Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are in morning business and the minority is now entitled to 30 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to speak in morning business on the pending issue on the floor, and I am glad my friend and colleague from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven, is on the floor as well. Perhaps we can do something unprecedented and actually have a dialogue on the issue, if the Senator is open to that suggestion. After I make some opening remarks, I will try to request that through the Chair but only if the Senator is interested.

I thank the Senator from North Dakota and warn him that we are getting perilously close to a Senate debate, which almost never happens. So we want to alert all the news bureaus that this might even turn into a debate on the floor of the Senate.

This is Senate bill 1. It is the highest priority of the Senate Republican majority. It is their first bill in the majority. They decided their first bill would be the Keystone XL Pipeline bill. The Keystone XL Pipeline is not owned by an American company; it is owned by a Canadian company, is my understanding, TransCanada. What they are doing is shipping tar sands from Canada--at least it is proposed here-- into the United States, across the Midwest, to be refined in Texas and then turned into refined oil products, which could include, of course, gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and other things.

Yesterday we had two votes on the floor of the Senate about this pipeline and what it is going to produce, and they were interesting votes.

In the first vote we said: Well, if we are going to have this pipeline come into the United States of America and bring Canadian tar sands to be refined, then whatever oil it produces, the products it produces, should be used in America to help Americans reduce the cost of gasoline, to make it cheaper for manufacturing concerns to use their products.

The Republicans rejected that notion that the oil and products produced by the Keystone XL Pipeline would be used in America. They rejected that. I think the vote was 57 to 42. Three or four Democrats joined them, but all of the Republicans, if I am not mistaken, voted to say the products coming out of this pipeline wouldn't be used in America.

Then we offered a second amendment. The second amendment said: Well, if we are going to build this pipeline--and a lot has been said about this being the Keystone jobs bill--shouldn't we use American steel, use American products to build it so that it truly does create jobs in the steel industry and demand for steel products?

The Republicans rejected that amendment as well. So their idea of a Keystone jobs pipeline is a pipeline that produces a product that won't be sold in America and a pipeline that is built with foreign steel. That is their idea of an American jobs bill?

There is also another aspect of this, on which I have introduced an amendment. There is a dirty little secret about this Keystone XL Pipeline which we will get to vote on today. This is what it comes down to. For the longest time nobody looked at Canadian tar sands as a viable source of a product that could be refined into gasoline or diesel fuel. The reason it was never considered viable was the price of a barrel of oil was too low. They knew that in these tar sands up in Canada, there was the potential of drawing oil after they went through a lengthy and expensive process, and they couldn't afford it until the price of oil started knocking on the door of $80, $90 and $100, and then Canadian tar sands became viable. They could afford to refine the product and make some money. And that is what happened.

The Canadian tar sands were developed in Alberta, and they were shipped to the United States and other places to be refined. In fact, the first Keystone pipeline, I would argue--although it went by a different name--actually went to Illinois. It went to Wood River, IL, to the Conoco refinery, and I have seen it. I have seen the refinery since it has been receiving these tar sands.

The reason why it is more expensive to use Canadian tar sands to produce oil products is you have to take out the tar sands. That is a viscous, nasty product that has to be dealt with with extraordinary refining capacity, which they developed at Wood River, what is now the Phillips refinery. I have seen it.

The dirty little secret about this process is that after they have taken off the worst parts of it--the parts that are not really economically valuable to most--they have to do something with it, and it turns out that in this process they generate huge amounts of what is known as petcoke. Petcoke is the byproduct of Canadian tar sands. Petcoke is what is left over after they take what is valuable out of Canadian tar sands. And there is a lot of it.

Proponents of the bill would like to tell you the pipeline won't have any harmful environmental impact, but a lot of communities across America know better--Detroit, Chicago, and Long Beach, CA, for three. These communities have seen what happens when big refineries near their homes start processing large amounts of Canadian tar sands.

Let me show an illustration. This is from the city of Chicago--the city of Chicago. This is a Chicago neighborhood. If you didn't know better, you would assume it is someplace in a remote area. It is not. This Chicago neighborhood looks an awful lot like Little Rock, AR; Fargo, North Dakota, except take a look at what is next door to these little bungalows and homes. This is a petcoke dumpsite.

The British Petroleum refinery receives Canadian tar sands in Whiting, IN, refines them, and the leftover product--this petcoke sludge--is shipped over to the city of Chicago, where it is deposited in piles that are three- and four-stories high. I have seen them.

The residents started noticing these mountain-like piles of petcoke appearing right over the train tracks from their homes and at a local baseball field after the Whiting refinery began processing tar sands. You might imagine that on windy days, giant clouds of petcoke dust swirl above these storage piles and cover the neighborhoods. I have seen them. I have visited them. So these working families, when the wind is blowing in their direction, end up with this petcoke blowing into their homes, into the lungs of their children.

Often, the dust from these petcoke piles means that people living in the southeastern part of Chicago are forced to breathe dirty air that one organization--National Nurses United--says causes severe health threats. You see, petcoke--this product from Canadian tar sands-- contains heavy metals such as nickel, vanadium, and selenium. Nickel causes cancer. Chronic exposure to nickel can cause neurological and developmental defects among children. You can see this nasty petcoke on the windowsills and buildings around this neighborhood, but you can't see it in the lungs of the children until it is too late.

The National Institute For Occupational Safety and Health warns that inhaling nickel-laced dust increases your risk for lung cancer and fibrosis.

Petcoke dust also contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which have been linked to cancer as well. And it is not just because the chemical composition of petcoke is toxic; the dust particles themselves are extremely dangerous. When you inhale petcoke, that dust can get trapped in your lungs, causing respiratory problems. Once in the lungs, these tiny particles can aggravate asthma, leading to premature death in people with heart or lung disease, and cause heart attacks.

Yesterday I made the point that when I visit schools across my State to ask how many students in the classroom know someone who has asthma, without fail, rural or urban schools, half the hands go up. I invite my colleagues to do the same. So anything we do to aggravate this asthma threat we face is something we ought to think about very carefully. Some safety documents even note that long-term exposure to petcoke might cause damage to the lung, liver, and kidney.

Because of petcoke dust, the city of Chicago has advised residents in this neighborhood and around it to limit the time they are outdoors. In addition, Mayor Emanuel and the city are working with residents and local environmental organizations to limit the amount of petcoke that can be stored in the city and to require that it be enclosed in facilities that would protect it from blowing around.

This isn't the first city in America to face this danger from Canadian tar sands, which will be transported, if built, by the Keystone XL Pipeline. The city of Detroit, shipping ports near Los Angeles, they have dealt with petcoke piles too. We need to do more.

Many of these cities have had to act because for years petcoke has been exempt from regulation under many Federal environmental laws, and it has not been forced to comply with Federal cleanup standards.

The Federal Government's views on the official side of the ledger-- the regulatory side of the ledger is that these petcoke piles are benign, not to be worried about. The health information tells us they are wrong.

That is why I proposed an amendment to end petcoke's exemptions and require the EPA and Department of Transportation to promulgate rules on how to store and transport petcoke to protect public and ecological health. It

closes the environmental loophole for petcoke.

My amendment would require we make these changes before construction is allowed to begin on this pipeline. It is important because tar sands transported by the Keystone XL Pipeline--this Canadian company--will dramatically increase the amount of petcoke produced in this country.

In the year 2013 the United States produced a record amount of 57.5 million metric tons of petcoke.

According to the environmental impact statement for the Keystone XL Pipeline, the No. 1 priority of the Senate Republican majority, this pipeline will produce over 15,400 metric tons of petcoke every day.

Under current law all of this new petcoke would continue to be shipped to local communities for storage and disposal in the same large open piles we see in this photograph in Chicago. That isn't right. We in Congress should deal with the acres of petcoke piles that are already out there before we build a pipeline that will create 15,400 metric tons of it a day. Incidentally, the BP refinery that has created this mess is generating 6,000 tons a day. More than twice as much will come out of the Keystone XL Pipeline, the No. 1 Republican Senate majority issue, S. 1, Keystone XL Pipeline, Canadian company, 35 permanent jobs but 15,400 metric tons of petcoke every single day somewhere in America.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment to treat petcoke for what it is. It is a dangerous byproduct that shouldn't be stored in open-air piles near neighborhoods, ballparks, children, and elderly people.

