in America, and this is their highest priority. Had they taken up instead the Federal highway bill--a bill which is looming in terms of a deadline this year--we literally could have created thousands of American jobs across America, not just in one pipeline location. But they chose instead to help this Canadian company build this pipeline.

Sadly, it won't produce products that can help America. We had an amendment offered here on the floor that said any refined products that came from this pipeline would be sold in America. It was defeated. Every Republican voted against that amendment.

Then we offered an amendment that said this pipeline, if it is going to be built in America, should use American steel. Every Republican voted against that, save one.

The notion that we are going to use foreign steel to build a pipeline for a Canadian company so that the refined products from that pipeline can be exported overseas is somehow, in the eyes of the majority in the Senate, an American jobs bill. I don't think the American people would agree with that. They would understand, if we were taking up the Federal highway bill, that is an American jobs bill. We put construction workers across the United States to work and create an infrastructure that would build on the economy, creating more jobs in communities from Arizona to Illinois, from Florida to the State of Washington. But instead we are focused on the Keystone Canadian pipeline, the highest priority of the Senate Republican majority.

Mr. President, in a little more than a month the Department

of Homeland Security in Washington, DC, will run out of money. It is hard to imagine that the agency responsible for combating terrorism in the United States has its budget in question, but that was the design when the people sat down to write the Omnibus appropriations bill last year. The Republicans in the House insisted that if we were going to fund the rest of government, we had to withhold regular funding for the Department of Homeland Security. That is why the deadline of February 27 is looming.

The Department of Homeland Security more than any other single agency is responsible for keeping America safe from terrorism. They supervise and manage the TSA officers and airports. They collect weapons that people try to bring on airplanes. It is hard to imagine that people still do. They try to keep us safe at a time when we know terrorism is a threat not just in the United States but in countries all over the world.

Yet the Republicans in the House and Senate do not want to give regular funding to the Department of Homeland Security. They put it on temporary funding. As Mr. Johnson, the Secretary of this Department, said, it puts them at a real disadvantage at the Department of Homeland Security in keeping America safe. Yet the Republicans have insisted on this. Why? Why would they withhold regular funding for this critical agency? Because they are exercised by the President's decision to issue Executive orders on immigration. Their anger over the President's action has led them to jeopardize the immediate funding of an agency of critical importance to the United States. So they set out in the House of Representatives to add five riders to this appropriations bill which they insist must be passed if we are going to fund this agency. When you look at these five riders, I think you can understand why many of us think this is nothing short of an outrage.

One of the things which they have set their sights on is a program I have worked on for 14 years here in the Senate. I introduced a bill 14 years ago called the DREAM Act--14 years ago. The concept behind it was very basic: Children brought to the United States by their parents who are undocumented deserve a chance--a chance to make a life in America if they have no serious criminal issues, if they have graduated from high school, if they are prepared to step forward, go to college, or serve in the military. The DREAM Act was introduced 14 years ago with a basic concept: Don't hold children responsible for bad decisions or wrongdoing by their parents. Give these young people a chance.

Sadly, in the House of Representatives there is an anger against these young people that is almost difficult to describe. We think there are almost 2 million of them in America, and 600,000 have stepped forward to qualify for the DACA Program, an Executive order by the President that spares them from deportation while they are living in the United States. But the House of Representatives has insisted that we repeal the DACA Program, not issue any renewals for DACA protection, and not issue any new DACA protection for the 1.5 million who may still be eligible. That is one of their conditions before they will fund the agency that deals with terrorism to protect the United States from terrorism.

This last weekend there were several very unusual and important meetings involving the American political scene. One was in California hosted by the Koch brothers which attracted three of our Senators on the other side of the aisle who were at least considering, if not aspiring to be President of the United States. The Koch brothers called them in for a presentation and questions as part of the process of deciding whether the Koch brothers would support them to be the next President of the United States. That is not the first time that has happened. Others representing special interest groups I am sure have called candidates before. This is a very overt effort by two very powerful men to spend almost $1 billion in the next political cycle to control the political future of this country.

As troubling as that is for most Americans to hear, there was another forum that I think was equally disturbing in my neighboring State of Iowa. This was a forum called by Congressman Steve King. He called it a freedom forum. He attracted a large array of Republican aspirants to the office of President. Included in those were Governor Christie of New Jersey; Senator Cruz of Texas; former Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania; Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin; former Governor Palin of Alaska; Donald Trump; former Governor Perry of Texas; and former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. They all came to Iowa to be part of this freedom forum. This freedom forum was sponsored by Congressman Steve King.

Without question, Congressman King has made some of the most outrageous statements about the DREAMers, whom I described earlier, of any Member of Congress. He has compared them to dogs. He has referred to DREAMers as the deportables--whatever that means.

He has one oft-quoted statement: For every valedictorian among the DREAMers, there were 100 who had developed cantaloupe-sized calves carrying illegal narcotics across the border into the United States.

That is the kind of rhetoric which might cause David Duke to blush, but it didn't stop these Republican Presidential aspirants from trekking out to Iowa to pay homage to Congressman Steven King.

I would suggest that the Grand Old Party, which I do respect--the party of Abraham Lincoln--would be a party that would be embarrassed by the comments of Congressman King rather than pay homage to him in the State of Iowa.

I wish to tell the story of one of the DREAMers whom Congressman King particularly would come to dislike because this is an undocumented person and one of the DREAMers who would be disadvantaged by the Republican action in the House of Representatives which would literally remove the protection this young lady has from deportation.

This is Ola Kaso. Her story is amazing. She was brought to the United States from Albania in 1998 at the age of 5. She grew up in Warren, MI, and her dream was to become a medical doctor and to treat cancer patients. Ola was the valedictorian of her high school class. She took every advanced placement class offered by her school and had 4.4 grade point average.

She was treasurer of the student council and treasurer of the National Honor Society at her school. In 2011, I held a hearing on the DREAM Act. Ola Kaso had just graduated from high school and she came to testify at that hearing. She was the first ever undocumented immigrant to testify before the Senate.

In the fall of 2011, Ola entered the honors program at the University of Michigan where she is a premed student. What has happened to Ola Kaso since DACA was established in 2012? Ola has become involved in public service. In 2013 she worked as an intern in the office of our former colleague Senator Carl Levin. She continued her studies. This spring Ola will graduate from the University of Michigan with a double major in biochemistry and women's studies.

Keep in mind she completed this degree without any financial assistance from our government. Ola is not eligible for Pell grants or student loans because she is undocumented. She has become involved in nanotechnology, a cutting-edge field that holds great promise for future technological breakthroughs. Ola is now conducting at the Michigan Nanotechnology Institute for Medicine and Biological Sciences. Last year Ola's work was published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry. I want to read the name of the article which Ola Kaso published. I hope I will be spared, a liberal arts lawyer, if I stumble over some of these words. But just to give you an idea of her research, the article was entitled ``Atomic Force Microscopy Probing of Receptor- Nanoparticle Interactions for Riboflavin Receptor Targeted Gold- Dendrimer Nanocomposites.''

Now, that is a mouthful, but it gives you a sense of how much Ola Kaso has to contribute. Next, Ola plans to attend medical school, but if the House Republicans have their way and we pass in the Senate the language which was included as part of the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, Ola Kaso will never have a chance. She will be deported back to Albania, a

country she does not know at all. She will be forced to leave the United States.

We will basically give up on the investment we have made as Americans in her education and her potential and tell her: Leave. In the words of Congressman Steve King, she is one of the ``deportables''--one of the ``deportables.'' Ola sent me a letter recently. Here is what she said about her dreams for the future:

I aspire to ultimately become a surgical oncologist, but

more importantly, I intend to work for patients that cannot

afford the astronomical fees accompanying life-saving

surgeries, patients are denied the medical treatment they

deserve. My goal is not to increase my bank account; my goal

is to decrease preventable deaths. I wish to remain in this

country to make a difference.

Ola is not alone. There are so many DREAMers across this country just like her who want to be part of our future. It is clear this DACA Program works for America. That is why I am asking DREAMers around the country to join me, post their stories about what they have done with DACA on Twitter and Facebook using the hashtag ``DACA Works.''

I want the American people to understand the human cost of the bill that was passed by the Republicans in the House of Representatives and is now pending before the Senate. If this bill becomes law, DACA will end. Hundreds of thousands of DREAMers will risk deportation to countries they can barely remember. Will America be stronger if we deport Ola Kaso and others like her, young people who want to use their talents to give back to America, deporting them to countries they have some loose connection to by family ties?