End the regulatory loophole for petcoke and establish reasonable guidelines for handling this dangerous material. This would help ensure that clean air and clean water is something everyone can enjoy--even if you happen to have the bad luck of living in a neighborhood near a petcoke dump site such as this one near the city of Chicago.

I see the Senator from Minnesota is seeking recognition. I ask unanimous consent for the Senator from North Dakota and myself to enter into a 3-minute dialogue so we don't hold up my friend from Minnesota.

I know the Senator is a reasonable man and has been Governor of a State and understands responsibility.

Is it too much to ask that we regulate petcoke so it is not a public health hazard to the people who happen to live next door to these dumps?

Reclaiming for a brief followup. I want to make sure I understand the Senator's position.

The Senator's position is we should not establish any Federal standards on the safety of petcoke and leave it up to the States.

He also argues it is not a danger, it is not carcinogenic, and it is low hazard, in his words. I don't know if the Senator has seen petcoke neighborhoods that have this blowing into them.

I would just say to the Senator, this notion that somehow petcoke is going to be some fabulous discovery for new inventions--maybe it will, but at this point it is being sold to China and they are burning it to generate electricity. I would just try to imagine for a moment what is coming out of those smokestacks in China, where sadly the air pollution is awful at the moment.

I yield the floor, but I don't think it is adequate to say that the city of Chicago should be regulating this substance. We have a nation which will be affected by a national pipeline from this Canadian company. We ought to have a national standard to protect Americans from the dangers of petcoke. Whether we are talking about Fargo, Little Rock or Juneau, I wouldn't want to live this close to these petcoke piles.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Rhode Island. He and I did travel to Havana, Cuba, earlier this week. Interestingly enough, we sat down with the scientists and the people responsible for the oceans and other natural benefits in Cuba to discuss global warming, and the conversation started at the same place. Even with these scientists, there is no question they can see the impact, and they started their predictions about the rise of the ocean levels--and the Senator from Rhode Island knows this far better than I do--with their anticipation that the ocean levels will rise over a foot in just 10 or 20 years and then twice that over a period of 50 years or more. That will have a profound impact on the island, the archipelago of Cuba, and the United States.

Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island, more than any other Senator, has really brought this issue home--not just to his home but to the Atlantic Coast States--and has reported on the impacts they face. Now, I live smack dab in the middle of the country--in Illinois. I can tell you we appreciate there are changes taking place on this planet that are not in our best interests--nor will they leave our children and grandchildren a better place to live.

The obvious question we face is what will we do in this generation. This bill, S. 1, which has been chosen by the Republican majority, has given us a venue finally to raise some important environmental issues which have been ignored for too long.

I know the object of this bill was to build a pipeline. TransCanada, a Canadian company, wants to build a pipeline through the United States. They may or may not sell any oil from it in the United States. We had a vote on that yesterday, and the Republicans overwhelmingly said they would not require them to sell their oil in the United States. They may or may not use American steel to build their pipeline. We had that amendment yesterday, and the Republicans voted overwhelmingly that there is to be no requirement to use American steel to build this pipeline. Yet it is characterized as an American jobs bill. It is hard to understand that characterization.

If nothing else, whatever happens to this bill--and it may not have a great fate ahead of it, if it is not changed significantly because the President has already threatened to veto it--what the Senator from Rhode Island said is significant. After years of denial from the other side of the aisle about the issues of global warming, we may have just reached a point where we are finally, on a bipartisan basis, going to acknowledge the obvious--the scientific facts which have been given to us over and over and over. That is a step in the right direction, and so I want to thank my colleague from Rhode Island.

Amendment No. 69

Let me take 2 minutes to say a word about my pending amendment, which may come up for a vote shortly. It is amendment No. 69.

What I have said on the floor is there is a dirty little secret about the Keystone Pipeline. You don't take Canadian tar sands and turn them into gasoline and diesel fuel without filtering and refining out some pretty horrible things. What is filtered out is called petcoke, and petcoke is going to be produced in the refining process if this pipeline is ultimately built--over 15,000 tons a day of petcoke, the byproduct of this refining process.

If you look at it and you think to yourself what impact will that have, it could have a very negative impact. In my city of Chicago, which I am very proud to represent, as well as in other communities, petcoke piles have become a challenge to the public health and the people in the community. I am asking in my amendment that we establish a standard of safety when it comes to petcoke--that we establish a standard of transportation and storage of petcoke to protect American families and children from the hazards of breathing petcoke dust.

This is a simple public health amendment, and I hope my colleagues will support it.

I yield the floor.

I will be happy to yield.

Until very recently, of course, the price of a barrel of oil was high enough to justify tar sands, their extraction, the cost of transportation and the additional cost of refining them into a final product. Since that time, the cost of oil is almost half today what it was when that report was written.

I don't remember the exact date, perhaps the Senator has it handy.

I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.

It is significant that the first bill of the Senate Republican majority is a bill to build a pipeline for a Canadian company to bring tar sands across the United States to be refined in Texas and then sold overseas. That is the highest priority of the Republican majority.

There are those who, based on what the Senator just said, question whether this is economically viable with the price of a barrel of oil today. I am not an economist in energy, but it strikes me there has been a significant change in the premise of this whole project.

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.

My understanding is that we have time equally divided between now and 3:15, before the votes start.

Seeing no one on the floor, I would like to say a word about an amendment which will be voted on. I believe it is the second in the queue, and it is the amendment I have offered relative to petcoke.

Petcoke is the product derived from the refining of Canadian tar sands, and if you happen to live in some communities in America, petcoke can be a real problem.

This is the city of Chicago, IL. You can see some of the bungalows and houses here, and right across the railroad tracks you can see mounds of petcoke coming in from the British Petroleum refinery. They generate somewhere in the range of 6,000 tons a day of this petcoke and pile it up right here. It is ultimately transported to different places, but it sits here. It obviously is a hazard to people who live nearby. It blows in the wind, creating public health issues and real concern for families with children with asthma, respiratory disease.

I have an amendment, and it is very basic. No. 1, the amendment talks about making sure there are standards and rules for the storage enclosure of petcoke. Most of the cities--whether it is Long Beach, CA; or Detroit, MI; or Chicago, IL--are trying to find established standards to enclose this petcoke so it doesn't blow freely in the atmosphere.

Senator Hoeven spoke earlier and said it was not carcinogenic. Those findings related not to the breathing in of this dust but to the ingestion of petcoke itself. We have yet to establish that this is a benign substance, and we are trying to take care to protect families who might be exposed to it.

I am not surprised to see that there has been a letter issued by the National Association of Manufacturers opposing my amendment. They start by saying that petcoke is a valuable, essential commercial product that is used in a wide array of applications. I am not stopping that at all. Anyone who wants to take this petcoke and use it to produce energy and power generation, cement kilns, steel, glass, as long as they comply with basic environmental standards, be my guest. But to store it in such a fashion that it can blow all over and cause public health hazards is unacceptable--it should be--in a modern society. Secondly, if those who store it end up, we find over the long haul, creating a long-term hazard to the environment, they should be held legally responsible.

That is the extent of my amendment. I am not surprised that the National Association of Manufacturers would oppose it. But I would ask each and every Member to consider the possibility that if they lived across the tracks from this kind of petcoke conglomeration--I have seen it. It is horrible, and we are fighting it in the city of Chicago. The company that owns the petcoke--the Koch Brothers. So it shouldn't be any surprise that the National Association of Manufacturers took the position they did.

I hope that all of us who may be subject to this kind of dumping of petcoke near a city in our State will think twice. Let's at least have some standards for storage and enclosure to protect the people in our States, and let's make certain that if there is ultimately environmental damage here, that the parties who make the profit off of petcoke are ultimately responsible.

That is the extent of my amendment.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, this is the petcoke amendment. There are communities in this Nation--Chicago, Detroit, Long Beach, CA--and it may be coming to other areas soon. Petcoke is the byproduct of Canadian tar sands when it is refined. This pipeline will

generate 15,000 tons a day of petcoke that has to be stored. We are asking that it be stored responsibly so it doesn't blow through towns and neighborhoods that I and my colleagues represent, and let's establish standards for that purpose. It can still be used legitimately for many products, but let's make sure it doesn't cause respiratory problems for the people we represent.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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, tonight President Obama will deliver his State of the Union Address to outline his plan to make life better for middle-income families and those struggling in our strengthening economy. I have heard from both sides--Democrats and Republicans--the lament that even though many hard-working families are doing their best and businesses are more profitable because our workers are more productive, a lot of families don't see it in their paychecks. They struggle from paycheck to paycheck to pay for the basics in life. So we have to ask ourselves: What will we do about this? Will we do anything?

I worry that the comments just made by the majority leader suggest that he is relying on faith alone--faith in our free market system; faith in the belief that if we have an expanding economy, which we do, and if we have profitability in corporations, which we do, that it will translate into a better standard of living for working families. Well, it may be an article of faith, but it is one that can be challenged because that is exactly what has been happening in America for years. The economy has been growing, and we have seen an increase in jobs for 58 straight months. At the same time, we have noted that working families across America don't see any change in their lives. They don't see any income change.

Then we look at the reality. The reality shows that the gap between the rich and poor in America just grows larger and larger. We can talk separately about the compensation for CEOs and corporations. It is reaching record levels--far beyond the excesses of previous moments in American economic history.

What we are finding is that people at the very top of the corporate ladder are taking out more money from the economy than the workers who are generating the profits they are gleaning. That is not right. The President is going to challenge us to get beyond faith in our free market system to good works by Congress. He is going to talk about specifics--ideas the average family can understand and appreciate, such as the earned income tax credit. Here is an effort to say if you are working, we will make sure that your tax burden gives you a break so that you have additional money for your family to pay for daycare for the kids, to make certain you can pay for the utility bills and the basics of life. I have joined with Sherrod Brown of Ohio. We want to try to make the earned income tax credit available to more and more working Americans so we can supplement their income as they struggle to get by paycheck to paycheck. That is one of the first ideas we can pursue.

The second initiative the President will address is college affordability. There are plenty of critics of the President's plan, but I think he has put his finger on reality. We can no longer be satisfied by saying it is the responsibility of our society to provide education from kindergarten through the grade 12. That doesn't reflect the reality of work today. In just a few years, more than a third of the jobs across America will require a college degree. What are we doing to prepare the workforce in America for 21st century requirements when it comes to education? Now, we know what is happening. More and more students are getting deeper and deeper in debt, and many are dropping out because of it. Those who finish and earn a diploma are saddled with a debt which changes their lives. President Obama has said: Let us start moving forward to make 2 years of community college a commitment in America for those students who are in need, No. 1, and No. 2, are willing to meet the standards. And the standards are graduation within 3 years.

I look at some of the comments made in criticism of this, and they overlook the second part of the President's proposal--that part which demands that those students perform in order to receive assistance from our government in paying for community college.

We have to look at a new model in America--in Arkansas, in Illinois, and across America--that is a K-14 model. That is reality. Certainly, we have to improve the K-12 performance. When two-thirds of community college students in many States, including my own, come to community colleges not performing at the 12th grade level, there is work to be done in the lower grades. But let's assume the obvious: If people want a good-paying job in the future, they need additional training. The affordable place to go is a community college, and we ought to make that a pathway that is affordable for every dedicated, hard-working student and their family.

That isn't all. The President also acknowledges and will acknowledge tonight the reality of the housing market. Since 2009, our housing market in America has been recovering from a recession. Home building has more than doubled, yielding a lot of jobs for construction workers. Home prices are going back up. Millions of families whose home value was less than what they owed on their mortgage are now turning the corner. But for many Americans, buying a home is still out of reach. The President plans to reduce the FHA mortgage insurance premiums which is going to help responsible Americans afford a home.

We need faith in our free market but good works by Congress when it comes to these essentials. The President is also going to propose a Healthy Families Act. Here is something that gets to the reality of life for working Americans. It would provide for businesses with 15 or more employees up to 7 paid sick days each year. You might say to yourself: What is a business going to do with people taking 7 days off in sick leave?

What we found is if the employer will stand behind the employees when it comes to the basics such as sick leave, they will get more loyalty and more performance from those employees. That is a fair trade. It is one the President will propose this evening.

I would say to the majority leader and those who share his position, faith in the free market is a good thing but not enough. We need to step in and make sure we have faith in working families, faith in the belief that if they can improve their lot in life, if their struggle paycheck to paycheck is somehow lessened, we are all going to be better off for it. I support the President's message this evening and look forward to hearing it delivered.

On a separate topic, late last night I returned from Havana, Cuba, with Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Stabenow, Senator Whitehouse, Congressman Van Hollen, and Congressman Welch of Vermont. It was a whirlwind trip.

In a matter of 2 days we had a number of visits with a variety of different people in Havana. They included government officials. Bruno Rodriguez, who is the Foreign Minister of the Cuban Government; we had a lengthy meeting with him yesterday.

We had a meeting with about 10 different Ambassadors to Cuba from foreign countries. We met as well with a dozen reformers or dissidents, opponents of the current Castro regime in Cuba, and had individual meetings with ministries. This was a productive and important delegation trip, important because starting tomorrow we are going to have face-to-face negotiations in Havana between the United States and Cuba pursuant to President Obama's December 17 announcement. We are setting out to change the foreign policy of the United States as it regards Cuba. It is time for change.

For over 50 years we have been committed to a policy of exclusion, believing if we had embargoes and blockades we could force internal change in Cuba. The policy failed. The Castro brothers still reign, and life in Cuba is not what we want to see.

What the President has said is let's engage them at a different level, a constructive level where we try to find ways to open the Cuban economy and Cuban society. That, to me, is the best course. It isn't just a theory that is the best course, it has been proven.

When the Soviet Empire came to an end, what happened to the Warsaw Pact nations allied with the Soviet Union? They opened their doors to the West, they saw what they could anticipate to be part of their life in the future, and they made the conscious choice to move toward democracy, to move toward a free market economy. I think the same can happen in Cuba.

One young man came to speak to us. He had gotten in trouble because he challenged the Cuban Government. They put him back on a pig farm to work, but he was still determined to aspire to a better place in Cuba in the future. He said to us: What President Obama's announcement has done is to pull the blanket off the caged bird in Cuba. Those of us who live in Cuba are still in the cage of communism, but we can see out now about opportunities and a future. That, I believe, is part of what the President's new policy is all about.

When we were discussing our current blockade with Cuba with their leadership, we learned that powdered milk comes to Cuban citizens from New Zealand--halfway around the world--when there is an ample supply in the United States. What we are trying to do is to not only open the Cuban economy to powdered milk but to the power of ideas, the exchange of values, the belief that if the Cuban people see a better model for their future, they will gravitate toward that model.

This negotiation which opens this week is the beginning of this conversation. The President is moving in areas of trade and travel, as we hope he will do, to expand these opportunities, but we have to do our part in Congress. As contentious and spirited as the debate may be about changing our policy in Cuba, it wasn't that long ago that we stood on the floor of the Senate and considered establishing diplomatic relations with Vietnam. There were some with fresh memories of all we had lost, over 40,000 American lives in Vietnam, who said we shouldn't have a normal relationship with what is a repressive regime in a country we just concluded a war with. Others with cooler minds prevailed, and we established diplomatic relations and I think to the betterment of both nations.

Let us move forward, not forsaking our principles, not turning our back on our belief that the Cuban society should be more open, fair, and legitimized by the voters at the polls but believing we can work with this country as we have with others around the world, even when we disagree with their form of government and their practices, to try to strive to reach that democratic ideal.

The last point I would like to make relates to a motion that was made this morning by the majority leader. It was related to the appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security. Why are we bringing up this appropriations bill at this moment? Because when we agreed last December to fund our government, the Republicans in the House insisted we carve out the Department of Homeland Security and not give it its regular budget, instead give it emergency spending, a continuing resolution.

This is not the way to run any department of government, certainly not the Department of Homeland Security. Why is it important to fund this department? One need only look to what has happened in the last few days in Paris to understand that the threat of terrorism to the world is still very real. One of our first lines of defense when it comes to terrorism is our Department of Homeland Security. There is no excuse for us to be dealing with this continuing resolution to fund this department. They should have the resources they need to keep America safe, but instead what has happened is this: The House of Representatives last week said they will only agree to fund this department properly if they can provide certain riders and changes in the law as part of it.