Of course not. It is shameless--shameless to play politics with the lives of these young people. They grew up in this country, attended school in this country, put their hand over their hearts in their classrooms every day to pledge allegiance to the only flag they have ever known. It is shameless for the House Republicans to put homeland security funding at risk in pursuit of punishing these young people. The House Republicans feel so strongly about deporting DREAMers, they are willing to hold our homeland security funding hostage.

The House Republicans are telling the Senate and the President: Deport the DREAMers or we will shut down the Department of Homeland Security. I hope the Senate majority leader will reject this blackmail and bring a clean homeland security appropriations bill to the floor of the Senate as soon as possible.

For our part, the Senate Democrats will insist that the Department of Homeland Security be funded and that the President have the authority, which every President has, to establish America's immigration policies. The Presiding Officer was part of an effort, as I was several years, to try to resolve this issue in a thoughtful, balanced, comprehensive way.

The ultimate bill that was considered before the Senate was not perfect. Parts of it I did not like at all, but we reached a compromise. Over a year and a half ago, we sent that bipartisan bill to the House of Representatives asking them to call it for consideration and amendment. They refused, refused for more than a year and a half to call that bill. Instead, what they have done is launch these attacks on young people such as Ola Kaso.

Is that what America is all about? Is that the best we can do? For the dozen or more Republican Presidential aspirants who made that journey out to Iowa to pay homage to Congressman Steve King and his views about immigration, I would ask them to, when they return home: Look around you. There are young people just like this young woman who are only asking for a chance to be part of America's future.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, today is International Holocaust Remembrance Day, commemorating the genocide that resulted in the murder of nearly 6 million Jews by the Nazi regime. On this day in 1945, the allied forces entered Auschwitz, a complex of concentration and death camps in Nazi-occupied Poland. They liberated more than 7,000 prisoners. Auschwitz was made up of 3 main camps and more than 40 subcamps covering over 15 square miles. Between 1940 and 1945 nearly 1.3 million people were deported to Auschwitz and at least 1.1 million were murdered.

By January 1945 the allied forces were closing in. To eliminate witnesses to their crimes, thousands of prisoners were killed at Auschwitz, and 60,000 were forced to march west days before the liberation.

During these marches SS guards shot anyone who fell behind or could not continue. More than 15,000 died in that march. In the months prior to the liberation, an elderly French inmate urged a young Jewish prisoner named Olga to watch everything she saw, and when the war was over, to tell the world what she had seen. Olga wrote her memoirs in the years that followed and gave voice to those who could no longer speak.

Yesterday, the Washington Post featured the horrific stories of four Auschwitz survivors, including those who suffered under the sadistic Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, known as the Angel of Death. GEN Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of the allied forces in Europe also understood the importance of documenting what he saw. After visiting a recently liberated Nazi camp, General Eisenhower urged Washington to send a congressional delegation to witness Nazi crimes firsthand so in the future there could be no attempt to dismiss these allegations as mere propaganda. With the remaining eyewitnesses in their twilight years, the responsibility to ensure that future generations never forget these atrocities falls to us. Recently I joined my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Cardin, Kirk and others and introduced a resolution commemorating this important anniversary. This resolution calls on us to be witnesses to the 1.1 million innocent victims murdered at Auschwitz and honors the legacy of the survivors of the Holocaust.

Last Congress I chaired the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights. Although I am disappointed that the Republicans chose to change the name of that subcommittee under their leadership, I am going to continue to focus on protecting human rights and civil rights.

When I chaired the subcommittee, I tried to give a platform to voices that are not often heard and to examine what needs to be done to protect human rights. Our responsibility in Congress is to focus on legislation, not lamentation. So we wrote legislation and passed bills to hold the perpetrators of serious human rights violations accountable for their crimes.

In 2007 my Genocide Accountability Act was enacted, allowing prosecution of genocide committed outside the United States or by someone other than a U.S. national outside the United States. The following year President Bush signed the Child Soldiers Accountability Act, which I also introduced. In 2010 the Child Soldiers Accountability Act was used to deport Liberian warlord Dr. George Boley.

I have also authored the Trafficking in Persons Accountability Act, the Human Rights Enforcement Act, the Child Soldiers Prevention Act, the Child Marriage Prevention Act, Congo Conflict Minerals Act, all legislation aimed at protecting human rights in terrible situations, all of which became law.

Our hearts go out to the survivors who mourn their families and the millions of others murdered in the Holocaust. Today many of the survivors will return to Auschwitz. They will recall that moment when they first arrived more than 70 years ago and passed under a sign that mockingly read, in German, ``Work makes you free.'' Standing before them was Josef Mengele to await their fate. Turning right meant death in the gas chamber, turning left may have meant survival, for a few weeks at least. So many voices were silenced that now we have to tell their stories.

As the memory of the Holocaust passes from those who were there to the generations that were not, we cannot forget the importance of remembrance and speaking out against intolerance whenever and wherever it occurs. Unfortunately these horrible crimes still take place. Consider Boko Haram in Nigeria, ISIL in Syria and Iraq, and the barbaric systems of gulag in North Korea. We cannot be silent.

As Holocaust survivor Ruth Eglash said in yesterday's Washington Post:

I used to be an optimist until a few years ago, but the

situation in the Middle East has changed and the world does

not notice anything. . . . The bottom line is, it can happen

again and it is happening again in many places, not

necessarily to the Jews, but to anyone.

Our promise to hold accountable those who commit the most unspeakable crimes will ring hollow unless we lead the world in punishing those responsible for the gravest human rights violations. I look forward to continuing working with my colleagues in the Senate to make progress toward ending genocide and human rights abuses everywhere they exist. We should all proclaim in one voice: Never again.

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

Mr. President, let me first commend my colleague from Texas. We sit on opposite sides of the aisle, but there are many things that bring us together, and I certainly support what he has said about the impact of human trafficking.

In a hearing before the subcommittee on the Constitution, which he now chairs, during this session of Congress, we brought in law enforcement victims and talked about some of the outrageous things which are occurring in exploiting young people, particularly young women. One of the points which my colleague has made, and I have listened carefully, is that we should consider these human trafficking victims as victims.

Many times, sadly in the past, they have been prosecuted as if they were complicit, and many times they are children. They have no knowledge of their rights or obligations and are being exploited and, as a consequence, they are very reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement if they feel they too might end up in jail, having been victimized twice in the process.

I thank him for his leadership and I look forward to looking closely at his legislation and I hope we can work closely together on that.

Amendment No. 67

Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about a pending amendment which troubles me. I don't know if there will be much time for debate should we actually consider this amendment, and I want to make my feelings a matter of public record.

This is amendment No. 67 offered by Senator Sullivan. This amendment would require--would require--the disarming of Federal law enforcement officers who work for the Environmental Protection Agency.

There are currently about 180 law enforcement agents working for the Environmental Protection Agency. They are trained professional officers and are tasked with investigating and enforcing our Nation's environmental laws. They conduct investigations, execute warrants, and make arrests for misdemeanors and felonies under the laws of the Environmental Protection Agency.

This is law enforcement work and it is dangerous work. Many times these officers face the same threats as all law enforcement officers face. According to the Bureau of Justice statistics, there are 73 Federal agencies with law enforcement officers, ranging from the FBI to the Food and Drug Administration and NASA.

EPA's criminal investigators were given law enforcement powers in a law signed by President Reagan in 1988. President Reagan stated his administration actively sought this authority and he was pleased to sign it into law.

The amendment No. 67 of Senator Sullivan would prevent these EPA law enforcement officers from being armed while they are carrying out their law enforcement responsibilities. A lot of what these EPA agents do is to investigate suspected cases of illegal dumping of hazardous materials. This can lead to dangerous confrontations. The EPA reports its agents have frequently encountered weapons and armed individuals when they have conducted their work.

I took a look at some of these cases. Many people mistakenly believe the Environmental Protection Agency is a group of government employees sitting behind desks and computers in Washington and regional offices who don't get out and about to see the actual violations that are taking place. They are mistaken.

Let me give a few examples for the record. In Marathon, FL, EPA special agents, along with local sheriff's deputies, shot and arrested Larkin Baggett, a Federal fugitive from Utah, after he pointed an assault rifle at them. Baggett was initially arrested by the EPA on pollution-related crimes in the State of Utah. During the initial arrest of Mr. Baggett, a knife and handgun were recovered off his person. Mr. Baggett was considered armed and dangerous due to the amount of firepower he had in his possession.

Firearms recovered from Mr. Baggett included an AR-10 assault rival, a 12-gauge shotgun, several rifles and handguns, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Mr. Baggett was ultimately sentenced to 13 years in prison for his assault conviction and his environmental crimes conviction.

The Sullivan amendment would say the environmental officer who was trying to arrest this man had to be disarmed. In other words, the environmental law enforcement officer would have no firearm while Mr. Baggett would be holding an arsenal. That is what the Sullivan amendment would do.

During a Mississippi search warrant, seven handguns and a sawed-off pistol-grip shotgun were secured during the warrant. During that same warrant, two handguns were removed from the sweatshirt pocket and hip holster from one subject. Another handgun was removed from the purse of another subject. The sawed-off pistol-grip shotgun was found stored in the cavity of a desk where a drawer was removed and the weapon was pointed directly at the agents of the Environmental Protection Agency when they entered.

If you read the amendment offered by Senator Sullivan, he has removed the ability and right of these agents to be armed to protect themselves and to enforce the law, but he continues to require them to do the most basic things under the law. He requires them--continues to require them--to execute and

serve any warrant or other process unarmed. He continues to require them under the statute to make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States, including felonies. Under the Sullivan amendment they are to do so unarmed.

I can go through a lengthy list here of real-life circumstances where people working for the Environmental Protection Agency literally risked their lives, and they did it at least with the comfort of being trained professional law enforcement officers equipped with firearms to protect themselves and enforce the laws of the United States.

Senator Sullivan wants them to enforce the laws, but he doesn't want them to carry a firearm. That to me is ridiculous. In fact, it is dangerous. It is dangerous to send these men and women with the responsibility of doing their job into circumstances where they could literally lose their lives because of the Sullivan amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated January 24, 2015, signed by Jon Adler, be printed in the Record.

This letter says it all. It spells out how dangerous this is if the Sullivan amendment passes. To think that, for whatever reason, a U.S. Senator is going to take a firearm away from a law enforcement officer of a Federal agency who is putting his or her life on the line every single day is just plain wrong.

If Senator Sullivan wants to take away the enforcement authorities of this Agency, so be it. We can argue and debate that. But to require this Agency to execute warrants and make arrests but require that their law enforcement officials be unarmed is sending them into dangerous-- even deadly--situations. This Sullivan amendment is not well-thought- out. To offer this I think is a serious mistake.

The Senator is offering it, he says, because of a 2013 incident in which EPA agents were part of a law enforcement task force that investigated a mining operation in Alaska based on allegations of environmental allegations. I don't know the particulars of that incident, but there was a review of the incident commissioned by the Governor of Alaska--a Republican Governor of Alaska--that found no evidence that these EPA agents broke any laws during the investigation.

Isn't it odd that we have reached the point where, when we try to introduce an amendment which says that you will not sell a gun, a firearm, to someone at a gun show who is on the terrorist suspect list--many argue against that, saying even terrorist suspects have Second Amendment rights--and then turn around with the Sullivan amendment, this ill-advised amendment, and say law enforcement does not have a right to carry a firearm. That is the Sullivan amendment. I hope we vote against it on a bipartisan basis.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, in a short period of time, less than an hour, the Senate is going to vote on whether to end the debate on Senate bill 1.

Senate bill 1 is the Republican's No. 1 priority this year. They are new to the majority in the Senate, and they got to choose the first and most important bill to call, and they chose this bill, Senate bill 1.

This bill will override the President's authority when it comes to making a decision on building the Keystone Canadian pipeline--Canadian pipeline. You see, Keystone is a Canadian corporation, and the Republicans in the Senate decided the highest priority when it comes to America's economy is to help this Canadian corporation.

There will certainly be construction jobs involved in the construction of this pipeline, but there will only be 35 permanent jobs that come out of this. The No. 1 priority for the Senate Republican majority is 35 permanent jobs. Most McDonald's hamburger franchises have more than that number of jobs.

But, having said that, let's talk about where we are on the floor of the Senate at this moment. In their new role as majority party, the Republicans asked us to take up this legislation, and they said: We want to go to the point we have made over and over during the past several years--we should have an open amendment process.

I am here to tell you that we have cooperated. I was quoted--I am honored, flattered--by the majority leader on the floor as saying I think it is healthy. I have said that for a long time. What changed in the Senate is not just the new majority but the new minority. Our feeling on our side is we need to be constructive, offer amendments, offer different points of view, offer different approaches, debate them on the floor, accept the will of the Senate, and move forward on legislation. That is what we have tried do on this Keystone XL bill, and we have really offered amendments on the Democratic side that we think get to the heart of this debate.

My Republican friends and Senators like to characterize this as the Keystone jobs bill.

We started off by saying: Here is an idea. Let's say that the Canadian tar sands brought in through this pipeline and refined in the United States--the ultimate products, the oil products that come out of this refinery, are going to be there for Americans first, that Americans can use the gasoline and diesel fuel and jet fuel. In other words, it is going to stay in America.

The Republicans said no. We have to be prepared, after we go through all of this and build this Canadian pipeline, that ultimately none of the products will be used in the United States.

Then we said: OK, if we can't use the ultimate products coming out of this pipeline to help the American economy, then let's at least agree that we will build this Canadian pipeline in the United States with American-made steel. Let's put our steelworkers and foundries to work fabricating the steel to build the pipelines so we will create good- paying American jobs supplying the materials.

The Republicans voted no.

Then we said: Well, at the end of the day, these refineries, after they have processed Canadian tar sands, end up with a miserable byproduct called petcoke. It has some positive applications, but sadly, in many instances it is piled up stories high--even in the city of Chicago, within our city limits--and blows all over the neighborhood and into the lungs of children and elderly people. So let's at least have standards for the storage and handling of this byproduct that is going to come out of this Canadian pipeline.

The Republicans voted no.

Then we had a vote on whether we should be concerned with the environment. Using Canadian tar sands to make oil products puts more greenhouse gases in the air, more carbon dioxide, and should we be mindful of this.

If you read the votes that took place last week, it is unclear, uncertain as to where the Republicans stand on this issue. In fact, one Senator from North Dakota offered what I thought was a good amendment acknowledging this issue and then at the very end voted against his own amendment, which is rare in the Senate annals, but it shows you how conflicted many Republican Members were on the basic environmental issues.

Now let's get to the procedure and where we stand. Last Thursday night was troubling. After the constructive consideration of over a dozen different amendments on both sides of the aisle, the Republican majority leader said: Now bring out the next group of amendments. And we did. The Democrats cooperated. We produced six amendments we wanted up next, and the Republicans produced six amendments they wanted up next. An hour later, within an hour after producing the list, the Senate majority leader came to floor and said: That is it; we are not going to get this done as I wanted to get it done. We are going to start tabling the Democratic amendments, one after the other.

So the Members who offered the amendments, who had worked on the amendments stood at their desks as each amendment came up and said: I would like 60 seconds to just explain the amendment I wrote that we are about to vote on. Each and every time, the Republicans objected to 60 seconds of debate.

This is considered the world's greatest deliberative body. Yet the sponsors, the authors of the amendments were denied 60 seconds to even explain their amendments. It didn't leave a very good taste in the mouths of many Democrats--not even those who were supporting this Keystone Canadian Pipeline. Many of them think this is unfair.

If we are going to have a good-faith, bipartisan environment to consider amendments, let's go back and forth--Democrat, Republican--and let's consider the major issues before us. There are still major unresolved issues, health and safety issues, with pending amendments.

I approached the majority leader as he was leaving the floor and I said: Even if we do not invoke cloture this evening, let's work together on a bipartisan basis. Let's come up with these lists of amendments. Let's do this in a conscientious, good-faith effort to complete this bill.

I think we can achieve it. My hat is off to Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican Senator, who has come to the floor, leading this effort on the floor with the debate, but I have a special place in my heart for the Democratic side, where two other Senators have been outstanding in bringing us to this point on the issue. Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington is leading our effort on the Democratic side in full partnership with Senator Barbara Boxer of California, and many others.

As was suggested by a Senator last week, it is time for the boys to get off the stage and let the ladies come back in and consider these amendments and bring us to the right conclusion of thoughtful debate, important issues considered, and a vote in the U.S. Senate on this legislation.

Madam President, last week America lost a hero and Chicago lost one of its greatest. Cubs Hall of Famer Ernie Banks passed away Friday night.

He was known as Mr. Cub. His love for the game of baseball was matched only by his passion for the city of Chicago.

He was a Hall of Famer in every sense of the word. He won the hearts of not just Cubs fans but baseball fans across the Nation with his power hitting and Golden Glove performances, and he endeared himself to everyone he ever met with his humble approach to the game of baseball and the game of life.