I would tell you that the change that has been proposed by the House of Representatives is unacceptable. The President has said he is going to veto it if it is sent to his desk, and I totally support his position.

Here is what they have come up with in the House of Representatives. If you are familiar with the DREAM Act, which I introduced in Congress 14 years ago, it says: If a young person is brought to the United States at an early age, parents making the decision to come to this country, and that young person grows up in the United States, finishes high school, no serious criminal problems, willing to go forward to higher education or to the military, we will give them a chance of becoming legal in America. That is the DREAM Act. It has been considered and passed on the floor of the Senate, considered and passed on the floor of the House but never in the same session, and so it is not the law of the land.

President Obama, a little over 2 years ago, came out with an Executive order program known as DACA. DACA said to these young people who would qualify under this law: If you will come forward and register with our government, if you will pay the filing fee, if you will allow us to do the background check, we will allow you to stay, go to school, and work in America and not be deported. Six hundred thousand young people have come forward. We estimate there are some 2 million eligible, and 600,000 have come forward. Thirty thousand are from my State of Illinois. Who are these young people?

Let me introduce you to one of them, Oscar Vazquez. Oscar Vazquez grew up in Phoenix, AZ. His mother and father brought him to that city from Mexico, and he was undocumented. He attended Carl Hayden High School in Phoenix. He was a member of the Junior ROTC. His goal was to serve in the U.S. Army.

When he went to the recruiter to sign up, the recruiter said: I need your birth certificate.

Oscar said: Come on. We are fighting a war. Can't you look the other way and just let me join?

He said: No, young man. You don't have the proper documents. You can't enlist in the U.S. Army.

He was despondent because that was his goal. He went home and got engaged in another project which is the subject of a new movie called ``Spare Parts,'' which George Lopez produced, directed, and starred in, which I saw last week. I will not give away the whole story, but I can tell you this: Oscar Vazquez and three other students at Carl Hayden High School entered into an underwater robotics competition. They competed with colleges such as MIT and they won. Their high school team won the underwater robotics competition.

The talented young man, Oscar, said: I am going to Arizona State University. Without any government assistance, he graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering. After he got his degree and a wife and a baby, he

said: Now I have to get right with America. I have to resolve this issue of being undocumented.

That means Oscar decided to move back to Mexico. He was living in Mexico--the law required him to stay there for 10 years. That is how the law is written. He petitioned the United States for a chance to come back in. Eventually he was given a waiver. Oscar Vazquez came back, became a citizen of the United States of America, and the first thing he did was enlist in the U.S. Army. He went into combat in Afghanistan, and he came home after having served our Nation honorably and now is working for a major railroad in the State of Montana, with his wife and children.

That is the story of one DREAMer, one DREAMer who was given a chance and has made a difference in America. He not only served in our military, but he had a degree in mechanical engineering. He is going to be a job creator, a job builder himself.

So what do the House Republicans want to do to people such as Oscar Vazquez? Deport them. That is exactly what they called for. They are dream killers. That isn't right. We ought to give Oscar, young men and women just like him a chance to succeed and a chance to make America better.

I have stood on this floor over 50 times with color photographs such as this one by my side and told the stories of DREAMers. This last weekend I was in Chicago and six of them came forward and told their stories. Each and every one of them had a compelling reason for us to defeat this mean-spirited amendment that came out of the House of Representatives.

The President will veto it if it gets to his desk, but I hope we will do better in the Senate. I hope there are enough Senators on both sides of the aisle, 60-plus, who will stand up for the DREAMers of America. This is a test. It is a test as to whether we believe in fairness and justice and the value that immigrants such as Oscar Vazquez bring to the future of America.

The House of Representatives just doesn't see it. They are blinded by their hatred for these immigrants, and they continue to pass these mean-spirited amendments. We can do better. We must do better as a nation. Let us stand up for the DREAMers, and let us all be dedicated to passing comprehensive immigration reform. Our immigration laws are broken. Our system is broken. It is time for us to accept our responsibility and repair it.

We passed a bill a year and a half ago on the floor of the Senate with 68 votes--14 Republicans--Republicans and Democrats voted for it and sent it over to the House of Representatives and it languished for a year and a half. They refused to even call it or consider it. Our immigration system is still broken. Withholding money from the Department of Homeland Security, threatening with these riders that are dream killers for so many young people in America, that is unacceptable.

I will stand on this floor as long as it takes to defend this DREAM Act and people such as Oscar Vazquez, who contribute to America and make it a better nation. I hope we will have bipartisan support for defeating the House of Representatives' riders that have been branded by the President as unacceptable and he will veto.

I yield floor.

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 to set aside the pending amendment to call up amendment No. 69.

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

Mr. President, about 1 year ago I was invited to go to the southeast part of the city of Chicago. It is an area that used to be populated by steel mills and now there are a lot of struggling families. The manufacturing jobs were not replaced.

These are hard-working people--many are Mexican-American people. They sustain what you might expect--great parishes and churches and a great spirit among them, but now they are in a constant struggle. They live in a part of Chicago that has seen better days. They are doing their darndest for their families.

They invited me to see something. They wanted me to see what they were living next door to. I went down to that part of the city of Chicago--within the boundaries of the city of Chicago--and I could not believe what I saw. They live in little houses such as these, and across from them is a mountainous gathering of something called petcoke.

What is petcoke? If you take the Canadian tar sands that will move through the Keystone XL Pipeline to a refinery and put them through a process where you can end up with a viable product, such as gasoline, jet fuel, diesel fuel or whatever it might be, you have to clean out all of this petcoke that creates the tar sands composition that they are dealing with.

When it is all over with--and if the process has been successful-- there is a lot of waste. In fact, there are 61 pounds of petcoke for every barrel of oil. Keep in mind that the Senator who is sponsoring the underlying legislation--we are dealing with moving hundreds of thousands of barrels a day through this pipeline.

Now take every one of those barrels and have 61 pounds of petcoke left over as a result of the refining process. What happens to it? This is what happened to it in Chicago. It was dumped in the neighborhood.

The people invited me to come to their homes, and I did. I walked into this woman's home, and she said: I have sealed the windows. I taped them shut because this black, sooty petcoke blows through my windows night and day. I cannot stop it. Is it something to worry about?

It turns out that the petcoke is not a benign material. We are not talking about dust in the air. We are talking about a composition that includes--according to those who have taken a close look at it--heavy metals. Would you want your baby in your home--or my home or my grandchildren--breathing in this filthy, petcoke-infested dust night and day? They are not making it up. They showed me the window sills, and you could see the black, sooty petcoke.

I will tell you the details of the story. The environmental review for the project of Keystone XL notes that communities throughout the Midwest have noticed large piles of petroleum coke--or petcoke-- building up as more and more tar sands are processed.

This picture tells a story. This is near a body of water which is carrying this petcoke on the water. These poor folks deal with it as it blows through the air.

This type of crude oil is carried by the Keystone XL Pipeline, a pipeline which the Republican majority has decided is their No. 1 priority in the Senate. Under the new Republican majority it is S. 1. This pipeline, on behalf of a Canadian company, TransCanada, is the topic we are facing.

We just had a vote and unfortunately could not prevail with the notion that at least the oil that comes out of the pipeline ought to be for the benefit of American consumers. We lost that vote. I think the vote was 57 to 42. It was tabled.

Let's talk about the actual process itself. According to the EPA--as I mentioned, the environmental impact statement--every barrel of tar sands contains 61 pounds of petcoke. That means the Keystone XL Pipeline alone will produce 15,400 metric tons of petcoke every day-- 15,400 metric tons of petcoke every day. Would you like to live next door to that? That is what is happening in the city of Chicago, but it not the only one.

This petcoke comes from the BP, British Petroleum, refinery in Whiting, IN. It is on the very southern tip of Lake Michigan. We can see it from the city of Chicago. They went through a

$4 billion upgrade and put in new equipment so they could start processing the Canadian tar sands which will come down through the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Soon after they started this processing with $4 billion of new equipment, the people living in this part of Chicago looked out their windows to see the massive piles of petcoke building up, and as a consequence they got worried. They are worried for their children. On windy days--it is, in fact, the ``Windy City''--black clouds of this dust blow from piles into this working-class neighborhood.