Before Hall of Famer Ernie Banks became Mr. Cub, he was 17 years old playing in a sandlot in Dallas, TX. That is where Cool Papa Bell, one of the legendary leaders in the Negro League, discovered this young man and signed him to play for the Kansas City Monarchs for $7 a game.

While playing for the Monarchs, Ernie Banks was managed by another legend, Buck O'Neil.

Playing for the Negro League legend had a profound impact on young Ernie Banks. Buck had so much love for everybody that Ernie decided to model his life after him. It was with the Monarchs that Ernie learned to play with boundless energy and enthusiasm. He learned to express his joy for the game and took to heart the message Buck O'Neil, the manager, would often shout at him: ``You gotta love this game to play it!'' Ernie Banks loved it, and it showed.

Years later, O'Neil reunited with Ernie Banks when O'Neil agreed to manage the Cubs in 1962. Incidentally, he was the first African- American manager in Major League Baseball.

As one of the first African-American baseball players in the Major Leagues, Ernie Banks helped break down the color barriers. The Hall of Fame slugger and two-time MVP made his Major League debut at Wrigley Field in 1953, and he became the first African American to suit up for the Chicago Cubs.

He was only 180 pounds. He was not the most intimidating batter at the plate, but he had powerful wrists that generated tremendous bat speed. He whipped the bat through the ball, hitting 512 home runs in his career, with 2,583 hits, 1,636 RBIs, and having a career batting average of .274.

From 1955 to 1960, he was the most prolific home run hitter in the game, hitting more home runs than either Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, or Mickey Mantle during those years.

In 1958 and 1959, he was named the most valuable player in the National League. He was the first ever to win the award in consecutive years.

He was also the first player to have his jersey number retired by the Cubs, and on game days his number 14 flies proudly over the left field foul pole at the friendly confines of Wrigley Field.

Not surprisingly, Ernie Banks was inducted into Cooperstown the first year he was eligible. But it wasn't the numbers on the back of the baseball card that made Mr. Cub a beloved member of Chicago and the community. It was his passion for the game and the appreciation he showed to everyone he encountered.

Over the last several days, I have heard from baseball fans sharing their stories of meeting Mr. Cub. Nearly all were humbled by the opportunity to meet their hero, but even more impressed to find that Ernie was just as appreciative of his fans as they were of him.

It is an understatement to say that the Chicago Cubs had some tough seasons during Ernie's 19-year career. The Cubs had not won a World Series since 1908 or a National League title since 1945. But every day, win or lose, Ernie would lace up his cleats, step on the field, and smile for the whole world to see. You could not help but love watching him play.

And for Ernie Banks, the eternal optimist, he always believed this was going to be the year for the Cubs. Every spring he predicted, without fail, the Cubs were going to win the pennant.

Well, Ernie never got to play in the post season. But his love of the game never wavered despite this. He became famous for his contagiously positive attitude. He often remarked: ``It's a great day for baseball. Let's play two.'' That was the charm of Mr. Cub.

An 11-time All-Star, first-ballot Hall of Famer, selected to baseball's All-Century team in 1999, it was never about accolades or money for Ernie. He played for the pure joy of the game.

After hitting his 500th home run, becoming only the 9th player to achieve that feat, he summed up his feelings by saying: ``The riches of the game are in the thrills, not the money.'' That is an inspiring message.

In 2013, I contacted some friends in the White House and asked President Obama to consider a Medal of Freedom for Ernie Banks. I felt that his impressive career with the Cubs and his courage in breaking down the color barrier in baseball were reason enough. But more than these amazing achievements, Ernie's spirit set him apart.

It was a special moment to be there at the White House when Ernie Banks received the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I was honored to see it and experience it.

After being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, we held a reception for him in my office up here. I don't know if there have ever been so many humbled politicians coming by my office looking for an autograph. He happened to sign this photo for me that day that I have in the Chamber. I remember Johnny Isakson from Georgia--a faithful Atlanta Braves fan--made a point of being there to meet Ernie Banks. And I remember Harry Reid, when he met Ernie Banks, said: ``I used to play a little baseball.'' Ernie Banks said to him: ``Well, Senator Reid, what position did you play?'' He said: ``I was a catcher.'' Ernie Banks said: ``If you were truly a catcher, get down in that catcher's position.'' Somehow or another, Harry Reid got down in that catcher's position right in my office to prove it to Ernie Banks.

Ernie could not have been more gracious with his time, signing autographs for everybody who showed up. He made time for everybody.

The North Side of Chicago and Wrigley Field will not be the same without Ernie. ``Let's play two'' will echo off the bricks and ivy for generations to come. His positive, hopeful, Cub view of life filled every room and every baseball diamond he ever touched.

And now it would seem they need to find a new roster spot on the Field of Dreams--and everyone better be ready for daytime double- headers too.

Ernie Banks, your spirit, passion, and sunny outlook on life will be missed.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize the remarkable strength and spirit of the Central Illinois Xpress basketball team and its coach Tariq Toran.

As the only team of girls in an all-boys fifth grade basketball league in Springfield, IL, the Central Illinois Xpress has defied the odds and emerged as a powerhouse in the Illinois AAU boys' league. With an impressive record of 8 wins and 2 losses in the first half of the season, Coach Toran and the Central Illinois Xpress girls have made a name for themselves not just back at home, but across the Nation.

Strong, confident, and determined, the team comprised of nine girls ages 10 and 11 years old do not shy away from hard work and tough competition on the basketball court. With a series of two-on-one drills coupled with push-ups and sprints, these girls know how to practice hard and play hard. The Xpress girls use their summers to compete in a higher division comprised of older girls, which helps prepare them to play against tough teams during the season.

This tireless preparation and fearless attitude brought Coach Toran to sign the girls up for the all-boys' league this year. So far, the team's success has been undeniable. With their dribble drives, crisp passes, and methodical game play, the Central Illinois Xpress players have racked up more than enough wins to show the boys, and the community, that they are a force to be reckoned with this season.

These girls know what it means to push themselves for excellence, to fight for something against the odds, and to prove themselves to those, including some of the boys they are playing, who don't expect a girls team to be strong and play smart, aggressive ball.

It is my pleasure to wish these fifth-grade girls in Springfield the best of luck in the second half of this season.

Mr. President, let me join the majority leader in saying that I think we are in a healthy environment on the floor of the Senate where we are pursuing amendments and active debate, and it is great to see that happening. The only way that happens in the U.S. Senate is when the majority and the minority both work for it to happen. The rules of the Senate are constructed, as we both know well, so that literally any one Senator can stop the process. But the good-will and good-faith efforts of Senators on both sides of the aisle have really brought us to a good moment here.

I wish to commend especially the leaders on the floor for this legislation, Senator Murkowski of Alaska on the Republican side, and on our side Senator Maria Cantwell and Senator Barbara Boxer. The two of them, in an extraordinary show of cooperation, have been able to work together to process amendments.

The fact is we voted on nine amendments so far on this Keystone Pipeline measure. We have eight amendments pending today. So there is a good-faith effort on both sides to call up these important amendments with fairness to

both sides of the aisle. I want to see that continue.

I hope no one believes we are finished with eight amendments. We are not. There are other important amendments to be considered. Members have brought them to the attention of both sides, and I hope as quickly as we can that we will schedule them for consideration and a vote and move forward.

Yesterday, what was fascinating was the fact that we branched off from this conversation about the Keystone Pipeline itself and the jobs--35 permanent jobs--that will be created for this Canadian corporation and started talking about some underlying, critically important issues. We spent a great deal of time on the floor discussing the environmental impact not just of the pipeline but of the Canadian tar sands which will be brought by the pipeline, if it is approved, into the United States for processing.

It is interesting what we have learned so far during the course of this debate. When the Democrats insisted that this pipeline's product-- the oil that is refined and used for consumption--be sold in the United States, the Republicans voted no. The Republicans voted no. I have a lengthy memo on my desk of all of the Republican Senators who have come to the floor insisting that the Keystone Pipeline was going to create more gasoline, more diesel fuel, and help the American economy. Yet, when Senator Markey of Massachusetts offered an amendment to say keep the products coming from the Keystone Pipeline in the United States, the Republicans, to a person, voted no.

Then Senator Franken came forward and said, Well, let's agree that if this is about jobs in America that the Keystone Pipeline will use American steel. That seems reasonable to me, and I voted for it. The Republicans voted no. They defeated the notion that we would use American steel to build this pipeline.