It always seems to be the case, doesn't it? If somebody tried to put this on the North Shore of Chicago, they would scream bloody murder. But the company that owns this petcoke put it outside a poor neighborhood--a working-class neighborhood in Chicago. The petcoke dust settles on window sills and porches.

I met the kids running outside.

They are producing 6,000 tons of petcoke every single day at the British Petroleum refinery in Whiting, IN--6,000 tons a day. At that rate the plant only has room to store a few days' worth of production onsite. So they ended up selling the petcoke to a company called KCBX. It is a subsidiary company owned by the Koch brothers--yes, those Koch brothers.

Connect the dots. The highest priority of the Republican majority in the Senate was to call up a bill for a Canadian company to transport tar sands across the United States with no promise that the American consumers would ever be able to access it, and the process of refining the Canadian tar sands ends up inuring to the benefit of many companies, such as British Petroleum and KCBX, which again is owned by the Koch brothers. These are the same Koch brothers who are viable political players in our political campaigns.

This means the people in southeast Chicago are forced to breathe this dirty air that members of National Nurses United say causes severe health threats. Petcoke contains high levels of heavy metals, such as vanadium and nickel, and dust particles get trapped in residents' lungs, triggering asthma and exacerbating heart and lung conditions.

When I go to a school--whether it is rural or urban--I make a point to ask a very basic question: Does any student here know anyone with asthma? Half of the hands are up in every classroom. Our pages are starting to raise their hands, of course.

So here we have a national problem, a respiratory problem, which has been made dramatically worse by the byproduct, petcoke, of the Keystone XL Pipeline. That is a fact. What I have argued to you now so far is indisputable.

The community and members of the Southeast Environmental Task Force that I visited with in Chicago are fighting back with the help of the National Resources Defense Council. They worked with Mayor Emanuel and Chicago officials to put standards in place for petcoke storage sites that protect public and environmental health. They have come up with a radical notion--if you want to store this dangerous petcoke, then for goodness' sake put it inside a building so it doesn't blow all over the neighborhood.

They are suing KCBX and Koch Industries for the damages caused by petcoke piles after the Environmental Protection Agency issued a notice to the company of Clean Air Act violations.

The people who hate the EPA like the devil hates holy water do not want them to come in and look at something as outrageous as this and tell you the obvious. This is a public health danger. Petcoke from Canadian tar sands, and part of the Keystone XL Pipeline, is a public health hazard.

Unfortunately, petcoke just isn't an issue in Chicago or Illinois. My colleague from Michigan, Senator Gary Peters, told me a story earlier. He can tell you what happened in Detroit when another Koch brothers- owned company decided to store large piles of petcoke on the Detroit River.

If you look online, you can still find the YouTube video of black clouds blowing off the piles of the Koch brothers' petcoke into the river. In fact, Senator Peters said that at one point this black cloud was so dense it obscured the Ambassador Bridge between the United States and Canada. You could not see it.

It took years of complaints and lawsuits from local communities to get shipping ports in California to require piles of petcoke that was being stored there to be kept in enclosed facilities and covered at all times.

Other communities continue to fight, including my city of Chicago, which I am proud to represent. As the U.S. refines more and more tar sands--that is what this bill is all about, refining more and more Canadian tar sands. Every single day tons of this petcoke is produced with no end in sight and no way of protecting the people who live around that area from the damage it will cause to the lungs of children and other vulnerable people, such as elderly people with respiratory challenges.

Residents in Houston, TX, and the State of Ohio have complained about how these petcoke piles stored in their neighborhoods are damaging their homes and health, but many Americans affected by petcoke don't have the money or power to take on big companies, so it is up to Congress. It is up to us to ensure that every person in America--rich or poor, whether they live in a good neighborhood or a struggling neighborhood--has the protection against public health hazards.

There is a current exemption of petcoke from environmental laws. When you think of all of the things blowing in the air, how in the world did petcoke end up being treated like fairy dust? It is exempt from laws relating to basic things, such as the Superfund. It is exempt from laws relating to hazardous waste and materials. They must have had friends in high places to make sure this miserable source of respiratory problems would be exempt from Federal law.

My amendment would change that. It would end this exemption so they would be held to environmental and public health standards when it comes to this miserable byproduct of Canadian tar sands and the Keystone XL Pipeline.

My amendment goes on to require the EPA and the Department of Transportation to implement rules for petcoke storage and transportation to protect the public health and environment.

Is there anyone here who will tell you that the folks, TransCanada or those refining this, should not have that responsibility? I would not want to see this anywhere. I would not want to see it in Alaska, and I would not want to see it in Oklahoma. I sure don't want to even see it in the city of Chicago. But to think it goes unregulated--absolutely unregulated--is amazing, and that is what my amendment addresses.

The United States already produces millions of tons of petcoke each year. Building this pipeline is just going to add dramatically to that amount. By fixing the legal status of petcoke and making it subject to the same laws as all other dangerous materials, we can help ensure that clean air and clean water is something everyone enjoys, whether they are rich or poor and no matter what State they happen to live in.

I hope the Senate will have a chance to vote on my amendment to close this loophole for petcoke and establish reasonable guidelines for handling the material.

It is time we put the health and well-being of Americans ahead of the profits of any industry involved in the processing of Canadian tar sands because no community--especially the southeast side of Chicago-- should be considered a dumping ground for companies to make money off the lungs and health of vulnerable children, elderly, and poor people.

No family should be forced to live next door to a three-story-high pile of petcoke, and that is what is going on. No kid should have to move from a ball field to play inside so they are not exposed to hazardous chemicals.

I know what will happen. Somebody is going to make a motion to table this amendment. We can run, but we can't hide, just as we can run, but we can't hide from blowing petcoke. If my colleagues won't allow a vote on this amendment to classify this as a material that should be regulated for the safety of the environment and public health, they will be on record if they vote to table this amendment.

I urge my colleagues--even if they dearly love the Keystone XL Pipeline

and even if they can't wait to bring in the Canadian tar sands--think about this as if this were your hometown, your neighborhood, and you lived in a house such as this and you looked across the road at that miserable pile, three stories high, of petcoke blowing in for your children and your grandchildren to breathe every day.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, it is true that we are in the process of negotiating and discussing on the Democratic side the amendments that will be offered, and yes, there will be amendments offered. Senator Boxer has been part of this effort--and I just got off the phone with her--and she is now working with her staff to come up with amendments she believes will withstand any procedural challenge on the floor and, hopefully, those amendments will be brought up to the floor soon.

Senator Cantwell, who is the floor leader on our side on this particular measure, is also open. There is no question that we will be prepared to and will offer amendments. We are trying to finalize the language at this point and the order in which the amendments will be offered.

We will be working with the Republicans once we have our own set of amendments in place. There is no effort to obstruct this process. We generally agreed that we would not be voting today on amendments. It is possible--before the end of the day--that we will have an agreement to move forward in terms of the submission and debate on the amendments and the votes to occur perhaps next week. But that is still unresolved, and we are still talking about it.

What is interesting is to put this in perspective. We are talking about S. 1. This is the very first bill offered by the new Republican majority in the Senate. It is a bill, as they say, to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

The Republicans' highest priority and their No. 1 bill now that they have majority status in the Senate is the approval of a pipeline project to benefit one company--a Canadian company--and create 35 permanent jobs. The highest priority of the Republican majority in the Senate is to debate and pass a bill to benefit a Canadian company to create 35 permanent jobs.

This special interest, small-ball effort, is not a national economic or energy policy or a plan to make America energy independent. The Keystone XL Pipeline, sadly, is going to have a negative impact on the environment--and not just in the United States. It will literally affect all adjoining countries.

The tar sands that will be carried in this pipeline will increase the amount of pollution, greenhouse gas emissions--first when they are mined in Canada and later when they are refined. We know this because tar sands are currently coming into the United States--Canadian tar sands--and are being processed at a refinery in Wood River, IL. It is a refinery now owned by the Phillips oil company, and their refined product is distributed throughout the Midwest.

So the Keystone XL Pipeline is not the first Canadian tar sands pipeline. We already have a pipeline, and that existing pipeline--in the course of cleaning up Canadian tar sands so it can be made into products that can be sold on the market--generates something called petcoke. Petcoke is the waste product--the dirty part of the Canadian tar sands--that needs to be removed before they become viable petroleum products.

If you don't believe this petcoke is a danger, you only need to come to the great city of Chicago, which I am honored to represent. I visited the southeast side of Chicago. The British Petroleum refinery, which is at the end of Lake Michigan in the northern part of Indiana, refines the Canadian tar sands and generates, as part of the refining process, literally hills of petcoke--this black, sooty, nasty product they stack up near the refinery. Unfortunately, many times it ends up within the boundaries of the city of Chicago.

What impact do hills of petcoke have on a neighborhood? When the wind blows, this nasty, dirty product blows all over the homes, the families, and the children who live in that neighborhood. I have seen it. I have visited mothers with small children who try to seal the windows of their homes because this petcoke can get through any crack and into their homes, leaving a sooty deposit around them.

For those who argue that these Canadian tar sands pose no environmental threat, come take a look at these petcoke hills that are generated now by the process of refining this product.

Additionally, the Keystone XL Pipeline doesn't move us away from the dangerous tipping point which we face when it comes to climate change and global warming. In fact, it is going to speed up the day of reckoning. Leading scientists warn us that we are running out of time. As a Nation and as a world, if we do not accept the reality of what is happening to our environment, we are going to pay a heavy price.

According to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, at least half of the world's energy supply will need to come from low- carbon sources in the future--wind, solar, even nuclear--by 2050, if we are going to avoid catastrophic climate changes. That barely gives us 35 years to do something for our kids and grandkids. This Keystone bill does not even acknowledge that reality.

I have come to the floor many times and offered the challenge which I will renew today. I believe the Republican Party of the United States of America represented in the Senate is the only major political party in the world today that denies global warming and climate change. It is the only major political party which refuses to accept the premise that is well established in science, well established by our departments, such as the Department of Defense, that our activity as human beings on Earth is changing the world we live in--and not for the better.

One Republican pulled me aside off the floor, after I made this challenge several times, and said: Durbin, you are wrong. There is actually a political party in Australia that denies global warming as well. Well, that may be true, but the fact that they have such little company when it comes to this position suggests that our Republicans are denying reality. This bill denies that reality as well.

If it is about jobs, I suggest--not only to the majority leader but to the labor unions and to others interested in creating American jobs--that there are better alternatives in the energy sector. Solar power is already generating 3.4 million jobs in the United States. Remember, the Keystone XL Pipeline generates 35 permanent jobs, and, according to some estimates, maybe 40,000 temporary supply jobs for the construction of the pipeline. The Keystone XL Pipeline will create 35 permanent jobs while solar power is generating 3.4 million jobs in America. By the end of 2013, 24,000 of them were created just that year. Jobs were created in the solar industry at a growth rate of 20 percent over 2012. It is a growth industry for clean, green jobs. In Illinois, 9 solar projects employ almost 4,000 workers.

Solar isn't the only energy source we can invest in. Fuel cell technology doesn't get much attention but supports 11,000 jobs versus 35 permanent jobs for the Keystone XL Pipeline. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that with the rapid increase in fuel cells, 180,000 new domestic jobs can be created by 2020 and 685,000 by 2035.

The International Renewable Energy Agency found the renewable energy industry in the United States responsible for 625,000 direct and indirect jobs in solar, biofuels, wind, biomass, hydropower, and geothermal industries. That is a conservative estimate. So if we are interested in clean energy, if we want to do the right thing by our environment for our kids and grandkids and we want to create American jobs--this isn't 35 jobs, which is the highest priority of the Senate Republican Caucus;

this is looking at alternative sources of energy, which will create jobs and not destroy the planet.

The Keystone XL Pipeline will produce oil with a process that produces 17 percent more carbon than any conventional crude oils. That oil is going to be shipped, if the Republicans have their way, through a pipeline from Canada all the way to Texas, over and near thousands of lakes and aquifers that Americans rely on for clean drinking water.

After it reaches Port Arthur, TX--the original plan, which I think is still the case--it will be exported, so even the refined product is not going to be used here in America. So we ask our Republican colleagues: Where is your plan to make sure America leads the world in creating good-paying, green jobs for the future? Where is your plan to increase America's production of wind, solar, thermonuclear, cellulosic, and other forms of renewable energy? In fact, when it came to debating the extension of some tax benefits to these industries, many Republicans opposed it. They instead wanted to see us move toward initiatives such as the Keystone XL Pipeline.

So this is an important debate, and it is one that we ought to take in the context of the challenges our generation faces. We will either acknowledge the global environmental reality and deal with it, or we will have to answer to our children and grandchildren why we put the profits of 1 Canadian company and why we put 35 jobs ahead of a meaningful discussion about a national energy policy that is consistent with a clean and strong environment for years to come.

Mr. President, this evening I am joining with the Center for American Progress to host a screening of ``Spare Parts,'' a new movie that tells the story of four students at Carl Hayden High School in Phoenix, AZ. These students were undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as kids. They started a robotics team at their high school that went on to great success. The movie itself was produced by actor and comedian George Lopez. He stars in it as the coach of the team; Jamie Lee Curtis as the high school principal; Carlos Pena, as Oscar Vazquez, one of the students; and Alexa Vega, as Oscar's girlfriend Karla.

I am especially excited about seeing the movie because I have known one of these students, Oscar Vazquez, for some time. Five years ago, I told Oscar's story here on the floor of the Senate. He dreamed of enlisting in the military and spent his high school years in junior ROTC. At the end of his junior year, a recruiting officer told him he could never serve in the military because he was undocumented. So Oscar found another outlet for his talent. He helped to start the robotics club at Carl Hayden High School.

Oscar and his three teammates entered a college-level robot competition, despite the fact they were high school kids, sponsored by NASA. They worked for months in a storage room in their high school to produce their competitive robot. They were competing against students from MIT and similar universities. The Carl Hayden High School team won first place in the robotic competition.

After high school, Oscar Vazquez went to Arizona State University, and in 2009 graduated with a degree in mechanical engineering. He was one of the top three students in his class. Following his graduation, he took a brave step. He voluntarily returned to Mexico, a country where he had not lived since he was a small child. He said, ``I decided to take a gamble and do the right thing.''

In 2010, the Obama administration gave him a waiver to reenter the United States. Otherwise, he would have been barred for 10 years. He would have been separated from his wife Karla and their daughter Samantha, both of whom are American citizens.

Oscar returned to the United States with the waiver from President Obama and he did two things: He applied for citizenship and he enlisted in the United States Army.

Oscar served as a cavalry scout in Afghanistan, fulfilling the dream he had as a child, and when he became a citizen of this country he was obviously willing to risk his life for it.

Last year, Oscar testified at a hearing I held about the benefits of allowing immigrants to enlist in the military. The Falcon Robotics Team, which Oscar and his friends started, is now a fixture at Carl Hayden High School.

I have told the story about two other members of that team.

Dulce Matuz graduated from Arizona State University with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering and as a senior received an internship to work at the NASA space station. After graduation, Dulce couldn't work as an engineer, so she cofounded the Arizona DREAM Act Coalition. As a result of her leadership, she was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time Magazine.

Angelica Hernandez served in junior ROTC and was president of the National Honors Society. She graduated from high school with a 4.5 GPA and graduated from Arizona State University with a mechanical engineering degree herself.

Why am I telling my colleagues about a movie called ``Spare Parts'' and the Carl Hayden robotics team? Because it puts a human face on what is happening today on Capitol Hill. It puts into perspective what the Republican-led House of Representatives wants to achieve this week. They are preparing to pass a bill in the House that would defund the President's immigration policies, including the very program--the DACA Program--that President Obama created by Executive order.