This pipeline is Senate Bill 1 for the Senate Republicans. It is their highest priority. One would think that if it truly is a jobs bill, they would want American steel to be used to build the pipeline; let our steel mills build this pipeline in the future, create the jobs in America, and they voted no.

Yesterday I offered an amendment as well. We know at the end of this pipeline, if tar sands reach the United States through this means or otherwise, it is a pretty nasty process taking the tar and sand out of the oil, and what is left over is a nasty product known as petcoke.

Petcoke is now being stored in three-story-high piles in the city of Chicago. I have seen it. And the city is trying to get to the point where it is at least contained and covered. Yet, the company that owns it, which incidentally is a company owned by the Koch brothers--what an irony--this company has resisted the idea of covering these petcoke piles, so this nasty black substance blows through the community in southeast Chicago. The city of Chicago is in a battle.

I tried to put in an effort yesterday so that we would establish standards for transportation and storage of petcoke, and the Republicans insisted it was a benign substance, it isn't hazardous, not dangerous, don't worry about it. If some of the Senators who voted against my amendment, tomorrow, God forbid, face this issue in their community, I think they will have a little different view of petcoke and what it can do to people, the impact it has on respiratory disease and asthma.

Yesterday I didn't prevail. But I can tell my colleagues how over the years, as I fought the tobacco companies and they insisted there was nothing dangerous about tobacco, I heard those arguments from industry just as we are hearing the petcoke arguments from the petcoke industry. Ultimately, good sense prevailed, public health prevailed, and we moved toward regulation of tobacco products. We should do the same--basic regulation--to protect the public from any negative impact on their health relative to petcoke.

The amendments continue today. Some of them are extraordinarily important. I hope we will continue to move toward the completion of this task in an orderly manner. I commend not only the leadership on the majority side, but I commend my colleagues too. We found over the past many years that the process of amendment would break down when one Republican Senator would stand up and say, I won't let any amendment be considered until my amendment is considered, No. 1. It even reached a point where Republican Senators would say, I won't let any amendment be considered unless I am guaranteed my amendment will pass. Well, when people take unreasonable positions and threaten filibusters, we break down the amendment process.

We have tried, now being in the minority, to be more constructive, and we have reached that goal so far this week. I hope we continue to aspire to it and I hope we can wrap this bill up next week in an orderly manner.

Mr. President, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks around the world--particularly in Paris--the American people know that terrorism, sadly, is a threat to us even to this day. We count on one department of government as much if not more than any other to protect us--the Department of Homeland Security.

This is the Department which monitors the terrorist threats to our country on a minute-by-minute basis. This is the agency that provides the inspectors at airports and in many other places to try to thwart terrorism before it strikes. It is a critically important part of our government--one of the most important departments.

That is why it is curious to me that House Republicans insisted that the budget--the regular budget for the Department of Homeland Security--be held up until the end of February. They need their Department budget. They need to invest it to keep America safe. Yet, the House Republicans said no. They gave a continuing resolution to the Department, which basically lets them operate on a day-to-day basis with no certainty for the future. That is no way to run an agency, particularly one that is supposed to keep America safe.

Then, last week, the U.S. House of Representatives took another step and really revealed what was behind this strategy. They added five negative riders to this Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Their riders are the subject of immigration. Of course, the Department of Homeland Security has a responsibility when it comes to immigration. These riders were onerous and they threatened the very passage of this important legislation, so much so that the President of the United States has issued a veto threat if the Republican riders from the U.S. House of Representatives are included in the bill when it passes the Senate.

The right thing to do, the smart thing to do, the thing to do to protect America is for us to pass the homeland security appropriation now so this agency has its money. We should remove the onerous and unfair riders that were attached by the House of Representatives. If we are to debate the negative aspects of immigration, let's save it for another day and not put this Department of Homeland Security at risk and the safety of America at risk over this political effort by the Republicans in the House of Representatives.

One aspect of the House measure, an amendment to the Department of Homeland Security appropriation, I find particularly troublesome. It was 14 years ago when I introduced the DREAM Act. It is hard to imagine it has been that long. But the notion behind the DREAM Act was if a child is brought to America by a family and is undocumented in this country and that child grows up in America, completes high school, and has no serious criminal problems in their background, they ought to be given a chance to either enlist in our military, to go to college, to get on a path toward legalization. That is the DREAM Act.

Originally the DREAM Act had some Republican sponsorship, but over the years that support melted away. Yet, many Republicans have said from time to time: I think the DREAM Act is fair; we just haven't enacted it into law. Because of that, 2\1/2\ years ago many of us appealed to President Obama to protect these DREAMers, these young people. Many of them completed school and had nowhere to go. Being undocumented, they didn't qualify for a penny of assistance in going to

college and, many times, if they completed college, they couldn't get a job because of their immigration status.

Back in 2012 President Obama created a program called DACA. The DACA Program said that if these DREAMers--these young people who might be eligible under the law I described--would come forward and register with the government and submit to a background check and pay a filing fee, they would be given temporary status to live in the United States without being deported, to go to school, to work.

We estimate that some 2 million young people could qualify for this program, and 600,000 have signed up--so far, 600,000. In the State of Illinois, 30,000 have signed up. They have come forward.

I have met some of these young people who have qualified under DACA. They are extraordinary young people. I went to Loyola Medical School in Chicago. At the medical school I believe there are 10, perhaps 12 students who are DACA-protected who are now going to medical school. There are two things to be said. First, they are extraordinary students. They had no chance to go to medical school before DACA, and now they do. They are well qualified to go to medical school. Secondly, they have only come to Loyola with the promise that after they receive their medical license, they will practice in underserved areas in Illinois and across America, whether it is rural areas or inner city. They are prepared to dedicate their professional lives to serving people who otherwise might not have access to medical care.

That is just one example. Let me tell you about some others. I would like to update the Senate on two people whom I have come to the floor and talked about in the past--Carlos and Rafael Robles. They were brought to the United States when they were small children. They grew up in suburban Chicago in my home State of Illinois. They were both honor students at Palatine High School and Harper Community College.

In high school Carlos was the captain of the tennis team and a member of the varsity swim team. He volunteered for Palatine's physically challenged program, where every day he helped to feed lunch to special needs students. Carlos graduated from Harper Community College and went on to attend Loyola University in Chicago, majoring in education. This is what one of his teachers said about him:

Carlos is the kind of person we want among us because he

wants to make the community better. This is the kind of

person you want as a student, the kind of kid you want as a

neighbor and friend to your child, and most germane to his

present circumstance, the kind of person you want as an

American.

After he received DACA protection--President Obama's Executive order--Carlos was able to work as a tennis coach at his high school and help pay his tuition.

After he graduated from Loyola with a major in education, Carlos worked as a teacher in a public high school in Chicago. I ran into him at a meeting last year, and he told me about his ambition to be a teacher. He is now attending graduate school at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan, where he is studying education policy. He is a bright and engaging young man who wants to make our schools more effective.

In high school, his brother Rafael was captain of the tennis team and a member of the varsity swim team and soccer team. He graduated from Harper Community College and now attends the University of Illinois, where he is majoring in architecture. One of Rafael's teachers said:

Rafael is the kind of person I have taught about in my

Social Studies classes--the American who comes to this

country and commits to his community and makes it better for

others. Raffi Robles is a young man who makes us better.

During my 28-year career as a high school teacher, coach, and

administrator, I would place Raffi in the top 5 percent of

all the kids with whom I have ever had contact.

Since receiving DACA, Rafael has been a full-time student while also working at Studio Gang Architects, an award-winning architectural firm in Chicago. Rafael will graduate this spring with a 3.8 GPA.

In a letter to Congress, the Robles brothers shared their thoughts about efforts to overturn DACA. Here is what they said:

We ask you today to see it in your heart to do the right

thing, to listen, and to reward the values of hard work and

diligence, values that made America the most beautiful and

prosperous country in the world and that we're sure got you,

as members of Congress, to where you are today in life. These

are values we have come to admire and respect in the American

people. We will continue to uphold these values until the

last days of our lives. We hope eventually as citizens of the

United States we will become part of a country we now see as

home.

These two individuals, Carlos and Rafael Robles--extraordinary DREAMers--were brought to this country as children by their parents, undocumented with no future in America, and look what they have done with their lives. One has dedicated his life to education and has overcome the odds and graduated from Loyola University without any government assistance. Because he is undocumented, he doesn't qualify. Now he is going for a master's degree, again at his own expense. His brother is pursuing a degree in architecture.

Do you know what House Republicans say? Deport the Robles brothers. That is what their amendment to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations says. Deport these two young men. Send them out of this country despite the fact that they have worked so hard and succeeded in what they have set out to achieve.

The House Republicans want to deport the 600,000 just like them who have qualified under the President's DACA Program. And they have gone further--not a penny, they have said, for any additional young people to apply for the DACA Program. Two million young people, many of whom, like the Robles brothers, just want to make America a better place--the House Republicans say: Deport them. Further, they say: We won't pass the Department of Homeland Security appropriations to protect Americans from terrorism until you deport the Robles brothers and young people just like them.

What is wrong with this picture? Have the Members of the House of Representatives forgotten who we are as a nation? It is a nation of immigrants. My mother was an immigrant to this country. Her naturalization certificate is sitting right behind my desk upstairs. I am proud of it. She came to this country at the age of 2 from Lithuania and raised a family--a proud American citizen. Her son is honored to represent the State of Illinois in the U.S. Senate. That is my story. That is my family's story. That is America's story. That is the Robles' story.

Why do the House Republicans have such a vengeance against these young men and women who through no fault of their own found themselves in America and made the best of it and only want to make this a better Nation? It drives the House Republicans into a rage to think that the Robles brothers might stay in the United States and make this a better country. I don't get it. I don't understand their thinking.

I really would encourage the House Republicans to meet some of the DREAMers and get to know them. When they do, the images which perhaps they have in their minds would be dispelled quickly.

We have a job ahead of us. The Senate needs to pass the Department of Homeland Security appropriations and the sooner, the better. God forbid we face another terrorist attack. Let's not let it happen with this important Department facing the restrictions they have been facing because of this Republican strategy. Let's give them a full appropriation and tell them to do their best every single day to keep us safe. Let's not embroil their work in a political debate about immigration, which is what the House Republicans insist on. Let's do something different here in the Senate. Let's pass a clean Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Take out the immigration riders. Save them for another day. Save them for amendments on another bill. Let's fund this Department, and let's get it done now. For the safety and security of this Nation, we need to come together on a bipartisan basis and put this political tactic by the House Republicans behind us.

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

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, first, I want to thank the majority leader for the compliment which he has placed to the constructive minority in the Senate. We know that under the rules of the Senate, this procedure could have been stopped at any moment by any Senator. Yet we have worked in good faith with the good leadership of Senator Murkowski, Senator Cantwell, and Senator Boxer. We want to continue to.

We have had a number of amendments considered here. Many of them had Republican responses which we have accommodated. Many of your amendments had Democratic responses which you have accommodated. I think we have done that in good faith. We have not threatened any filibusters. We have not tried to stop the process, and we do not want to. We think we have constructive amendments. We want to bring them forward. We would like to have a vote.

I agree with the Senator completely, this is a constructive use of the Senate floor and the Senate procedure on a critical issue relative to our environment and energy policy in this country.

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is necessarily absent.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I was saddened to learn today of the death of Senator Wendell Ford of Kentucky. Wendell Ford was a skilled political mind and as warm a human being as any U.S. Senator has ever been.

During my first 2 years in the U.S. Senate, Senator Ford was the assistant Democratic leader, the same job I have today. I was fortunate, able to learn by example from one of the best. And how fortunate the people of Kentucky and all Americans were to have had the benefit of Wendell Ford's public service.

Senator Ford served in the Senate for nearly a quarter of a century. Before that, he served the Bluegrass State as a State senator, Governor, and lieutenant governor. He defended America in uniform during World War II.

Maybe because he had already accomplished so much before he came to the Senate, he never worried about headlines. Instead, he was content to work quietly, diligently, effectively--often with colleagues from across the aisle--to solve problems.

The last desk Senator Ford occupied in the Senate was once occupied by another great Kentucky Senator, ``the great compromiser'' Henry Clay. Like Henry Clay, Wendell Ford believed that compromise was honorable and necessary in a democracy. But Wendell Ford also understood that compromise is, in Henry Clay's words, ``negotiated hurt.'' So Wendell Ford tried, whenever possible, to work out disagreements between the scenes, away from the cameras, where Senators could bend and still keep their dignity.

In 1991 Wendell's quiet bipartisan style convinced a Senator from across the aisle, Mark Hatfield of Oregon, to join him in sponsoring the motor voter bill. Working together, this Democrat and this Republican Senator convinced the entire Senate it was time to pass this landmark bill. To this day the motor voter bill remains the most ambitious effort Congress has made since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to open up the voting booth to more Americans.

Wendell Ford distinguished himself in the Senate as a determined foe of government waste and duplication and a champion of campaign finance reform.

His raspy voice was unmistakable. His good humor and wise counsel were indispensable in some of the most important debates. He will be missed.

I know our entire Senate sends their condolences to Senator Ford's wife Jean and to all of Senator Ford's family and friends.

I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Vermont.

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

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the majority leader came to the floor this evening and commended the Senate for the work we have done. He pointed out the constructive, bipartisan, good-faith efforts that have been made on both sides. Earlier today we disposed of 10 separate amendments, 5 on each side. Those amendments were given to us yesterday. During the last 24 hours there has been active negotiation back and forth on side-by-side amendments. In fact, the Republican Senator from Missouri and the Republican Senator from Nebraska asked to modify their amendments while they were still pending. There was a good-faith effort to make these amendments ready for floor consideration, and they were. They were brought before the Senate, and they were voted on in an orderly way. We all know that in the rules of the Senate you can stop the train. No one did on this side of the aisle. We moved forward in an orderly way.

Now at 8 o'clock this evening, 12 more amendments have come forward, 6 on each side. The majority leader is correct. What we are trying to do, as we did with the previous 10 amendments, is to work through these in an orderly fashion, and we propose that we start considering them tomorrow morning.

Those who are interested in--the staff who are interested, the Members who are interested can work to put these 12 amendments in order. We will start working on them as early as the majority leader wants to work tomorrow morning and start working through the amendments and those others that may be offered. But I would say, if we are going to continue in the spirit of good faith, bipartisan cooperation, then let us work together as we have leading up to today to come to the point where we can have a vote on those amendments.

There are others that may be offered on both sides. But for these pending amendments, we are ready to commit to you that we will be here first thing in the morning, and let's start considering them.

I object.

Will the majority leader yield for a question?

Did the majority leader not notify the entire Senate that we would be working on Fridays?

I would say to the majority leader, we are prepared to start working in an orderly fashion on Friday, as we did earlier today.

Mr. Durbin, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Franken), and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) are necessarily absent.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, now that we have purged the calendar of five of the six Democratic amendments, the majority leader tells us it is time to vote.

It doesn't strike me that this is in the best interest of what we are trying to achieve. We are going back and forth in a bipartisan, constructive fashion. I would like to ask the majority leader is he prepared to be in session tomorrow and to consider Democratic and Republican amendments and work through the list, including the ones he just tabled?

What I am asking is to try to amend this so it does have some balance. The majority leader mentioned one Democratic amendment and at least five or six Republican amendments to be considered tomorrow.

The Record will reflect the spirited debate on those amendments when the majority leader wouldn't even give the authors 60 seconds to describe what was in the amendment.

I object.

Mr. President, yesterday marked the 5-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In this sweeping opinion, on a divided 5 to 4 vote, the Court held that the First Amendment permitted corporations to spend freely from their treasuries to influence elections. As a result of Citizens United and the series of decisions that followed in its wake, we have witnessed wealthy, well-connected campaign donors and special interests unleash a deluge of cash in an effort to sway Federal, State, and local elections across our Nation.

Let me be clear: I firmly believe that every voice should be heard in our country, and every perspective should have a seat at the Nation's policymaking table. However, Citizens United has led to a system that allows a privileged group of deep-pocketed donors and corporations to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens in an effort to buy and control every seat at the table.

The numbers speak for themselves. During the last Presidential election, outside groups poured more than one billion dollars into Federal races, over three times the $338 million that outside groups spent in 2008. More than 93 percent of all super PAC donations in 2012 came in contributions of at least $10,000 from 3,318 donors, who make up 0.0011 percent of the U.S. population. Of that group, an elite class of 159 people each contributed at least $1 million--funding nearly 60 percent of all super PAC donations that year.

We saw this trend continue during the recent midterm elections. Outside groups spent more than $560 million to influence 2014 Federal races--8 times the approximately $70 million spent in 2006, the last midterm election cycle before Citizens United. In 2014, we also saw a significant increase in political activity by tax-exempt ``dark money'' groups that do not publicly disclose their donors. Citizens United and its progeny have created a campaign finance system flush with secret cash and sorely lacking in transparency.