The DACA Program puts on hold the deportation of immigrant students such as those I have just described who grew up in this country and simply want a chance to be a part of our future. These young people-- immigrants such as Oscar, Dulce, and Angelica--are known as DREAMers. They were brought to the United States as little kids. They didn't make a conscious effort to come across the border; they were brought here by their parents. They grew up in this country and they have overcome great obstacles to succeed. They are our future leaders. They will serve in the military. They will be doctors and engineers and lawyers and business leaders, if they are given the chance. The House of Representatives is determined not to give these DREAMers a chance to be part of America's future.

In the last 2 years, more than 600,000 DREAMers have stepped up, paid their fees, gone through the background checks, and were given this temporary status where they can't be deported. With that temporary status, they have gone on to do extraordinary things in this country. Many of them are already contributing. I mentioned Angelica, a former member of the Carl Hayden robotics team. She is working for Nexant Corporation where she specializes in renewable energy.

The Center for American Progress tells us that if we give legal status to these DREAMers, it will dramatically help our economy. These are great young people who want a chance to be a part of America's future. They can put $329 billion into our economy, according to the studies, and create about 1.4 million new jobs. These are the sparks, the catalysts, the leaders who can help us build this economy.

But the Republicans in the House of Representatives want to deport them. They want to turn them away after they have had these educational opportunities in America. They don't want us to take advantage of their skills and talents. They are wrong.

Why do they want to eliminate DACA? Why are the House Republicans so determined to eliminate it? Because that is their way of getting back at this President. That is their way of trying to make us forget that the House Republicans refused for 2 years to call up immigration reform legislation. They refused to fix our broken immigration system, and when the President stepped in on an emergency basis, now they are resisting him and trying to deport these DREAMers. How can they explain this? How can they explain this to these young people who, through no fault of their own, were brought to the United States and who have not had an opportunity to succeed, as we all hope they will? This is obstructionism on the part of the Republicans in the House. We did pass the bill on a bipartisan basis in June of 2013, 68 to 32, for comprehensive immigration reform. The House had ample opportunity--over a year and a half--to

call up this measure and they refused. They refused because they knew it would pass. And that is why it is important for us to stand up and tell the American people what is at stake.

One of the most important things we can do is to face the reality that our immigration system is broken. And to fix this immigration system, we need to work together on a bipartisan basis. Let us not do it with a negative feeling toward these young people. Give the DREAMers a chance.

I will tell my colleagues this. If this bill comes over from the House of Representatives and this bill eliminates DACA, fate puts 1.6 million young DREAMers into the legal jeopardy of facing deportation, and then eliminates the rights of their parents who have children who are citizens or legal residents to stay in this country, then we are going to see a fight on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I think it is the responsible thing to do for us to stand up for these young people who had the courage to step out of the shadows, to register with their government, to submit themselves to a background check. The right and responsible thing to do is for us to stand behind them. There are so many amazing stories about these young people and to ignore them is to ignore America's legacy and roots.

We are a nation of immigrants. My mother was an immigrant to this country and I stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate honorably, I hope, representing the great State of Illinois, and really I hope a testament to what the sons of immigrants can do across America, and daughters as well. That is why this is an important issue for us to deal with and to do it forthrightly, and I urge my colleagues to resist this effort by the Republicans to deport 1.6 million eligible DREAMers and others who may stand the chance to make America a better and stronger nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, later today Members of the Senate family will have two opportunities to express our solidarity with the people of France in their hour of grief and to reaffirm our commitment to the principles of freedom and tolerance--values that have bound our nations together since the creation of the United States and the French Republic.

In a short while the Senate will consider a resolution condemning the series of terrorist attacks that have shaken France, starting with the attack on the offices of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo and ending with a siege Friday at a kosher supermarket in Paris. Our resolution expresses our condolences to the families of the victims and our solidarity with the people of France. It also expresses our deep commitment to the universal right of freedom of expression--a freedom for which the writers and artists of Charlie Hebdo gave their lives. I am honored to lead this resolution, along with Senators Murphy of Connecticut and Johnson of Wisconsin.

Later this afternoon Senators and their staffs will have an opportunity to sign a condolence book expressing their sympathy and solidarity to the people of France. The book will be outside the Senate Foreign Relations Committee room on the first floor of the Capitol. In memory of the victims, we will welcome the French Ambassador to the United States, Ambassador Gerard Araud, in the committee room at 4:15 p.m.

If the terrorists who attacked Charlie Hebdo and the kosher supermarket in Paris meant to frighten and divide freedom-loving people in France and around the world, they have failed utterly. Yesterday 4 million people marched in demonstrations in cities across the nation of France. A million and a half people marched in Paris alone. Authorities said it was the largest gathering in Paris since the end of World War II and the largest demonstration in the history of the nation of France. They marched to declare their solidarity with the victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the supermarket murders and to demonstrate their unity. The marchers included Christians, Muslims, Jews, and many other religious faiths and nonbelievers. President Francois Hollande led the March. He was joined by European and African leaders, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, America's Ambassador to France, and our Assistant Secretary of State.

Marches were also held in other cities around the globe yesterday, from Washington to the West Bank. Tens of thousands of people showed their solidarity with the victims of these terrorist attacks in France.

In Chicago hundreds of people turned out in the cold yesterday to rally at Daley Plaza under American and French flags. One of the organizers of the Chicago rally was a young woman named Eve Zuckerman who holds joint U.S. and French citizenship and has lived in Chicago for about 4 years. She said the spasm of violence that has shaken France is not simply an attack on France. In her words, ``What it really means is that anyone who is for freedom and for tolerance is also under attack.''

In our own country in the days after 9/11, our grief was made bearable by the countless acts of courage, kindness, and solidarity we witnessed amidst the carnage, and so it is within France today.

One story that has touched many in France and around the world concerns a young man who worked at the kosher supermarket in Paris that was attacked on Friday. The young man risked his life to hide seven Jewish customers in the freezer in the supermarket's basement. He then risked his life again to slip out of the basement and tell the police there were people hidden downstairs. This young man described the layout of the supermarket and the location of the hostages--crucial details that enabled the police to save so many lives and end the standoff. This young man has been hailed as a hero by the citizens of France and by Israeli President Netanyahu. One more thing about this young French hero--he is a Muslim immigrant, born in Mali.

Martin Luther King told us: We are bound together in a single garment of destiny. The millions of people in France and around the world who marched yesterday and freedom-loving people throughout the world understand this. Together in our unity and resolve, we will overcome this latest assault on our shared values.

Mr. President, over the weekend, as I mentioned, as millions of people were marching on the streets of France and around the world to demonstrate the world's unity in the aftermath of the horrible terrorist attack in France, the President announced that he will convene a summit at the White House next month to discuss what can be done further to stop the threat of violent extremism.

This is a time when we should all be focusing on what we can do to stop the threat of terrorism in our country as well as the rest of the world, so it is truly surprising, to say the least, that the House of Representatives will vote on a bill this week that threatens to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. That is our government agency that is responsible for protecting Americans from terrorism. What in the world would lead the House of Representatives to threaten to shut down this agency? We should not even be debating the Department of Homeland Security at this moment in history.

Every other government agency--every single one of them--has already been funded through the end of this fiscal year, September 30, and that is normal when we fund the government. But the Republicans in the House and Senate insisted weeks ago that the Department of Homeland Security only be funded through the end of February. Why did they demand that this critical agency that is responsible for keeping us safe across America not be funded in the normal manner? Why did they put America at risk with this type of funding? Well, because they wanted an opportunity early in the year--early in the legislative session--to take a stand against President Obama's immigration policies. They feel so strongly about this, they are willing to put the Department of Homeland Security's budget at risk.

So this week the House Republicans are preparing to pass legislation that would defund President Obama's immigration policies, including the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, known as DACA. What is that program? It puts on hold the deportations of immigrant students and children who grew up in this country and allows these young people to live and work legally in America on a temporary basis. That is what DACA is. These young people are well known to me and to most. They are known as DREAMers.

It was 13 years ago that I introduced the DREAM Act. For 13 years I have been trying to pass a bill into law which says that the sins of the parents should not be visited on the children.

These young people who are affected by DACA and the DREAM Act--many of them were brought to the United States as infants and toddlers. They had no voice in this family decision to come here. They did not know, could not know, that one of their parents was undocumented. They grew up in America. They went to school in America. They participated in America. They went to the neighborhood churches and mosques and temples. They were the ones who were standing in their classroom every single day of their lives stopping for a solemn moment to

pledge allegiance to the American flag--the only flag they have ever known. But the fact is, they were brought here as babies and children, and they were undocumented. They grew up in America. They identified this country as home. They envisioned this dream of living here. Yet they did not have a legal status.