The impact stretches from Congress to state capitols to city halls throughout the country. As in Federal campaigns, Citizens United has led to an explosion of outside spending at the State and local levels, with corporations and wealthy single spenders looking to play kingmaker, pouring cash into races for positions ranging from district attorney to city commissioner. One of the most startling examples last fall occurred in Richmond, CA, a city with a population of 107,000. Chevron--an energy company with more than $200 billion in annual revenue--spent approximately $3 million through campaign committees aimed at influencing the mayoral and city council races. That means Chevron spent at least $33 per voting-age resident in Richmond.

While the influx of spending is well documented, I believe that the long-

term damage to our political process from Citizens United is just beginning to reveal itself. Some scandals have already emerged, and there will doubtlessly be more stories of corruption and corrosive influence ahead. As a result, the public confidence in our government will continue to erode.

I have worked with my colleagues on a number of solutions to address these concerns. Yesterday, several of these proposals were introduced in both the Senate and House of Representatives. I strongly support my colleagues in their efforts to improve disclosure and create a more transparent campaign finance system, and I will continue my efforts to establish a public financing system for Congressional elections through the Fair Elections Now Act, which I plan to reintroduce soon.

We also must continue to push for a constitutional amendment that would protect and restore the First Amendment by overturning Citizens United and empowering Congress and State legislatures to set reasonable, content neutral limitations on campaign spending. Last year, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, I was proud to preside over a hearing and a vote on Senator Udall's Democracy for All amendment. A majority of the Senate voted in favor of the bill, but not enough to defeat a Republican filibuster. We will continue to pursue this amendment and work toward its ultimate ratification.

As I said last year, supporting a constitutional amendment to reform our campaign finance system was not a decision I came to lightly. There is a very high bar for amending the Constitution and that is exactly the way it should be. In fact, Senator Udall's amendment was the only constitutional amendment that the Constitution Subcommittee approved during my time as chairman. But I believe it is necessary to clean up our campaign finance system once and for all. Only a constitutional amendment can fully undo the damage of Citizens United and ensure that elections are a contest of the best ideas--not just the ideas of multimillionaires and corporate titans.

In the 5 years since Citizens United was decided, we have watched the corrosive influence of special interest money grow. It crosses the political spectrum, with wealthy donors vying for influence and streams of secret cash emerging from both the right and the left. Meanwhile, everyday Americans struggle for their voices to be heard amidst the endless ads blanketing the airwaves, so often financed by corporate interests.

As Justice Rehnquist once noted, corporations are granted the advantages of perpetual life, property ownership, and limited liability ``to enhance [their] efficiency as an economic entity.'' But he went on to say that ``those properties, so beneficial in the economic sphere, pose special dangers in the political sphere.'' While some First Amendment protections have rightfully been extended beyond everyday Americans to corporations, Citizens United went too far. Living, breathing Americans face challenges and have concerns that are very different than those faced by corporations--and their resources pale in comparison.

The special dangers of corporate influence in elections have never been more evident. The Supreme Court should fully examine the impact and effects of Citizens United and consider its damaging consequences as future cases involving campaign finance come before the Court. In the meantime, I will work with my colleagues to continue our legislative efforts to fix America's campaign finance system and overturn Citizens United so that elected officials listen to the everyday Americans who elected them--not just the wealthy donors and special interests that bankrolled their success.

Mr. President, last night the President talked about the economy and the progress we have made. The United States grew 2.6 percent last year, and in the third quarter alone our economy grew by 5 percent. Nearly 3 million jobs were created--the best year for the U.S. labor market since the height of the economic boom under President Bill Clinton. Lower gasoline prices are providing relief to many families and consumer confidence is up. The deficit has been cut in half.

Yet we know that while the economy is growing and unemployment is declining, sadly, much of the benefit is going to those at the very top of the ladder. The top 1 percent of American wage earners saw 49 percent of the decline in incomes during the recession, but they have seen 95 percent of the income gained since the recovery started. Let me repeat that. The top 1 percent of wage earners have seen 95 percent of the gains since our economy has recovered.

The gap between wages for low-income and middle-income families and those at the top is staggering. Forty-seven people in America own more than 160 million Americans combined. That has to change.

This isn't just a Democratic observation. Even Republicans have publicly agreed with us that working families are falling behind. Let me quote a few. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, a potential candidate for President, said: ``Here's reality: If you're fortunate enough to count yourself among the privileged, much of the rest of the Nation is drowning.'' Jeb Bush said that.

Mitt Romney, a former Republican candidate for President and perhaps a Republican candidate for President again--here is what he said last week as he has rekindled his dream for the Presidency: ``. . . the rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse, and there are more people in poverty than ever before.''

Even Speaker John Boehner said this in an interview:

The top third of America are doing pretty good. The bottom

two-thirds are really being squeezed.

So how do we address these challenges? Our parties look at it differently.

The Republican majority in this Chamber had to pick the first bill they would bring to the floor of the Senate once they reached the majority. There were a lot of initiatives they could have considered. We know what they chose--the Keystone XL Pipeline--a pipeline owned by a Canadian company. That is the No. 1 priority of the Republicans in the Senate, bar none. When they wanted to respond to President Obama's State of the Union Address with Senator Ernst of Iowa, they focused on the Keystone XL Pipeline. What a limited vision of the future--one pipeline.

Then we took two votes yesterday on this pipeline, and it started to become clear what this pipeline is all about. It is moving Canadian tar sands from Canada, through the United States, and to a refinery in Texas. We learned yesterday the Republicans will not even support the proposition that the refined oil products coming out of this refinery will help America.

We had a simple amendment Senator Markey of Massachusetts offered which said that at the end of the pipeline, the refinery's oil products will be sold in America. The Republicans defeated that amendment. So all this argument about how this oil out of this pipeline is going to help our economy in the future? Nope, don't expect it to happen. Yesterday's overwhelming Republican vote made it clear.

There was a second part that was considered yesterday. This bill--the No. 1 priority of the Senate Republican majority--is going to build a pipeline, that is for sure. We said, good, if it is going to be built, use American steel in building the pipeline. That is not an outrageous suggestion. If this is such a priority for the Republicans, wouldn't they want to put Americans to work to make the steel to build the pipeline? We offered that as an amendment yesterday. Senator Franken offered that amendment and the Republicans rejected it. The Republicans rejected the premise that the steel that goes into the most important pipeline in the history of America, from their point of view, should actually come from America. That is the second amendment we considered.

This special interest project, the Keystone XL Canadian-owned pipeline, is going to continue to be the No. 1 dominant issue in the Senate for days to come.

Republicans plan to do everything they can to help build a pipeline, but they want to deny millions of Americans access to health care. That is what the House Republicans have come up with. They want to come up with a plan that will literally take away the coverage of health care from Americans. Is there anyone in this country who thinks that is the right thing for our future? We are trying to reduce the number of uninsured. The Republican changes to the Affordable Care Act would increase the number of uninsured and increase the number of Americans dependent on government-sponsored health care. It doesn't sound like a Republican idea to me, but it is. That is what is coming from the House of Representatives.

There are pretty clear differences in how we help working families. For the Senate Republicans, it is to build a Canadian pipeline. Don't use American steel, don't keep the oil in America, but build this pipeline--No. 1 priority. The House Republicans take away health insurance coverage for hundreds of thousands of Americans at a time when we know that leaves people in a precarious position.

Here is what the President said last night: We want to make certain we focus on projects and programs and new ideas that can leave our children a better world and our grandchildren as well. Do we want an economy where everyone has an opportunity to climb that economic ladder or do we want a world where those who are born into lives of luxury set the rules and always come out ahead? Do we want an economy that rewards those who work hard and play by the rules or an economy where corporations rig the game so it is tails you lose, heads I win?

We know that an economy with a strong middle class is key to growing America. Yet it is becoming harder and harder for families to even reach the middle class. Working families aren't looking for a handout-- not in my State. They just want a chance for a better life for their kids.

There is a way we can do this. It is called the earned-income tax credit. This is an idea supported by Republican Presidents in the past. Historically both parties have supported it. The earned-income tax credit is designed to encourage work by providing a tax credit to working families.

The President's proposal, similar to one that Sherrod Brown and I have introduced, would expand the credit to help the only group that our Tax Code pushes into poverty: childless workers. What a difference this would make for millions of working families, the difference between paying a heating bill or putting it off, the difference between getting a prescription filled or waiting. A small refundable tax credit for these workers can make a bigger difference than many U.S. Senators would ever realize.

The President also proposed making 2 years of community college free for responsible students and giving motivated students a path to a solid educational foundation without debt. This is not a Democratic idea. The President acknowledged last night that this idea came from a Republican Governor in Tennessee. I might add that a Democratic mayor, Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, has a similar program, but the President went to Tennessee to acknowledge that the Republican legislature and the Republican Governor had come up with a good idea. So to argue this is somehow a partisan idea, it sure isn't in Tennessee. If it is partisan, it is a Republican partisan idea.

The President understands that in the 20th century, maybe K-12 was just enough to make it. In the 21st century it is not enough. K-14, most of us understand, is the ticket to a good-paying job.

I called in to some of the media this morning from Illinois, and they said, oh, this community college free tuition idea--another Federal mandate. Well, let me disabuse you of this idea. This is voluntary. It is original. States decide if they want to be part of it, but I think those States that want to be part of free community college tuition for good, achieving, hard-working students are on the right track, and those who ignore it may fall behind.

The jobs of this century will require more training and education than ever. I think this notion is a good one. Have we ever gone wrong in the history of the United States by investing in education, investing in our students, investing in our future? That is what the President's proposal does. It has been dismissed out of hand by the Republicans, even though it had a Republican origin. That is a mistake. We should count on our community colleges, the affordable alternative for higher education for 40 percent of America's college students. And thank goodness it steers these kids away from these God-forsaken for- profit colleges and universities which too often exploit these young people, these young men and women, sink them deep in debt and, if they are lucky, hand them a worthless diploma at the end of the day. Community colleges are the affordable ticket in Kentucky, in Illinois, and across America.

The President reminded us last night that we live in a great country and our economy is recovering. But while the wealthiest Americans are doing fine, more American families are spending hours at the kitchen table trying to figure out how to make ends meet. Let's help those families. Let's agree to help those families. One Canadian-owned pipeline is not the answer. We need to think about education, we need to think about a Federal transportation bill, and we need to think about investing in America and its future.

Mr. President, in the aftermath of the recent terror attacks in France, it is tough to know what the House of Representatives is thinking. Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives threatened to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. That is the government agency responsible for protecting America from the threat of terrorism.

Why are we debating full funding for the Department of Homeland Security? Every other government agency, I might add, has been properly funded through the omnibus bill. But the Republicans insisted on not funding the Department of Homeland Security, which fights terrorism in the regular orderly appropriations process. They insisted this Department be funded only through the end of February. Does that mean that America is safe from terrorism? I wish it were true. But we know that we are only one terrorist away from a terrible incident in America.

One of the Departments with the major responsibility of protecting us is the Department of Homeland Security. So why did the Republicans decide they wanted to make the funding of this Department uncertain and contingent?

Well, the reason was they are so angry with President Obama's Executive order on immigration that they are putting America at risk by failing to properly fund the Department of Homeland Security. Then last week, the bill the House passed made the appropriation for this Department contingent on five riders. A rider is an addition. It is language that doesn't relate to a budget or appropriation, and it relates to the Executive orders that were established by the President.

The House bill passed last week would defund President Obama's immigration policies, including the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, known as DACA, which has been in place for over 2 years.

What does DACA do? By the President's Executive order, it puts on hold the deportations of immigrant students who grew up in America. It allows these young people to continue to live and work in this country on a temporary basis. They are known, in shorthand, as the DREAMers.

I know a little bit about this because I introduced the first DREAM Act 14 years ago in the U.S. Senate. It has become a very familiar term, but when I first started, no one had ever heard of it. What I found was there were young people brought to the United States by their parents at a very early age who had, obviously, no voice in the decision, raised in America, undocumented, went through our schools, were successful, had no criminal problems, and wanted a future.

They couldn't get a future under American law. The DREAM Act would give them that opportunity to move to legal status. We have already invested in these young people, in their education, so why would we want to give up on their talents by deporting them after they are educated? That is exactly what the U.S. House of Representatives has proposed.

In 2010, I joined with Republican Senator Richard Lugar. We wrote a letter to President Obama. It said: Why would we deport these young DREAMers? They offer so much potential for America.

A year later, 22 Senators joined me in sending a followup letter to the President, and he issued his Executive order called DACA.

Six hundred thousand eligible DREAMers have signed up for DACA, which means for these 600,000, they can live and work in America without the fear of deportation. It makes a big difference. Thirty thousand of them live in Illinois. We estimate there are another 1.5 million eligible.

The Center for American Progress says these young people aren't just taking up space, they are going to add to the economy because of their talents. They estimate that these DREAMers will add $329 billion to our economy and create 1.4 million new jobs by 2030. That is a pretty tall prediction to think that these young people could have that impact on our economy.

Let me tell you the story of one of the DREAMers whom the House Republicans would deport, and you may understand why this estimate of the profound, important impact of these DREAMers on our economy is realistic.

As I mentioned, I introduced the DREAM Act 14 years ago. I have come to the floor over 50 times to tell stories of these DREAMers who, frankly, make the case for passing the DREAM Act and for defeating this hate-filled provision that was passed by the U.S. House. I am going to continue to update these stories about these DREAMers so you can understand why giving up on these DREAMers is giving up on the future of this country.

I want to tell you the story about Carlos Martinez. Here is a picture of him. Carlos is holding his DACA card under the President's Executive order. Carlos and his brother were brought to the United States in 1991. Carlos was 9 years old. He came to this country and didn't speak one word of English, and his father told him, ``Estudien para que no batallen en la vida como yo.'' What it means in English is: Study so you don't have to struggle in life like I have.

Carlos took his father's advice to heart. At high school in Tucson, AZ, Carlos graduated ninth in his class. Then he enrolled at the University of Arizona. He was undocumented at the time. He had never owned a computer, but he loved math and he dreamed about being a computer engineer.

Four years later, in 2003, Carlos Martinez graduated with a bachelor of science degree in computer engineering and a minor in computer science, electrical engineering, and math. He was named the top Hispanic graduate in his class.

For the record, Carlos Martinez did not qualify for 1 penny of Federal assistance to go to college, and you can imagine in Arizona probably not 1 penny of State assistance. But he made it through, graduating as the top Hispanic in his class from the University of Arizona. But after he graduated, reality set in. He received job offers from Intel, IBM, and a host of tech companies, but then they found out he was undocumented. He couldn't be hired.

He didn't give up. He enrolled in the master's program for software systems engineering at the University of Arizona. He completed a 2\1/2\ year program in a year and a half.

Carlos Martinez was also nominated for the University of Arizona Graduate School Centennial Award, given to the school's top graduate student.

Carlos Martinez submitted his application for DACA when President Obama created this opportunity in August of 2012. The first day the forms were available, he was in line. He was one of the first to be approved. As soon as he received the notification he had been approved under this Executive order, Carlos Martinez went to a career fair at the University of Arizona and handed out his resumes to IBM, Intel, and other high-tech companies. Today Carlos Martinez is working for IBM. Out of more than 10,000 applicants for the job he filled, he was one of only 75 who were hired.

Is America a better place to have that kind of educated individual working with good ideas, creating new products, expanding employment opportunities? Of course it is.

So now the U.S. House of Representatives has decided the best thing for the future of America is to deport Carlos Martinez and deport those other young students who hold such potential for this country. That is the House Republican approach to immigration--deport Carlos Martinez.

There are so many other DREAMers around this country with the same talents as Carlos. I want the American people to understand the human cost of the proposal that has been sent to us by the House of Representatives under Republican control. The House Republicans want to end DACA. Hundreds of thousands of people such as Carlos Martinez, protected by DACA, would be deported, and 1.5 million eligible to apply for DACA would never have that chance. It is shameless, shameless to play politics with the lives of nice young people who grew up in America and want to be part of our future, and it is so shortsighted.

Will America be stronger if Carlos Martinez is gone? The House Republicans say yes, he should leave. After all of this investment, K- 12, bachelor's degree at the University of Arizona, the top graduate student in his master's program at that same university, the House Republicans say, ``Deport Carlos Martinez.'' They feel so strongly about this they are willing to hold up the appropriation for the Department of Homeland Security, the agency responsible for protecting our Nation.

Let me be clear. Democrats are not going to be swayed by this blackmail. We will insist the Department of Homeland Security be properly funded to protect America and to do it now. This President made it clear he is ready to sign that bill, the sooner the better. Let's not assume that America has somehow been immunized or inoculated and never can be threatened again by terrorists. Let us properly fund the Department of Homeland of Security, and let us not pursue that shameless agenda sent to us by the House Republicans. Let's remove these riders and give Carlos Martinez and thousands of others just like him a chance to be part of America's future.

I yield the floor.