The DREAM Act said we would give these young people a chance. If they had a clean criminal record, if they would finish high school, if they would go on to college or even enlist in our military, we would allow them to move to legal status--give these DREAMers a chance.

Time and again, we called this legislation. Sadly, it never passed the House and the Senate at the same time. Then President Obama decided 2 years ago that he would use his Executive authority to protect these young people from being deported. We estimate there are about 2 million of them across the United States. He said to them: If you will come forward, pay your fee, go through a background check--if you are prepared to do that and register with the government, we will spare you from deportation. That is what the DACA program is. Mr. President, 600,000 did. Mr. President, 600,000 came up with the money.

I can recall in the city of Chicago when we had the sign up--the very first sign up for this DACA Executive order. It was amazing. We did not know if 200 people would show up or 400 or even 1,000. Well, the night before--at midnight, the night before we started signing them up--the first day they could sign up for DACA, the families started gathering, standing outside at Navy Pier in downtown Chicago. They stood there all night waiting for a chance to sign up for this program. Many of them were parents accompanying their children. The parents themselves were not going to get any direct benefit from this, but they wanted their kids to be spared the fear of deportation. They wanted to give their kids a chance. In the end, thousands came through the door--so many we could not even handle the volume with our volunteer attorneys and many others who were helping.

But it was a clear indication that these families wanted their children to have a chance--a chance to earn their way into legal status in America. That is the DACA----

(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)

Mr. President, the young people I have described are known as DREAMers. They were brought to the United States as children. They grew up in this country, and they have overcome great obstacles to continue to live here. They are the future doctors, engineers, teachers, and soldiers who will make America stronger.

Now, in the last 2 years, as I mentioned, more than 600,000 DREAMers have received DACA--this Executive order by President Obama which allows them to stay as long as they are registered, pay their fee, and not be deported.

What has happened to these young people now that they have their chance, they have gone to school? I met 10 of them who are now at Loyola's school of medicine. They are extraordinary students. They were the best of the best. They did not have a chance because they did not have that document that gave them an opportunity to enroll. Well, they are going to school now, and they have pledged to continue to serve this country as doctors, given that chance, in some of the poorest communities in my State and our Nation.

In past speeches I have given on this floor--over 50 of them--I have highlighted the contributions that many DACA recipients already make to our country. They are working as engineers, small business owners, and public school teachers. The Center for American Progress and the Partnership for a New American Economy has found that giving legal status to DREAMers will add $329 billion to our economy and create 1.4 million new jobs by 2030.

How can this be possible that 600,000 have that kind of impact? These are not ordinary young people or ordinary young graduates. These are extraordinary young people who want to be part of this Nation of immigrants.

But the Republicans in the House of Representatives want to end DACA. They want to put an end to this program. They argue it was unconstitutional for the President to say he would suspend deportation for these young people. They want these young people to be deported, removed from this country, sent back to countries where many of them can never recall living, going to countries where they literally cannot speak the language. That is the House Republican position. They feel so strongly about deporting these young people, they are willing to hold the Homeland Security funding bill hostage to force the Democrats to agree.

Well, let me be clear. Democrats will not be swayed by this kind of blackmail. We will insist the Department of Homeland Security be funded and that the President have the authority that every President has had to establish his own immigration policies within the limits of Executive authority.

It is the height of unfairness. First congressional Republicans obstructed immigration reform legislation. Now they want to obstruct the very agency responsible for homeland security.

It was more than a year and a half ago--the date was June 27, 2013-- on the floor of this Senate, we passed comprehensive immigration reform with a strong bipartisan vote of 68 to 32. This bill--which I joined seven other colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, working on it-- strengthened our border to a level even greater than today, cracked down on illegal immigration, protected American workers in a fair and humane manner, and addressed the challenges facing 11 million undocumented workers currently living in our country.

But for the last year and a half, the House of Representatives, led by Speaker Boehner, has refused to allow a vote on the Senate's immigration reform bill. Not once would they allow this bill to come to the floor of the House for a vote. If Speaker Boehner had brought the bill to the floor, it would have passed with a strong bipartisan vote. He knew it and he was determined not to ever let that happen. It was only after the Speaker had demonstrated clearly to the President, to the Senate, and to the American people that he would not even participate in the debate on immigration reform that President Obama issued his second order.

I have been involved in a lot of efforts to pass bipartisan immigration reform legislation. It is so frustrating for us to have finally passed a bill in the Senate--Democrats and Republicans; supported by the AFL-CIO, representing organized labor; supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, representing business; supported by virtually every major faith in this country--and then to see it ignored and stopped in the House of Representatives.

So President Obama, after the election, announced that, having given the Republicans in the House a chance to legislate, he would use his powers to try to fix our broken immigration system, to put on temporary hold the deportations of individuals who are the parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, who have lived in our country for years, and who pose no threat to America's safety.

This is clearly not amnesty, because at the end of the day, what the President has given is only a temporary reprieve to these people to stay and work in America--so long as they register and pay their fee, so long as they submit themselves regularly to criminal background checks, and so long as they pay their fair share of taxes. This deferred action status does not give them permanent status or citizenship. It is not amnesty by any definition.

The President's Executive action will make America safer, bringing millions of immigrants out of the shadows to register with the government and to go through background checks. It will also help our economy and American workers. You see, these undocumented workers, working off the books, are many times paid much less than minimum wage, if they are paid at all, and they are competing with American workers. Once they are brought out of the shadows under the President's recent Executive order, they will need to

be paid the ongoing wages, the minimum wage of America. By bringing these workers into the legal workforce, it will eliminate the unfair competition of the underground economy. And all of these workers will be paying their taxes, which will increase tax revenues by billions of dollars each year.

The President's Executive action is also smart and realistic when it comes to enforcing our immigration laws. It is not humanly possible to deport all of the undocumented immigrants in this country. So every administration has had to set priorities on those who will be deported and those who will not. The government should not waste its limited resources to deport immigrants who have lived and worked here for years, who have children who are citizens or lawful permanent residents, and who do not pose any threat to America's future. Instead, the administration has made it a top priority to deport those who have committed serious crimes or are a threat to safety.

Now, Executive action on deportation is clearly lawful. Every single President--Democrat and Republican--every one of them since President Dwight David Eisenhower has used his Executive authority to improve our immigration system. This argument that it is somehow unconstitutional just does not bear basic scrutiny. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the Federal Government has broad authority to decide whom to deport. President Obama is acting well within his legal authority when he establishes policies about whom will be deported by this administration.

The American people have elected us to solve problems. Because the House Republican leadership has failed to reform our immigration system, the President had no choice but to use his authority under the law to improve our economy and security and keep families together and at least do a small part toward solving America's broken immigration system problems.

However you feel about the President's immigration policies, it is hypocritical and counterproductive--it is just wrong--to take out your frustration by putting at risk critical homeland security funding.

I hope the House Republicans will somehow or another overcome this fit of pique that has led us to this moment and realize their first obligation is to this great Nation.

Mr. President, I was unable to attend the inauguration of the new Governor of Illinois today. Bruce Rauner was elected November 4 to serve as the 42nd Governor of the State of Illinois. His wife Diana was by his side when he took the oath of office.

I had a chance to attend some of the receptions last night and called him over the weekend and said my duties in the Senate made it impossible to accept his invitation to say a few words at his inaugural. But despite the fact that we come from different political parties and despite the fact that we have many differences when it comes to issues before us, I certainly wish our new Governor, Bruce Rauner, the very best in his efforts to lead the Land of Lincoln, the great State of Illinois. He faces an extraordinary number of challenges--broken public pension systems, struggles in coming up with the revenue we need to keep our schools moving forward, and the safety net to protect the most vulnerable people living in our State.

I have given him my personal pledge, and I will renew it on the floor of the Senate today, to stand by him and his administration to solve these problems and to lead Illinois forward.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I am sorry, I was discussing with the staff. If the Senator will please repeat her request.

I have no objection.

I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent.