[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10710-10723]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   NOMINATION OF LEON RODRIGUEZ TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES 
 CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Nomination of Leon Rodriguez, of Maryland, to be Director 
     of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
     Department of Homeland Security.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 4:30 
p.m. will be equally divided in the usual form.
  The Republican whip.


                        Criminal Justice Reform

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, there are two things I wish to address 
here briefly on the floor of the Senate. The first, strangely enough, 
has to do with an editorial that appeared in the New York Times this 
weekend.
  I remember one of the people who was influential to me when I was 
coming up through the political system in Bexar County, TX, and in 
Austin, and now working here in Washington and back home in Texas. One 
of my mentors said: Don't ever get into a fight with somebody who buys 
ink by the barrel.
  That seemed like pretty sage advice, but maybe it is a little dated 
these days because so much of what we see in the news is not in written 
newsprint itself.
  The point is, the editorial in the New York Times this weekend I am 
referring to was talking about criminal justice reform, a topic that in 
recent months has produced some genuine bipartisan legislation. I am 
proud to be a cosponsor of one of those reform bills, along with my 
colleague, the junior Senator from Rhode Island, Sheldon Whitehouse.
  Our bill would allow low-risk Federal prisoners to earn credit toward 
completing a portion of their sentence outside of prison walls--for 
example, through home confinement, through halfway houses or community 
supervision.
  Strangely enough, the Times editorial praises our bill as an example 
``of significant progress toward a legislative solution.''
  Unfortunately, it then proceeds to blame Senate Republicans, 
including me, for stalling progress on the bill and preventing a vote 
on the sentencing bill introduced by the distinguished majority whip, 
Dick Durbin of Illinois.
  The strange thing about it is, as every Senator and everybody within 
the sound of my voice knows, it is Majority Leader Reid who determines 
what legislation comes up on the Senate floor, and this editorial 
didn't mention him at all. An amazing oversight. The last time I 
checked, the majority leader was the only person in the Chamber with 
the power to schedule a vote on any legislation he wants, and he can do 
so whenever he wants.
  So for the record, I wish to correct the error in the New York Times 
editorial. I strongly support criminal justice reform, including 
sentencing reform. My concerns about the sentencing reform bill 
cosponsored by Senator Durbin and Senator Lee are that I believe the 
criteria it uses are excessively broad in deciding whose prison terms 
to shorten. But I think those are the sorts of things that could be 
worked out through an open amendment process on the Senate floor. And--
I am sure we all agree on this--we don't want to prematurely release 
dangerous, higher level drug traffickers. That is my concern, that the 
bill is overly broad and would include them. Those kinds of concerns 
should not be taken lightly--and I am sure they are not--and I look 
forward to working with my colleagues to address them.
  To reiterate, my opinions about the sentencing bill have nothing to 
do with the majority leader's prerogative to schedule a vote. He could 
schedule that vote anytime he wants. I would like to think the New York 
Times editorial board is knowledgeable enough to know that, but 
apparently they need a reminder.


                           Immigration Policy

  In the last week I have come to the floor a number of times to talk 
about the humanitarian crisis in South Texas. This of course is caused 
in large part by 52,000 unaccompanied minors, mostly from Central 
America, who have shown up on America's doorstep, on our border, saying 
they want to live in the United States. It is estimated those numbers 
could rise to as many as 60,000 to 90,000 this year alone and maybe 
double next year unless something is done.

[[Page 10711]]

  I have to say I am somewhat encouraged because the Obama 
administration is finally acknowledging--somewhat belatedly, but 
finally they are acknowledging their policies may have contributed to 
this crisis in the first place.
  This past weekend Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh 
Johnson published what he called an open letter to the parents of 
children crossing our Southwest border. This letter ran as an op-ed in 
Spanish language media outlets, and it warned parents of the 
extraordinary dangers facing Central American migrants who travel 
through Mexico, including the danger of kidnapping, sexual assault, 
torture, and murder.
  Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson also made clear that the 
children who have been pouring into South Texas will not be eligible 
for the Obama administration's so-called deferred action programs. This 
is what he said:

       There is no path to deferred action or citizenship, or one 
     being contemplated by Congress, for a child who crosses our 
     border illegally today.

  In other words, Secretary Johnson's op-ed implicitly acknowledged 
that President Obama's policies have created a perception that children 
who make it across the border will be allowed to stay. I must say it is 
a very dangerous perception and one that simply has to be corrected, 
not only for the sake of U.S. border security and for the rule of law 
but for the sake of the very children who now constitute the 
humanitarian crisis on our southwestern border.
  In discussing this matter with a number of our colleagues on a 
bipartisan basis, it has been observed that the drug cartels, which 
used to just traffic in drugs, now traffic in people. They have changed 
their business model. Essentially, they control the corridors by which 
drugs, people, and weapons traverse Mexico and, in this instance, come 
from Central America.
  The fact is there should be a lot of concern on our part that this 
flood of unaccompanied children will prove to be a distraction from the 
interdiction of dangerous drugs coming across the same borders. In 
fact, in the Rio Grande sector of the Border Patrol, in the Rio Grande 
Valley, as the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security 
Committee knows, there has actually been a drop in the number of drug 
interdictions coming across the southwestern border in part because the 
Border Patrol and other law enforcement have been diverted to deal with 
this humanitarian crisis.
  I see the chairman on the floor, and it looks as though he has a 
question on his mind. I yield to him for a question if he has one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Texas for his 
thoughtful comments.
  When I was Governor, and long before that, and certainly in the 
Senate, I have liked to focus on underlying causes, not just the 
symptoms or problems but how do we solve the underlying challenge that 
is before us.
  In this case we focus so much on the border and what we are doing on 
the border. We have tens of thousands of men and women arrayed there, 
drones, all kinds of technology to stop people from coming in. It is 
important for us to defend and secure our borders. The Senator from 
Texas has been a champion for that, and I would like to think I have as 
well, also, having been to Guatemala and El Salvador in the last couple 
of months, and Mexico and Colombia, trying to understand what is the 
underlying cause here.
  As the Senator from Texas knows probably better than most of us, a 
big part of the underlying cause is the lives the folks are being 
forced to live in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. As we squeeze 
that bubble in northern Mexico to try to go after the narco drug lords, 
we squeeze that bubble and they go somewhere else--they head south. 
They have made life miserable in those countries for a lot of people.
  So as we secure our borders and do all the work there, sending a 
strong, clear message, as Secretary Johnson has said, to those parents 
of those in Guatemala and El Salvador, it is also important to figure 
out how we partner with Colombia and those folks in Mexico and 
Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, to improve the hellacious lives 
many are living, with a lack of hope, lack of safety, lack of jobs, 
lack of opportunity, lack of education. We can do that. We can do that 
while at the same time securing our borders. We have to do both. And 
the underlying cause is important.
  I have no questions, but I want to thank the Senator for his thoughts 
this evening, for yielding, and for giving me a chance to join him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the chairman of the Homeland Security 
Committee is exactly right to say we can't just look at the border in 
dealing with this crisis.
  My friend Henry Cuellar from Laredo, TX, a Member of the House of 
Representatives, likened this to a football game. He said: You can't 
only do goal line defense. We need to find ways of deterring people 
from leaving their homes in the first place and coming to the United 
States.
  I know Vice President Biden was in Guatemala this last week and 
Secretary Johnson was in the Rio Grande Valley, and I know they are 
looking at all of this. There is no simple, single-shot answer to it. 
But the fact is there are a lot of people who want to come to the 
United States, for obvious reasons.
  But I look at it as even though we are a nation of immigrants, we are 
a nation of legal immigration, one of the most generous in the world. I 
think we naturalize roughly 800,000 people a year now because they want 
to become American citizens through the legal system.
  But to have this mass of humanity come at such a great flood and in 
such a short period of time, particularly as unaccompanied minors, 
threatens to capsize the boat. It creates a lot of hardship in local 
communities, States, and places around the country we wouldn't expect 
to be dealing with this, because they are going to have to be taken 
care of. We are committed to making sure these children are taken care 
of, but we have to send a message very clearly that if you are a parent 
contemplating this circumstance, you should not send your children, 
particularly on the perilous and dangerous journey leading from Central 
America.
  I have mentioned in recent days a book written in 2013 called ``The 
Beast'' by a courageous Salvadoran writer named Oscar Martinez. Mr. 
Martinez, a journalist, traveled I think eight different times with the 
migrants from Central America and wrote in this book about their 
experiences and, unfortunately, the unspeakable brutalities these 
migrants encounter on a daily basis--again, because they are traveling 
through a smuggling corridor controlled by the cartels, in this 
instance the Zetas. The Zetas are a spinoff of the Sinaloa cartel. They 
used to traffic in drugs, but now they realize they can make money off 
these migrants--and they do, in terrible sorts of ways. Of course they 
are lawless, and the brutalities they exact on these migrants are 
shocking.
  For example, Mr. Martinez in his book ``The Beast'' tells a story of 
one migrant woman who was raped on the dirt-and-straw floor of a 
cardboard shack before being strangled to death in a Mexican town along 
the Guatemalan border. This woman's picture was subsequently published 
in a local newspaper on a half page, with two other pictures of 
tortured bodies. In the meantime, an epitaph was written on a small 
cross that read: The young mother and her twins died November 2008.
  I realize this is shocking and really horrible, and we prefer not to 
even think about it. But I think we need to acknowledge--and certainly 
the parents who send their young children unaccompanied on this long, 
perilous journey need to understand--what they are vulnerable to.
  The dangers of the trans-Mexican migration journey have become far 
worse over the past decade as powerful drug cartels have effectively 
taken over the

[[Page 10712]]

human trafficking business. As Caitlin Dickson in the Daily Beast 
reported yesterday:

       While the journey north was always treacherous and costly, 
     in the hands of the cartels it has become deadlier than ever. 
     The entire border, and the routes leading up to it, are 
     controlled by some combination of Los Zetas, Sinaloa, and 
     Knights of Templar cartels, along with a few smaller groups--
     making it impossible to cross without their permission.

  What they have to pay to exact their permission is a tax or a fee--
basically, protection money--to allow them to pass more or less safely 
through their territory. As I have said many times, there is nothing at 
all humane about encouraging mothers, daughters, fathers, and sons to 
put their lives in the hands of such vicious criminals. Yet when the 
President has talked as he has over the years about dealing humanely 
with migrants, he acts as if the decision to demonstrate more and more 
leniency or deferred action when it comes to our enforcement or 
immigration laws is itself a humanitarian act. Yet perversely what it 
does is it encourages this sort of illegal immigration and encourages 
mothers and fathers to subject their children to these tremendous 
brutalities.
  I can only hope the ongoing crisis we are seeing now along the 
southwestern border will dispel any illusions that somehow by saying, 
well, we will not enforce our immigration laws as to this class of 
individuals, we are going to pick and choose or we have deported too 
many people, so we are going to quit deporting people--these actions 
and inactions have consequences, and this is the sort of consequence 
that sort of action produces. I hope it will dissuade the President 
from announcing yet another unilateral suspension of immigration 
enforcement later this summer.
  There are various stories written and rumors told that the President, 
if immigration reform doesn't pass this year in Congress, will take 
action unilaterally through an Executive order. He has encouraged that 
perception, saying, ``I have a pen and I have a phone,'' and he has 
issued a number of Executive orders in a number of different areas, but 
I hope the President doesn't compound the problem by further sending 
the message that he is going to unilaterally suspend enforcement of our 
immigration laws because the consequences will be big and they will 
further jeopardize the health, welfare, and well-being of the people he 
thinks he is trying to help.
  I would ask the President: What is more important, is it political 
posturing--trying to show to an important constituency that you are 
sympathetic to their concerns--or are we going to focus primarily on 
people's lives and their welfare?
  Given all that has happened in this humanitarian crisis, how on Earth 
could the President possibly justify another unilateral change in 
immigration enforcement that will likely lead to another surge like we 
have seen on the border.
  It is pretty simple. Unless we send a clear message that our borders 
are being enforced and that our laws are being upheld, we will continue 
to face crisis after crisis after crisis. Meanwhile, untold numbers of 
migrants will continue suffering and dying in Central America and 
Mexico just trying to get here or get here--showing up on our 
doorstep--and overwhelm our capacity to deal with them in a responsible 
way.
  I yield the floor, and I would suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Colleagues, there is an unprecedented crisis unfolding 
on our border. The crisis threatens the very integrity of our national 
border, our laws, and our system of justice. It is something I have 
been talking about for a number of years, but it has reached unusual 
and dangerous proportions. It is a crisis of this administration's own 
making and a crisis the administration's policies continue to 
encourage.
  America deserves leaders in the executive branch who will stand up 
and say clearly: The crisis must end now. The border is closed. Please 
do not come unlawfully to America. If you do come unlawfully, you will 
be deported. This is what we expect from our Chief Executive, the chief 
law enforcement officer in America and, for that matter, the head of 
Homeland Security, the office in charge of Border Patrol and ICE 
officers.
  But President Obama and Secretary Johnson at the Department of 
Homeland Security refused--just refused--to plainly make this 
statement. How can they not? It is their duty. It is the law of the 
United States, and it is causing people around the world, particularly 
in Central America, to believe they can come unlawfully to America. It 
is encouraging this to happen. They are getting wrong messages from the 
leadership in our country.
  So let's review the evidence.
  On March 20, 2014, the University of Texas at El Paso did a study 
that was funded and supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security Science and Technology Directorate, and it states that ``both 
Border Patrol and ICE officers agreed that the lack of deterrence for 
crossing the U.S./Mexican border has impacted the rate at which they 
have apprehended UACs.''
  UACs are unaccompanied alien children.

       Officers assert that ``UACs are aware of the relative lack 
     of consequences they will receive when apprehended at the 
     U.S. border.''

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

       UTEP [University of Texas El Paso] was informed that 
     smugglers of family members of unaccompanied alien children 
     understand that once a UAC is apprehended for illegal entry 
     into the United States, the individual will be reunited with 
     a U.S.-based family member pending the disposition of the 
     immigration hearing.

  There will be some sort of hearing set for them.

       This process appears to be exploited by illegal alien 
     smugglers and family members in the United States who wish to 
     reunite with separated children. It was observed by the 
     researchers that the current policy is very similar to the 
     ``catch and release'' problem that the Department of Homeland 
     Security faced prior to the passage of the Intelligence 
     Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.

  If we catch somebody in the United States unlawfully, they will be 
given some minimal process and then released on bail and told to return 
back to court in so many weeks or months. In many cases, they do not 
show up. They enter the country unlawfully against the laws of the 
United States. They are apprehended but released--and why would they 
show up?
  Recently Border Patrol agents in the Rio Grande Valley questioned 230 
illegal immigrants about why they came. These are particularly related 
to children, and 95 percent said they believed they would be allowed to 
stay and take advantage of the ``new'' U.S. ``law'' that grants a free 
pass or ``permiso'' being issued by the U.S. government to adults 
traveling with minors and unaccompanied children.
  So this is what they said 95 percent of the people who came illegally 
believe. This memo that leaked out of the Department of Homeland 
Security continued:

       The information is apparently common knowledge in Central 
     America and is spread by word of mouth and international and 
     local media. A high percentage of the subjects interviewed 
     stated that their family members in the United States urged 
     them to travel immediately, because the United States 
     government was only issuing immigration `permisos' until the 
     end of June 2014.

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

[[Page 10713]]

hear the Secretary of Homeland Security basically saying if you are a 
young person and you come you will be treated differently? Then they 
hear they will be given a ``permiso'' and allowed to stay and be taken 
care of, that there is no risk or danger in coming to the United States 
unlawfully.
  On June 13, the Washington Post published an article entitled 
``Influx of minors across Texas border driven by belief they will be 
allowed to stay in U.S.'' How hard is it to reverse that belief? We 
have not done it.
  On June 19, Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar of Texas said, ``As 
long as they know they are going to be released and allowed to stay 
here, they are going to keep coming.'' Isn't that true?
  The New York Times quoted one teenager from Honduras whose mother had 
sent for him: ``If you make it, they take you to a shelter and take 
care of you and let you have permission to stay.''
  Records show the administration knew this surge we are seeing at the 
border, which is unprecedented in our history, was coming, and they 
knew of it for some time and did nothing to stop it or to send the 
message: Don't do this. Do not come to America unlawfully. Make your 
application if you feel you are justified in coming, and it will be 
processed in regular order. Indeed, the administration sought, rather 
than to stop this dramatic surge, to accommodate it.
  Even before the public became aware of the beginning of the surge of 
this nature at our border, on January 29 of this year, the Federal 
Government-- get this--posted an advertisement seeking bids from a 
contractor to handle 65,000 ``unaccompanied alien children'' crossing 
the southern border. This was in January.
  In 2011 we had approximately 6,000 coming into the country 
unlawfully. So in January of this year they posted an advertisement to 
handle 65,000. So this raises serious questions. Why would the 
administration claim to be surprised by the current influx of 
unaccompanied minors when they were taking bids in January for a 
contract to handle the exact situation--almost the exact number--we are 
seeing? This year it is expected to hit about 90,000 children; whereas, 
in 2011 it was 6,000. Projections from official sources say we may hit 
130,000 next year. How did the administration anticipate the very 
numbers it seems we have at least to date?
  In March of this year the Department of Health & Human Services 
estimated in its fiscal year 2014 budget proposal that the number of 
unaccompanied illegal alien children apprehended in 2014 this year 
would rise to 60,000, which is up 814 percent from the 6,560 who were 
apprehended in the United States only 3 years ago.
  Over the weekend the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security 
published an ``open letter to the parents of children crossing our 
Southwest border'' on a Spanish language wire service. I had demanded 
of him in the Senate Judiciary Committee that he send a clear message, 
and he actually refused to do so. I had to ask him about three or more 
times before he would finally say: It is unlawful to come here, and 
that is the reason you shouldn't. He said: You shouldn't come because 
it is dangerous. He said: You shouldn't come. It is not a good idea. 
But he was not simply saying: Do not come unlawfully.
  In newspapers in Central and South America and on Univision's Web 
site the letter noted, in part, that the Senate comprehensive 
immigration bill ``provides for an earned path to citizenship, but only 
for certain people who came into this country on or before December 31, 
2011.''
  The Senate bill died in the House and will not become a law, and it 
was wrong to have done that very thing. That is what the law said, but 
it wasn't passed. But the very fact that Mr. Johnson is advertising in 
foreign countries an earned path to citizenship for illegal immigrants 
undermines his primary responsibility, which is to enforce the law. The 
most primary responsibility for Mr. Johnson is not to see how many 
people he can apprehend and actually go through the cost and process of 
deporting; the primary job is to deter criminal activity to begin with, 
to send a message and back it up that people cannot come successfully 
illegally. Don't come. Then you will see a large dropoff instead of 
this 800-percent increase we see today.
  Human beings are rational actors, and if they believe the United 
States is granting citizenship to illegal aliens who arrived before 
2012, it stands to reason that the U.S. Government will move that date 
back if more illegal aliens arrive in the years to come. Why wouldn't 
they think they would be given amnesty too? That is what happened in 
1986--amnesty was given. There were 3 million people who were given 
legal status, and the message was heard.
  Some say that today, we have over 11 million illegal aliens in the 
country.
  Even a 2009 internal Department of Homeland Security report on 
approaches for implementing immigration reform recognizes this 
fundamental fact. This 2009 report said:

       Virtually all immigration experts agree that it would be 
     counterproductive to offer an explicit or implied path to 
     permanent resident status (or citizenship) during any 
     legalization program. That would simply encourage the fraud 
     and illegal border crossings that other features of the 
     program seek to discourage. In fact, for that reason and from 
     that perspective, it would be best if the legislation did not 
     even address future permanent resident status or citizenship.

  That is from an official government report.
  Contrary to the administration's claims that illegal immigrants are 
acting on mere rumor and misinformation, it is the sad reality of lax 
enforcement plus the lack of a clear message that is driving the surge. 
The reality is if you get into the country today, you are not going to 
be deported. That is true.
  A leaked May 30 internal memo written by the top border official, 
Deputy Chief Ronald Vitiello, said:

       Currently only 3 percent of apprehensions from countries 
     other than Mexico are being repatriated to their countries of 
     citizenship, which are predominately located in Central 
     America.

  I repeat, only 3 percent are being repatriated back home.
  According to the former head of Enforcement and Removal Operations 
for ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, Gary Mead:

       It's taking a year or more in some places for people to 
     come up on a hearing and many times, they don't have an 
     attorney, or they've lost an attorney, and they get an 
     extension, and maybe it's two years before they have a 
     hearing. And in the interim period, they enroll in school, or 
     they get a job, or they are reunited with family members, and 
     then they are no longer an enforcement priority.

  That is significant. Even if after 2 or 3 years a judge finally 
orders removal--assuming the individuals show up in court at all--many 
illegal immigrants simply ignore that order, and having been here for a 
period of years, no one makes them leave.
  As former ICE Director John Sandweg said: ``If you are a run-of-the-
mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close 
to zero.''
  Yesterday, Byron York published in the Washington Examiner the 
findings of Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies at the Center 
for Immigration Studies, which shows that the United States deported a 
total of 802 minors to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador in 2011, 
677 in 2012, and down to 496 last year. Weighed against the tens of 
thousands pouring in, it is clear that once again the reality on the 
ground--not merely rumor, talk, or policy--of the lax enforcement has 
influenced decisionmaking in Central America.
  It is obvious to me. I have been a Federal prosecutor. You have to 
send the message, and if the message is heard that if you violate a 
certain law, you will be disciplined, the number of people who violate 
the law will drop. If you never enforce speeding tickets, people will 
speed. If you enforce them systematically, people will slow down.
  York quotes ex-ICE official Gary Mead:

       If you're getting 90,000 a year, or 50,000 a year, or even 
     25,000 a year, and you only remove 1,200, you're not 
     eliminating the backlog.


[[Page 10714]]


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

       Many of the children, teenagers, and adults, arriving at 
     the border are able to game our asylum and immigration laws 
     because the Obama administration has severely weakened them 
     and many thousands have already been released into the 
     interior of the United States. What does President Obama plan 
     to do with those who have already been released from custody?

  That is a good question. We have a situation now where illegal 
immigrants seek out and turn themselves in to the Border Patrol 
officer. They come across the border and go straight to them and turn 
themselves in. That is a fact. What happens then? They are taken 
farther into the United States to be reunited with family members, 
apply for a job, attend school, have children in U.S. hospitals, and 
stay in the United States--whether through skipping court hearings, 
receiving asylum, or simply ignoring orders to leave.
  We can all expect that 5 or 10 years from now--and correct me if I am 
wrong--politicians in this body will probably say these illegal 
immigrants ``came here through no fault of their own'' and are entitled 
to citizenship. Is this a policy of a great nation? It is a policy of a 
nation that believes and advocates for open borders, but it is not a 
policy that is compatible with a system of law, duty, and order.
  If people apply and wait in line, why should other people be able to 
come from the outside, break in line, move ahead of them unlawfully, 
and then ultimately receive the very thing they sought unlawfully? The 
chaos continues.
  Indeed, the President actively continues to incentivize even more 
illegal immigrants. That is the effect of what he has accomplished 
here. He reauthorized his DACA program--based on a bill that did not 
pass the Senate or the House--for 2 years, which is a policy that 
exempts whole classes of certain individuals, particularly young 
people, from the immigration laws of the United States. He held a White 
House ceremony in the White House honoring 10 DACA recipients. DACA 
recipients are people who enter the country illegally. He also 
unilaterally authorized an additional 100,000 guest workers, and now 
the Justice Department is hiring lawyers to represent unaccompanied 
alien children in immigration court to maximize the number of those who 
will receive permission to stay in the country.
  Claims that DACA--this policy of nonenforcement unilaterally carried 
out by the President of the United States not to enforce the law--does 
not apply to these new arrivals is simply a distraction. DACA is a 
unilateral action that established the precedent that those who come to 
America at a certain age will receive special exemptions from the law. 
That is what it says.
  ICE officers report they are often forced to release even high-risk 
individuals of unknown ages and dates of entry who simply assert DREAM 
Act privileges.
  In the internal Border Patrol memo, Deputy Border Patrol Chief 
Vitiello stressed the only way to stop the flow is to show potential 
illegal immigrants that there will be real consequences for their 
action. He said:

       If the U.S. government fails to deliver adequate 
     consequences to deter aliens from attempting to illegally 
     enter the U.S. the result will be an even greater increase in 
     the rate of recidivism and first-time illicit entries.

  Our immigration system is unraveling before our very eyes. It is 
unbelievable. The American people have been denied the protections they 
are entitled to under our immigration system. Washington is failing the 
citizens of this country in a most dramatic and open way. Laws are 
passed by elected representatives of the people. We have passed laws 
that say you can't come to America without permission, and you need to 
file your papers and follow the rules. It is unlawful to just walk 
across the border because you want to come to this country. That is not 
lawful in this country.
  I am calling on all the leaders and officials in this town to take 
the firm, bold, and decisive steps that are necessary to restore order 
and restore our borders. It is important for the children who are at 
risk. Many of them are having a difficult time. They have run out of 
money and the coyotes and smugglers have taken their money and 
mistreated them. We have heard a lot of horrible stories.
  What is the best way to fix this problem? The best way to fix it is 
to have the President of the United States and the Secretary of 
Homeland Security say we are not going to accept you coming unlawfully. 
Please do not come. Don't do it. Make your application like everybody 
else. Wait your turn like everybody else. We are not against 
immigration or young people, but it is unacceptable to have a lawless 
system--as we have today--that is placing children at risk and 
overwhelming our enforcement officers.
  One TV program today said the Border Patrol officers, instead of 
doing their duty, are changing diapers. We have gone from 6,000 to 
maybe 90,000 to 100,000-plus next year. The cost of the budget item 
last year for these kinds of things was about $800 million. I think 
they are now saying they need $2.28 billion a year just to handle this 
overflow. We don't have money to do that. It is not the right thing. It 
is dangerous for children, it is corrosive of the law.
  The President must send a clear message: Do not come. Please follow 
the law, and if you come anyway, contrary to the law, you will be 
apprehended, you will be deported, and you will be required to return 
home.
  I thank the Chair, yield the floor, and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I would like to discuss the 
nomination of Leon Rodriguez to be the Director of the U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Service. Mr. Rodriguez was appointed on December 19 and 
approved by the Judiciary Committee on April 3rd by a vote of 11-7.
  I want to explain my opposition.
  First and foremost, Mr. Rodriguez lacks adequate immigration 
experience to lead this agency. I only say that because his nomination 
comes on the heels of potentially sweeping immigration reform 
legislation. When we read his responses to my questions, it becomes 
clear that he has little appreciation for what this job as director 
entails. He basically says that he has a lot of studying to do. I 
think, with the situation of immigration in this country--the need for 
immigration reform--that we need to do better than have a director of 
the agency who says he has a lot of studying to do.
  Second, his previous experience with Casa de Maryland is a concern as 
well. He was a member of the board of directors there from 2005 to 
2007. The mission of Casa de Maryland is to help improve quality of 
life and fight for equal treatment for low-income Latinos. There is 
surely nothing wrong with that. That is a very noble cause. But if we 
peel back their mission statement, we will see that the activities they 
are involved in are a lot greater than just improving the quality of 
life for low-income people. They aid people here illegally in finding 
employment and gaining legal status in this country. They provide legal 
services to do so, and they fund day labor centers that focus on 
ensuring undocumented workers can find work on a daily basis. And, of 
course, that entails the use of taxpayers' money to accomplish that 
goal.
  Their efforts are in direct conflict with the mission of the U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Service. That agency has to ensure the 
integrity of immigration programs and benefits. Casa de Maryland 
believes that anyone, even those who are here in contravention of our 
law, should be eligible for

[[Page 10715]]

benefits. The organization has pushed for driver's licenses for people 
here unlawfully. They have worked to undermine REAL ID, a Federal law 
that needs to be fully implemented by the States. They have organized 
rallies that promote legal status for people who have broken the law. 
They have trained undocumented workers to understand their rights and 
published a cartoon pamphlet advising people not to speak to law 
enforcement when approached. They go so far as to encourage them not to 
even provide their names.
  Mr. Rodriguez claimed that he had no knowledge of this pamphlet put 
out by Casa de Maryland. Yet, he was on the board at the time the 
pamphlet was published and disseminated.
  Mr. Rodriguez doesn't disavow their work or their contempt for law 
enforcement. In fact, he stated in one response that he was 
``supportive of the use of local tax measures to support the day labor 
centers'' that Casa de Maryland established.
  So it is concerning that he could bring this same philosophy to an 
agency whose mission is to oversee legal immigration in the United 
States. And we all know that we are a welcoming Nation of immigrants 
because about a million people come here every year legally, and they 
are welcomed, and our laws allow that.
  Now, a third reason to oppose him is my concern about Mr. Rodriguez's 
commitment to responding to congressional oversight, and my colleagues 
know how strongly I feel about Congress's doing its constitutional job 
of oversight; in other words, to be a check on the executive branch of 
government, to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed. Despite 
assurances given during his hearing, Mr. Rodriguez repeatedly failed to 
provide responsive answers to many of my questions. Mr. Rodriguez was 
not responsive to the questions I posed even in writing. While he 
repeatedly stated he would review the programs and policies if 
confirmed, Mr. Rodriguez claims not to be privy--that is his word--to 
internal functions or have knowledge of how the agency works. He 
refused to provide his opinions on very critical matters facing the 
agency, and I will give my colleagues examples.
  In his initial responses he stated the following response not once, 
not twice, but 17 times: ``If confirmed, I will certainly commit to a 
careful study of this program to determine any additional appropriate 
steps forward, including any possible changes to address this matter.''
  We are talking about a person who gives that response, and he is 
directing an agency of 18,000 people. He is not going to be ready to go 
to work on day one, and they need somebody who is ready to go to work 
yesterday.
  The second time around asking questions, he responded a bit 
differently in each question, but always alluded to the fact that he 
was ``not privy to the internal factors upon which USCIS and its 
leadership base its decisions.''
  I wish to give my colleagues one example. I asked about whether drunk 
drivers or sex offenders should be eligible for legal status and 
immigration benefits. He responded in both instances saying, ``In most 
cases, individuals who have been found guilty of a serious crime should 
not receive immigration benefits.''
  Well, that is a big question mark. What does he mean by ``in most 
cases''? I would read that this way: So when should these individuals 
be allowed to receive benefits and legal status? That is the question 
that is unanswered by his response.
  By not answering the questions about felons, drunk drivers, or even 
gang members, he is essentially toeing Casa de Maryland's line that no 
one should be deported.
  He could not offer an opinion of his own or elaborate when such 
people should get benefits. He said he would be forthcoming with 
Congress, but his repetitive answers show, No. 1, he is avoiding the 
questions, and No. 2, he has a lot of studying to do before he takes 
this job.
  A fourth reason: He wasn't forthcoming with his views on what we call 
around here DACA, the Deferred Action for Child Arrivals program that 
grants work authorizations and stays of deportation for anyone under 
the age of 31.
  One of the most pressing items on the agency's plate right now is 
whether we are going to renew the President's DACA directive. In his 
hearing and twice afterwards in questions for the record, I asked Mr. 
Rodriguez about his plans with DACA and whether he would expand the 
program. I couldn't get a straightforward answer from him. I asked if 
he had any discussions about the program, and he stated that he was 
only ``generally aware'' of the renewal process. He clearly knew the 
agency published a renewal form for public comment, yet he claimed to 
have little knowledge or opinion on the matter.
  What is more, I am told by employees within the agency that he has a 
person at the table who is reporting to him directly on the agency's 
decisions. I am told he has a conduit during discussions on the 
deferred action program. It is not clear how much he is driving the 
policies, but it concerns me that he claims no knowledge of this 
matter.
  Had Mr. Rodriguez been more forthcoming, we would also know what is 
in store for the President's directive. Will he simply renew it, or 
will he expand it, as many believe is the plan? Congress should know 
this man's views on those very important matters.
  In connection to DACA, I asked about information sharing with USCIS 
and other Federal entities. My colleagues know I rely on whistleblowers 
for a lot of information. Just recently, a whistleblower brought me a 
case in which the FBI asked for information on a DACA applicant. The 
FBI agent, in an email, said this:

       I am checking to see if there was any information available 
     regarding fugitive ``john smith''? We would love to get him 
     in custody. I was interested in knowing where he submitted 
     his fingerprints and if he left a home address.

  Now, that is the Federal Bureau of Investigation doing its work. Here 
is what the USCIS provided in response to the FBI:

       We cannot confirm that a DACA request has been filed 
     without reason to believe that the requestor would represent 
     an enforcement priority. However, according to your email, 
     the agent can see what form was filed. As such, you could 
     also direct him to our website for additional publicly 
     available information regarding immigration forms.

  The USCIS's response to the FBI was essentially this: Sorry. We can't 
help you. We must protect the confidentiality of the applicant. That is 
not quoting anybody; that is the hypothetical answer I think our 
immigration agency gave to the FBI.
  But this isn't the only case we have like this. I have been informed 
about the lack of information sharing by the USCIS since DACA began in 
2012. I asked Mr. Rodriguez about his commitment to provide law 
enforcement with information on people who apply for immigration 
benefits. Now, I didn't ask about the statutory or regulatory hurdles 
in information sharing, but he refused to answer. I asked about his 
commitment to making sure people who defraud the government--or who are 
lawfully denied benefits--are turned over to law enforcement for 
removal. In one instance, he said it depended on the person's 
circumstances.
  The immigration agency is part of the Department of Homeland 
Security. Its core mission is, as we would expect, to protect the 
homeland. Yet, this agency has a culture that I call ``getting to 
yes.'' In other words, cut a whole bunch of red tape and don't worry 
about what the law says. Just get people approved to be in this 
country.
  Mr. Rodriguez's nonresponsive answer on this matter of ``getting to 
yes'' concerns me, because it is not consistent with the mission of the 
department. I wanted a firm commitment he would change that culture, 
and I couldn't get that from him.
  Let me also address his connection to Mr. Perez, former head of the 
Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, now the Secretary 
of Labor. Mr. Perez, of course, was involved in the Department's 
decision to decline the prosecution of the New Black Panther Party 
voter intimidation case.
  During his hearing, Mr. Rodriguez admitted he was aware of emails 
between political employees and career

[[Page 10716]]

prosecutors discussing the decision to decline to prosecute that case. 
At that time, Mr. Rodriguez was serving as Mr. Perez's chief of staff 
and personally assisted in preparing Mr. Perez for his testimony before 
Congress. Yet, after Mr. Perez testified that the political appointees 
were not involved in the decision when Mr. Rodriguez said that they 
were involved in that decision, Mr. Rodriguez made no effort to correct 
the testimony after the fact.
  The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service can be a very powerful 
agency. They grant benefits to foreign nationals and are implementing 
the President's weak prosecutorial discretion initiatives. This agency 
will have a lot of responsibility if an immigration reform bill is 
passed by Congress. We are talking about 12 to 30 million undocumented 
people applying for benefits if this legislation is passed. They will 
carry out an administrative amnesty if a bill is not passed.
  Under President Obama, this agency has implemented very controversial 
policies and practices. Many of the policies this agency has undertaken 
were included in the July 2010 internal memo I obtained entitled 
``Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform.'' 
That sounds a little bit like ``I have got a pen and a phone, and if 
Congress won't, I will.'' The purpose of the memo was to ``promote 
family unity, foster economic growth, achieve significant process 
improvements and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals 
present in the United States without authorization.'' The memo 
highlighted creative ways to achieve ``meaningful immigration reform 
absent legislative action.''
  Remember when the President said: I have got a pen and a phone, and 
if Congress won't, I will.
  That is a perfect example of it.
  While the administration suggested this memo was only an internal 
deliberative document concocted by some bored bureaucrats, the 
Department has already undertaken many of these proposals. They will do 
even more under the new Director's leadership if the President decides 
to act unilaterally regarding immigration.
  Remember the President who said: I have a pen and a phone, and if 
Congress won't, I will.
  The agency's culture of ``getting to yes'' must change before any 
legalization program is carried out. The Homeland Security inspector 
general has reported on this culture. Their own internal watchdog, the 
IG, admonished the leadership for appearing to pressure line 
adjudicators to ``get to yes.'' Their report clearly shows that the 
immigration service has a lot of work to do to get rid of the ``get to 
yes'' culture that has pervaded this agency in recent years.
  The fact that one-quarter of the immigration service officers felt 
pressured to approve questionable applications and 90 percent of the 
respondents felt they did not have sufficient time to complete 
interviews of those who seek benefits certainly warrants significant 
changes be made immediately. It does not appear Mr. Rodriguez is 
inclined to do that.
  This culture stems from the leadership suggesting that line 
adjudicators lean toward approval and focus on eligibility and less on 
fraud. Unfortunately, I did not get any sense from Mr. Rodriguez that 
he was committed to changing the culture.
  Mr. Rodriguez's appointment to this agency concerns me a great deal. 
I hope my colleagues, before voting this afternoon, will have that same 
concern. I question his experience and his managerial judgment to lead 
an agency of 18,000 Federal employees. Unfortunately, I doubt his 
sincerity in working with Congress on oversight requests. I wish he had 
been more forthcoming.
  For these reasons and others, I oppose the nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, later this afternoon the Senate will vote 
on Leon Rodriguez as head of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services. While I am unable to support this nomination, this is the 
prime time to raise some of the issues that are happening on the 
southwest border. I will summarize some of my remarks.
  We have an incredible situation, as we all know, happening on the 
border today. We have had thousands of kids cross the border. In fact, 
from October 1 to mid-May, there were 148,017 apprehensions. Of those, 
a significant number--this is just the Rio Grande Valley in Texas--a 
significant number of those were unaccompanied minors. In fact, there 
were so many that we did not have the capacity to deal with them there, 
and many, to the great chagrin of many in Arizona, were shipped to 
Arizona to process and then released into the custody of a guardian or 
someone.
  The Border Patrol and others are trying to make the best of a very 
tragic and unfortunate circumstance. I do not think anybody faults them 
for the big burden they have. I think they are doing the best they can.
  But what the situation really points out is that not only do we have 
insufficient resources on the border itself to deal with those trying 
to cross, but once people get here, we have insufficient resources, 
infrastructure, and policies to actually deal with them in a timely 
fashion. They are actually released--most of them--and asked to appear 
at a later date. It is estimated that quite a few do not. In fact, very 
few will show up at their court date.
  What are we to do here? Obviously those of us who have dealt with 
this situation for a long time--those of us from border States--have 
advocated broad legislation to deal with border security, a guest 
worker plan, mechanisms to deal with those who are here illegally now, 
employer enforcement--many items. But if we cannot get to that yet--I 
wish we could, but if we cannot get to that yet, then we need to have 
better policies for dealing with those who have come across the border 
and whom we are going to hold. If we are going to grant them asylum--or 
some of them--then that needs to be done. If not, we cannot just assume 
that we are going to release them and assume they will come back for 
their court date or at their appointed time.
  So this is a situation with which we have to deal. One thing we need 
to address immediately is to try to stem the tide of those who are 
coming. Interviews suggest overwhelmingly--in fact, in one case there 
were 250 crossers during a 1-week period or a 2-week period into Texas. 
I believe 95 percent of them indicated that the main motivation for 
them coming across the border--this is largely unaccompanied minors--
was that they would be granted some kind of legal status that would 
allow them to stay. This is contrary to our law. This is contrary to 
the President's deferred action program. To qualify for that program, 
you would have had to have been here for 7 years. You cannot just 
arrive today or yesterday or tomorrow and qualify for this program. Nor 
was this contemplated by any legislation that has been passed by either 
body. The legislation we passed in the Senate does not allow those who 
come now to stay. You will have had to have been here since, I believe, 
December of 2011.
  But what is happening is cartel members, human smugglers, and others 
are misinterpreting or willingly telling people they will receive some 
kind of legal status when they come. Too many people believe that, 
particularly from the countries of El Salvador, Honduras, and 
Guatemala.
  Some suggest it is just economic conditions or violence in those 
countries that is driving people northward. That, no doubt, has some 
truth to it. There are some who come for those reasons. But we have 
seen a massive spike just in the last couple of months that cannot be 
explained by economic conditions or violence in those countries. It is 
because they believe they will be afforded some legal status.
  Senator McCain, I, and many others in this body have raised this with 
the administration and have asked the administration to make it clear 
that those who come now will not be allowed to stay.
  I have a letter that has been--I think this is an advertisement or 
has been translated into Spanish. It is being circulated in the 
affected countries from Secretary Jeh Johnson at the Department of 
Homeland Security. It is a

[[Page 10717]]

good letter. It says the right things. I am glad we have taken that 
step. Vice President Joe Biden was in those countries telling those in 
charge and others that those who come now will not be allowed to stay; 
they will be deported. That is good. We need to keep that up. But what 
we really need right now is for President Obama himself to make such a 
statement. In all deference to the Vice President and the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, they simply do not carry the weight of the President 
of the United States making a statement and then following up that 
statement with a concerted effort in those countries to let people know 
they should not come north. That would make a tremendous difference. I 
call upon the President to make such a statement and to follow up that 
statement with efforts in those countries to make sure people 
understand this.
  First and foremost, we need to stem the tide of those coming. It is 
estimated that this year there could be as many as 90,000 unaccompanied 
minors who come across the border. That figure may be higher next year. 
We have to stem that tide and then quickly figure out how we can deal 
with those who cross the border and whom we apprehend. We simply do not 
now have the infrastructure or policies that allow us to deal with them 
in a rationale, humane way.
  I would call upon the President to make such a statement.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  (The remarks of Mr. Walsh pertaining to the submission of S. Res. 483 
are printed in today's Record under ``Resolutions Submitted.'')
  Mr. WALSH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 20 minutes 
in a colloquy with a number of my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Keystone XL Pipeline

  Mr. BARRASSO. I come to the floor today with the ranking member of 
the Senate energy committee to discuss the issues of the Keystone XL 
Pipeline.
  I turn to my colleague from Alaska to invite her to share with the 
Senate some of her observations, considerations, and concerns as we 
seek approval of an opportunity to create more jobs in America and 
improve our economy, as well as energy security for our country. I turn 
to the Senator from Alaska and ask her concerns, comments, and 
solutions that she may have regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that my friend and colleague from Wyoming 
is helping to lead this discussion about the Keystone XL Pipeline and 
really to encourage the Senate to move on it, to do something on this 
rather than just talk about it.
  We are sitting here Tuesday afternoon. We had a series of votes on 
judges here this morning, and it looks like we are going to have some 
more this week. But from the view of so many around this country who 
are worried about jobs, worried about the economy, worried about what 
is happening with the IRS, with the VA--and not to mention what has 
happened on the world scene--it looks like we are going to have yet 
another unproductive week in the Senate.
  Since we are here and we have time, I can't think of a better time on 
a better issue to take up than this Keystone XL Pipeline.
  The bill that we are asking to be brought up is Senate bill S. 2280. 
It was introduced by our colleague from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven. 
He introduced it on May 1.
  It was placed on the legislative calendar a few days later. It has 55 
cosponsors. When we talk about bipartisan issues and initiatives within 
the Senate, 55 is a very good number. It includes 11 Democrats, 
including the chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
  We are well behind the House of Representatives, though, on this 
initiative. They passed a Keystone bill over 1 year ago, but we have 
been working in the energy committee. We had a Keystone bill that was 
reported out of the energy committee just last week.
  We passed an original bill on a bipartisan basis. It has not yet been 
filed, but it is virtually identical to Senator Hoeven's bill, which we 
are discussing today.
  But I did vote. I know my colleague from Wyoming and I know the 
Presiding Officer voted for Senator Landrieu's original bill. I did so 
because I think it is good policy to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. 
I committed at that hearing, and I certainly commit now, that I am 
going to do everything I can to help advance this initiative. If and 
when her bill is placed on the calendar, I intend to support that as 
well.
  But the problem that we have--and it should be no surprise to most--
is no matter how many Keystone bills are added to the calendar, it 
appears that the majority leader is going to ignore them. It doesn't 
matter how long Keystone has been under review, it doesn't matter how 
many new jobs will be created, and it doesn't matter that the delays 
are political and not substantive.
  The fact of the matter is we cannot get to that point where we can 
take up this important initiative. The majority leader could have 
offered us a vote on Senator Hoeven's bill at any point over these past 
6 weeks, but he has chosen not to.
  It seems very clear to me that he has no intention of moving to it, 
especially if we just kind of sit back on this and don't push. It may 
be that is the will of some in this body--that they don't want us to do 
anything, they don't want us to push forward. But I think that is 
contrary to the will, to the wish of 56 Members of this Chamber, and it 
is contrary to our national interests.
  It is interesting to note Democrats were not always opposed to 
importing crude oil from Canada, as they would appear today. Back in 
1970 the Nixon administration announced that it would place a quota on 
Canadian oil imports, and it was none other than Senator Ted Kennedy 
who led the fight against this decision.
  Senator Kennedy said in a Senate hearing in March of 1970:

       The reason why Canadian oil has never been restricted in 
     the past is obvious. Canadian oil is as militarily and 
     politically secure as our own and thus there can be no 
     national security justification for limiting its importation.

  Those were pretty telling words back then, and I think they still 
hold true today. It wasn't only Ted Kennedy. There were other Democrats 
who opposed the Nixon administration's restriction on trade with 
Canada: Senator Proxmire of Wisconsin and Senator McIntyre of New 
Hampshire.
  I think we have had such an opportunity on this floor to debate the 
merits of the Keystone XL Pipeline and to debate not only how many 
good-paying jobs it can bring to us but how it can help this Nation and 
Canada as we work to promote our North American energy independence.
  Our energy partnership with Canada has taken decades to develop. It 
has had some rocky times, but all good and worthy relationships take a 
little bit of work to maintain.
  So if the Obama administration is unwilling to do the hard work of 
diplomacy and make this remarkably easy decision--approving a job-
creating and a security-enhancing pipeline--then I think it is time for 
Congress to act. That is why a few of us have gathered here today to 
move this issue forward, to do more than just talking about it, but to 
get the Senate to the point where we might actually have an opportunity 
to vote on it and do some good for this country.
  So we are sitting here waiting. We have an opportunity to do it, and 
I think we should end the delay. I think we should move forward with 
this bill.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I agree, Mr. President. Just think about what happened

[[Page 10718]]

last week. Extremists from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, a 
terrorist group, attacked the largest oil refinery in Iraq. This 
terrorist group was actually kicked out of Al Qaeda for being too 
extreme.
  It is a striking reminder to all of us--all of us in this Chamber and 
all of us in this Nation--how important it is for the United States to 
take swift action to increase energy production here in North America. 
Energy security is key.
  President Obama essentially conceded the point last week during a 
press conference when he announced he was sending troops back into 
Iraq. He was asked what Iraq's civil war is in terms of national 
security interests to the United States, and he gave a couple of 
reasons:

       Obviously issues like energy and global energy markets 
     continue to be important.

  Despite the urgency, the President refuses to take steps to reduce 
the effect that Iraq's oil can have on American national security in 
the future. The President admits energy is a national security interest 
but he refuses to do anything about it that is meaningful.
  What do the President and the administration think should happen? The 
President was asked a week or so ago, as a result of a huge spike in 
oil prices per barrel of oil as a result of what was happening with 
ISIS in the Middle East: What about all of this?
  He said he was concerned, but he said: The gulf should pick up the 
slack and produce more oil. Not North America, not the United States. 
The gulf. He was talking about the Persian Gulf should pick up the 
slack.
  Vice President Biden put out a plan last week to support energy 
production--but not in the United States, in the Caribbean.
  America shouldn't be asking for more energy from the Caribbean or the 
Persian Gulf. We should be producing more energy on our own, in our own 
gulf coast, offshore, on Federal lands, in Alaska.
  That is why last week the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
passed legislation approving construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. 
The bill passed the committee. The ranking member said there was 
bipartisan support. Even Democrats voted for it. That bill would send 
oil from Canada into States such as North Dakota. The Senator from 
North Dakota is here on the floor. It will send oil from Canada and 
North Dakota to refiners in Texas and Louisiana.
  Last week Democrats in the committee voted for this bill and talked 
about how important it is. The Keystone XL Pipeline application has 
been pending for more than 5 years. The State Department has done five 
environmental reviews of the project. All five have found the Keystone 
XL Pipeline will cause no significant environmental impact. We should 
not delay this project any longer. Democrats should push their party 
leaders to vote on this bill.
  I am disappointed--I know my colleagues are--that Senate Democrats up 
to this point have chosen to block this important bill. I think it is 
outrageous the way a small group of Democrats refuse even to consider 
having a debate on this vital measure--energy security for our country, 
energy at home.
  America needs the jobs. We need the energy. According to the U.S. 
State Department, this bill would support thousands and thousands of 
jobs. Energy is a national security issue for the United States, and 
this bill would help produce energy here in North America--not what the 
President said, where they will pick up the slack in the Persian Gulf.
  The bill is on the calendar right now. The Democratic majority leader 
can bring it up for a vote, and we are going to ask him to do so today. 
The Chair of the Energy Committee should call on the majority leader 
and demand that he act on the bill.
  We are here in the Senate and we get elected to the Senate to vote. 
The Keystone XL Pipeline is important. This bill is important. 
Democrats who want to vote against it can make their arguments and cast 
their vote.
  So I turn to my friend and colleague, the Senator from North Dakota--
a Senator who has been an incredible leader, a former Governor of his 
State, a Senator who knows the issue well, who knows the value of 
American energy--U.S. energy, North American energy--the impact on 
jobs, the impact on the economy, the impact of energy as a geopolitical 
weapon in what is happening around the world.
  I ask my friend and colleague from North Dakota if he thinks there is 
any reason whatsoever to delay action on this bill or if we should move 
ahead.
  I see the Senator from Oklahoma has also joined us. So there are 
obviously significant and growing voices coming to the floor to say it 
is time to vote now, not additional delay, not additional studies, not 
additional talk. It is time to vote.
  I turn to my friend and colleague from North Dakota, the former 
Governor of North Dakota--I think the longest serving Governor in the 
history of the State--for his impression of why it is time to vote 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I thank the esteemed Senator from Wyoming 
not only for being here today to talk about this important issue but 
for his tremendous leadership on energy issues.
  Wyoming produces an incredible amount of energy for this country, and 
the Senator from Wyoming well knows that you not only have to produce 
that energy, you have to get it to market, and you need pipelines to 
move oil and gas to market. We move some by truck, some by train. But 
we can't move everything by truck and by train. We have to have 
pipelines, and that is what this is all about.
  The Keystone XL Pipeline is the latest, greatest technology that is 
the most efficient and the safest way to move this product to market. 
It will actually result in less greenhouse gas than if we don't build 
the pipeline, as was determined by the administration's own 
environmental impact statement produced by the Department of State.
  I have some additional comments I wish to make on this important 
issue, but first I would turn to the esteemed Senator from Oklahoma and 
ask that he provide some of his comments and insights from a State that 
produces an incredible amount of energy, and where actually hydraulic 
fracturing started in this country and has been done safely since I 
think the 1950s; somebody who understands not only that we have to 
produce energy so we can get to energy independence, but that we have 
to have the infrastructure to move that product safely to market.
  With that, I turn to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma and ask 
his thoughts on this important issue as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do appreciate that. I might elaborate a 
little bit.
  Oklahoma is not just the place where they first started hydraulic 
fracturing, it was done in Oklahoma in 1948, and, according to Lisa 
Jackson, who was the Obama-appointed EPA Director, never has there been 
a confirmed case of groundwater contamination.
  I know we are getting strapped for time here and I regret that. I 
draw the Presiding Officer's attention to the chart I am holding up 
here.
  It happens that Cushing, OK, is considered to be the crossroads of 
the pipelines throughout the United States. In Cushing, OK, we had I 
guess the only trip President Obama has ever made to Oklahoma. He came 
to Oklahoma. Looking in the background, there are all the tubes up 
there to dramatically make a statement. And that statement:
  I'm directing my administration to cut through the red tape, break 
through the bureaucratic hurdles, and make this project a priority, to 
go ahead and get it done.
  That is what the President said in Oklahoma. I wasn't there, but that 
is what he said. That is a direct quote. Then he did everything he 
could do to destroy the Keystone Pipeline.
  He made the statement down there: I'm not going to do anything to 
create a problem for the southern leg that

[[Page 10719]]

goes from Cushing down into Texas. Well, there is a reason for that. 
The reason is, he couldn't do it. The reason he is stopping up there, 
because it crosses the country line from Canada into the United States. 
He has some jurisdiction there. But there is nothing he could do to 
stop it. So he came down to tell us that he wasn't going to do that.
  I have to say to the President: People in Oklahoma aren't that dumb. 
They know you didn't have that authority or you would have stopped it.
  The portion between Canada and Cushing is the part that remains 
stalled. At this point I think the reason is one guy named Tom Steyer. 
Let me introduce him.
  First, we always hear a lot of things about the Koch brothers and 
other people who are putting money in or are concerned about it. This 
actually is a statement made by this very wealthy person. I am sure he 
is a nice person. Tom Steyer is a multibillionaire. He is very liberal. 
He is from the State of California. He is a good friend of the junior 
Senator from California, and he has made the statement that he is going 
to put up $100 million to spend in campaigns of people who would do two 
things: one, try to resurrect the issue of global warming--which is 
dead. I can remember when global warming would be polled as the No. 1 
or No. 2 problem in the country. Right now, according to last week's 
Gallup poll, it is No. 14 out of 15. So that is a dead issue.
  But $100 million would do two things: first, to resurrect that issue; 
secondly, to stop the Keystone Pipeline.
  A few weeks ago he said explicitly--and these are his words, not 
mine:

       It is true that we expect to be heavily involved in midterm 
     elections. We are looking at a bunch of races. My guess is 
     that we will end up being involved in eight or more races.

  We just learned this week that as the President marks his 1-year 
anniversary of his climate action plan, Tom Steyer is going to meet 
personally with him. So there is $100 million at work right there, if 
that is what it takes for a meeting. And we all know what the cost 
would be.
  This is very important. One thing that has not been refuted, way back 
in the beginning of the whole global warming thing they talked about 
the cost is going to be somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion 
a year. The Wharton Economics Foundation, MIT, Charles Rivers, everyone 
agreed with that.
  The Keystone Pipeline, which Tom Steyer wants to stop, would create 
42,000 jobs, and tens of thousands more would be supported in the 
manufacturing sector. But Keystone is just the tip of the iceberg.
  If we look at this chart, No. 3, we can see all of the domestic 
energy resources being developed around the country right now. We are 
going through a shale revolution in America, and the only thing that is 
getting in the way is the Federal Government.
  This is interesting: In the last 6 years, oil production on private 
and State lands is up 61 percent. On Federal land, however, oil 
production is down 6 percent. Now how could that be?
  This map shows throughout the United States--not all in the western 
part. Look at New York and Pennsylvania. This is where the development 
is coming from, all of it on State and private land, an increase in 5 
years, 5\1/2\ years, of 61 percent. At the same time, on Federal land 
it is down by 6 percent.
  The IFC International, a well-respected consulting firm, released a 
report last month which said U.S. companies would need to invest $641 
billion of infrastructure over the next 20 years to keep up with the 
growing oil and gas production.
  What does it mean for jobs? According to the analysis, the spending 
on these new pipelines alone will create 432,000 direct jobs. And that 
is based on a conservative estimate. That does not assume we develop 
all of the resources in our country. If that were included, it would be 
a lot more.
  So keeping this from happening would be a great impact for imposing 
anti-energy, global warming policies. We need to build the Keystone 
Pipeline and provide regulatory certainty for the entire energy 
infrastructure sector. Without it, we will never reach energy 
independence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for the colloquy has expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. How much time is remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 33 minutes remaining on the 
Republican side. But the question of the colloquy time has expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent I be given 4 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. What time do we have the vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 4:30.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is the reason we were very careful with the time. 
And we gave my good friends--and they are my good friends--a lot of 
extra time.
  I will allow the Senator to proceed for 1 minute. But after that, we 
need equal time on this. So I give 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator asked for 4 
minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 1 minute.
  Mr. INHOFE. If I could ask my friend if we could compromise: 2 
minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Let me think it over. OK.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate my good friend from California thinking it 
over.
  Anyway, 432,000 direct jobs. And when we stop and think about it, 
keeping it from happening would have the impact and effect of stopping 
us from becoming oil independent. We could do that.
  The Keystone Pipeline needs to be built. We all know about the jobs. 
More importantly, there is not a single good reason why it shouldn't 
happen.
  Tom Steyer's goal is to stop the oil in Canada from being developed, 
but he can't do it. We have seen this just in the last week. The 
Canadians have conversations going with China to have them accept it if 
we don't complete our Keystone Pipeline.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2280

  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
Calendar No. 371, S. 2280, to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline; that 
there will be up to 4 hours of debate and that the Senate then proceed 
to vote on passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I wish to explain how I 
come to my conclusion at the end by saying a couple of things.
  I see that my dear friend--and these are all my friends whom I 
particularly enjoy working with--I say to my friend from Oklahoma, he 
said Tom Steyer is from California. This is correct. So is Justice 
Kennedy, and so is Richard Nixon, who signed the Clean Air Act. Richard 
Nixon signed the Clean Air Act, and I was a cosponsor of that act. And 
Republican Herbert Walker Bush signed the Clear Air Act Amendments.
  Mr. INHOFE. Would the Senator yield to that point, because I was a 
cosponsor of that act.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will not yield.
  The fact is that Republican objections to controlling carbon 
pollution took that all the way to the Supreme Court.
  Another thing on which I need to correct the record is my friend 
Senator Barrasso talked about our President as if our President doesn't 
care about our being energy self-sufficient. The United States is 
producing more oil at home than it is buying from the rest of the world 
for the first time in nearly two decades. Let me repeat that. The 
United States is producing more oil at home than it is buying from the 
rest of the world for the first time in nearly two decades. And 
PolitiFact marked that as true and accurate.
  I want to say to my friend who has left the floor, Senator 
Murkowski--another good friend of mine--we offered a vote on Keystone 
as part of Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman's bill

[[Page 10720]]

on energy efficiency, and we said we would treat it the way Mitch 
McConnell recommends treating controversial amendments. We offered a 
60-vote threshold. Now they come to the floor decrying the fact that we 
didn't offer a vote, but we did.
  Here is the point: Whenever America considers building a major 
infrastructure project, we make sure there is a process in place, and 
we have done that since 1968. It is a well-established process, and 
that process was updated by George W. Bush in 2004. So this unanimous 
consent request that would approve the pipeline would bypass the entire 
process we have set up in this country for these kinds of major 
infrastructure projects that has been in place since 1968.
  We need to know whether the building of this pipeline is in the 
national interest, and it is critical that the process not be 
circumvented because there are major issues on behalf of America's 
families. Frankly, the request that is before us would cut short the 
process that protects our families. So rhetorically I ask, why would 
anyone want to do that? They talk about a lot of jobs. That is in great 
dispute. The permanent jobs are like 35. So let's be clear. It is about 
other things. It is about special interests. That is what it is about. 
There is a lot of money that follows this pipeline.
  Now I want to talk about the human health impacts. Tar sands is one 
of the filthiest kinds of oil on the planet--filthy dirty oil. That is 
why Senator Whitehouse and I called on the State Department to conduct 
a comprehensive health impact study--because the pipeline itself is one 
thing; it is the type of oil that is going through the pipeline, this 
dirty, filthy tar sands oil.
  If you don't believe me, ask our health professionals. A Gallup Poll 
found 12 years in a row that the most trusted profession is America's 
nurses. National Nurses United--the Nation's largest professional 
association of registered nurses, with 185,000 nurses--also called for 
a health impact study of Keystone because we know if this pipeline is 
built, immediately we will see a 45-percent increase in the tar sands 
coming in. Eventually we will see a 300-percent increase in the 
filthiest, dirtiest of oils coming into our country. We also know this 
oil has higher levels of dangerous oil pollutants and carcinogens 
because we documented that in our own country where they burn tar sands 
oil.
  Mr. INHOFE. A parliamentary inquiry, I ask of the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
  Mr. INHOFE. Our point is, I believe the distinguished Senator from 
California is reserving the right to object. I would ask her does she 
object.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I complete my remarks before I make a 
decision on the pending request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. A further parliamentary inquiry: Is the time unlimited to 
finish remarks before objecting or not objecting?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A reservation for the right to object occurs 
at the suffering of other Senators.
  Mrs. BOXER. I didn't understand what the Chair said.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no right to reserve the right to 
object.
  Mrs. BOXER. All right. Then I would ask unanimous consent that I 
complete my remarks--the other side had many minutes--and then object.
  And I would also ask the Chair, do we not have time on our side at 
this point in the debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does, but there is a unanimous 
consent request pending.
  Mrs. BOXER. OK. Well, just to allay my friend's concern and his 
excitement about whether or not I will object, I will absolutely 
object. I do object because we know that misery----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mrs. BOXER. Misery follows the tar sands from extraction, to 
transportation, to refining, to waste storage. We are going to show you 
some pictures, folks, in case you don't know what it looks like when 
you refine this oil. We are going to show you photos from Port Arthur, 
TX.
  This is what it looks like. There is a playground where this filthy, 
dirty stuff is burned. This is not a good place to be. We had people at 
a press conference with the nurses from Port Arthur, TX, and they 
brought us these pictures and said this is what it is like when they 
burn the tar sands.
  Now let's talk about the types of cancers that are linked to these 
toxic chemicals, including leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
  Why would anyone want to short-circuit a process? Just because the 
oil companies want it? We have to think about our people. Tar sands oil 
from the Keystone Pipeline will flow to our gulf refineries, increasing 
this toxic air pollution that already plagues communities such as Port 
Arthur, TX. I ask you to meet with some of those kids, meet with some 
of their parents, meet with some of those health professionals, and 
they will tell you the asthma rates that are happening, the respiratory 
illnesses, the skin irritations, the cancer. All they talk about is the 
pipeline. What about what flows through it? What about the toxins that 
get burned into our air?
  We know a pipeline does burst. We know a pipeline does burst. We have 
seen many of those incidents, and we know one did burst with tar sands 
oil in Kalamazoo, MI. They still haven't cleaned up the river--3 years, 
they still haven't cleaned it up. And we know that the pipeline goes 
through communities and environmentally sensitive areas in six States.
  Why would my friends want to bypass a process that is going to look 
at the potential damage to the health of our citizens, to the safety of 
our drinking water, and the effect on kids and asthma and cancer?
  And let's not forget the tar sands waste, by the way. Here is a 
picture of that, in case my friends don't know what it looks like. This 
is called petcoke, petroleum coke. Already, because we have increased 
tar sands importation, it is lining up around our cities--in Chicago, 
in Detroit--massive open piles of tar sands, waste products known as 
petcoke, billowing black clouds containing heavy metals. There was a 
story that was told to our committee. Children playing baseball have 
been forced off the field to seek cover from the clouds of black dust 
that pelt homes and cars.
  So you have problems when you extract, you have problems when you 
transport, you have problems when you refine, and you have problems 
when you store the waste. Why do my colleagues want to bypass a process 
that has been put in place since 1968 so we can look at the impact on 
our people? Petcoke dust is particulate matter. It is among the most 
harmful of all air pollutants. When inhaled, these particles can 
increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate 
bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body's ability to 
fight infections.
  Do you know the Federal Government has said that asthma is a national 
epidemic? I am quoting. It affects 1 of every 12 people or 26 million 
Americans. I know if I asked people in this Chamber--which I cannot do 
because it is against the rules of the Senate--to raise their hands if 
they have asthma or they know someone who has asthma, I guarantee half 
of the people in the room would raise their hands.
  We don't need more asthma. We have a very important system in place 
to look at the effects of tar sands oil, and I don't think we should be 
pushing this project forward. Exposing Americans to pollutants linked 
to cancer and respiratory illness is not in the national interest.
  Lastly I want to talk about the climate change impacts. For those 
people who are listening to the news, they must be surprised to see how 
many former Republican Environmental Protection Agency officials have 
come out and said to their colleagues who are here now: Wake up. 
Climate change is here, it is real, and human activity is adding to it.
  The planet is in trouble. Tar sands oil has at least 17 percent more 
carbon pollution than domestic oil. The State Department concluded even 
in their flawed study that the annual carbon

[[Page 10721]]

pollution from just the daily operation of the pipeline, should it be 
built, will be the equivalent of adding 300,000 new cars on our roads.
  So why do we want to short-circuit a process which has been in place 
since 1968 and which was then renewed by George W. Bush in 2004 to 
protect our people from just this kind of a project?
  If you walk up to an average American and say ``Should we build the 
Keystone Pipeline?'' they will say ``Pipeline? A pipeline is a 
pipeline.'' But when you explain the kind of oil you are putting 
through the pipeline, that is a different situation because this is the 
filthiest, dirtiest oil--more carbon intensive. The oil is linked to 
all kinds of illness.
  I stood next to people from Canada, doctors who were so glad I was 
raising these issues. Even the newspapers in Alberta have called for a 
much better study on health impact.
  So outside of this Chamber more and more Republicans are coming out 
in support of doing something serious about climate change.
  My friend showed a picture of Tom Steyer. Let me thank him from the 
bottom of my heart. This is someone who is a very successful 
businessperson who realized he has to step up to the plate and preserve 
the planet for his kids and his grandkids. Thank you, Tom Steyer.
  Just last week four former Republican EPA Administrators who served 
under Presidents Nixon, Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George 
W. Bush spoke out on the need to address climate change.
  I thank Senator Whitehouse, my subcommittee chair on the committee, 
who called these four incredible--it was an iconic moment, frankly. 
Let's see if I remember them all. There was Ruckelshaus, who started 
off with Nixon. There was Christie Todd Whitman, who worked for George 
W. Bush. There was William Reilly, who worked for George Herbert Walker 
Bush. Then there was Mr. Thomas, who worked for Ronald Reagan--Ronald 
Reagan. There they sat, and there they spoke, and there they said very 
clearly: Wake up, Republicans. This is a serious matter.
  Now today a bipartisan group of former Treasury Secretaries released 
a report showing that the U.S. economy is already feeling the negative 
financial impacts of climate change. These respected leaders say 
climate change is real and we must act.
  So why would we want to short-circuit a critical review process when 
approval of the Keystone Pipeline would be a major step in the wrong 
direction? It is the equivalent of 300,000 cars added back on our roads 
after we struggled so hard to clean up carbon pollution.
  Another concern that remains to be addressed is the Keystone 
Pipeline's impact on national security. I met with a former SEAL Team 6 
leader, and he was involved in the assessment of the Keystone tar sands 
pipeline and the risk of that pipeline becoming a high-profile target 
vulnerable to attack. They concluded it absolutely was a high-profile 
target, and it would be vulnerable to an attack that could trigger a 
catastrophic tar sand spill.
  As I said, the last tar sand spill 3 years ago in Michigan has still 
not been cleaned up. This stuff is filthy, dirty oil--the dirtiest. Why 
on Earth would we want to see an eventual 300-percent increase in the 
importation? The nurses don't want it and the public health doctors 
don't want it. They came to the press conference with us. We cannot 
afford to take a shortcut in the Keystone tar sands pipeline review 
project when so much is at stake--the health of our communities and the 
impact on climate change.
  Finally, I have a picture that I show a lot these days, and it is a 
picture of what it looks like when you throw the environment under the 
bus. This is a picture of a province in China where the people walk out 
with masks over their faces because everybody says: Who cares? We can 
just do anything we want. Who cares?
  I recently went to China. Over the course of 2 weeks, I never saw the 
Sun. I did not see the Sun. On one day when we had a little bit of Sun 
peeking through--I mean barely at all--the people there got so excited. 
The people who work in our embassy there get hazardous duty pay because 
it is so dangerous for their families. They can't go out and breathe 
the air because they can get sick.
  We can have economic growth and a clean environment. You know why? We 
did it in the 1970s when everybody objected to the Clean Air Act. You 
should have seen the folks come to the Senate floor. You should have 
heard the Chamber of Commerce railing against the Clean Air Act. You 
know what happened since then? Tens of millions of jobs have been 
created. The air is clean. Thousands and millions of lives over time 
have been saved. Heart attacks, asthma attacks, and cancer have 
reduced. We can quantify it.
  When colleagues come here and try to do something to bypass a 
procedure to protect human health and the environment, you can count on 
me standing right here. I am proud to do it.
  I can report that California--under the great leadership of our 
Governor Jerry Brown--is moving to clean energy. We are moving to 
thousands and millions of new jobs. We have added more jobs over the 
last couple of reporting periods than any other State. We are balancing 
our budget. We have a surplus because we are moving to energy 
efficiency, and that means people are going to work.
  I understand that my friend from New Hampshire is interested in 
making a few remarks, so at this time I wish to say to my Republican 
friends that it is with great respect and friendship, truly, that we 
see the world differently, and that is OK. That is what makes this the 
greatest country on Earth. We can come here and speak out.
  I wish to say to the American people today that this rush to build 
the pipeline before the process is completed is dangerous to the health 
of people and to the health of the planet and to the importance of our 
national security.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from 
California giving me an opportunity to respond.
  As those of us on the floor probably remember, several weeks ago we 
were talking about trying to address the Energy Efficiency and 
Industrial Competitiveness Act, also known as Shaheen-Portman, an 
effort that Senator Portman and I had worked on for 3\1/2\ years to try 
and put in place a comprehensive energy efficiency strategy for this 
country. The bill has no mandates in it and no new spending. It has the 
support of over 260 groups--everybody from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
to the National Association of Manufacturers to the NRDC to several 
trade unions, companies from Johnson Controls to Honeywell, the 
American Chemistry Council. It has the support of a broad coalition of 
people.
  According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, if 
the legislation of Senator Portman and myself were to pass this year, 
by 2030 it would help create 192,000 jobs, save consumers $16.2 billion 
a year, and it would be the equivalent of taking 22 million cars off 
the road.
  As part of that discussion, we actually had what we thought was an 
agreement to have a vote on Shaheen-Portman on a date certain that 
would have a 60-vote threshold and also have another vote on the 
Keystone Pipeline on a date certain. All the Senators would know when 
the vote would take place, and again it would have a 60-vote threshold. 
Sadly, some of the sponsors of that legislation who worked with us to 
try and get a bill put forward refused to vote to consider the bill, 
and it went down. It is unfortunate because we could have had a vote on 
the Keystone Pipeline at that time. It was an agreement I thought we 
had all agreed made sense.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2262

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be 
determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the 
Republican leader, the Senate resume consideration of S. 2262, the 
Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill; that the motion to commit be 
withdrawn; that amendment Nos. 3023 and 3025 be withdrawn; that the 
pending substitute amendment be agreed

[[Page 10722]]

to; that there be no other amendments, points of order, or motions in 
order to the bill other than budget points of order and the applicable 
motions to waive; that there be up to 4 hours of debate on the bill 
equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; that upon 
the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on passage 
of the bill, as amended; that the bill be subject to a 60-affirmative-
vote threshold; that if the bill is passed, the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 371, S. 2280, at a time to be determined 
by the majority leader, after consultation with the Republican leader, 
but no later than Thursday, July 17, 2014; that there be no amendments, 
points of order, or motions in order to the bill other than budget 
points of order and the applicable motions to waive; that there be up 
to 4 hours of debate on the bill equally divided between the two 
leaders or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, 
the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; finally, that the 
bill be subject to a 60-affirmative-vote threshold.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do reserve the right to object. I have 
listened carefully to my very good friend from California, and it 
affects my decision as to whether to object.
  The reason the American people are no longer interested in all the 
hype and all the world coming to an end on global warming is for four 
reasons. No. 1, according to the IPCC--let's keep in mind, the IPCC, 
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is the science that is 
behind this opinion. They even admit today that there has been no 
warming in the last 14 years. This is not just a report from the IPCC 
but Nature magazine.
  Mrs. BOXER. Parliamentary inquiry, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator state the inquiry.
  Mrs. BOXER. My understanding is the Senator is using the time of the 
Senators on this side of the aisle to make a speech before he objects. 
Am I correct? Is it our time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask that the Senator object, and then Senator Shaheen 
have the rest of the time because we are running out of time.
  Mr. INHOFE. I am reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have the right to reserve 
the right to object.
  Mr. INHOFE. I recall that a few minutes ago, the distinguished 
Senator from California reserved the right to object and gave her 
reasons. Is that incorrect?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time was under Democratic control at that 
time.
  Mr. INHOFE. Very well. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I wish to say I am disappointed we can't move forward 
to address the concern on both voting on the Keystone Pipeline as well 
as the concern Senator Portman and I have to consider the Shaheen-
Portman energy efficiency bill.
  Shaheen-Portman is legislation that would go very far to address our 
energy needs. After all, energy efficiency is the first fuel. It is the 
cheapest, fastest way to deal with this country's energy needs. It has 
support from those people who believe in fossil fuels and from those 
people who support alternatives, such as wind and solar. It is 
something everybody benefits from, and it is something that would move 
us in a direction that would help address the pollution we are seeing--
not just from carbon but from so many other pollutants that are being 
thrown into the air. It is a reasonable way to address both our 
concerns as well as the concerns of those people who support the 
Keystone Pipeline.
  Let's have this vote--up or down--with a 60-vote threshold. I believe 
we have strong bipartisan support for Shaheen-Portman. We saw that in 
the motion to proceed when it got more than 70 votes here on the floor. 
We had strong bipartisan cosponsors on the legislation. I think we 
could have those votes now, everybody would be happy, and let the votes 
fall where they may.
  I am disappointed to hear the objection. I hope we will have an 
opportunity to reconsider, and I hope we can all agree that there is a 
benefit to both sides of the aisle in voting on both of these issues in 
a way that gives the American people some idea of where we stand.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Will the Senator from New Hampshire yield for a 
question?
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Happily.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. I am obviously not as schooled in the procedures of the 
Senate, but I want to better understand what happened here. Obviously 
the Senator moved to bring forward a bill she and Senator Portman 
worked tirelessly on, which is critical to jobs in America and to 
energy efficiency, while also agreeing to allow a number of amendments, 
which included an amendment this Senator would have loved a vote on, 
the Keystone Pipeline. Obviously I don't believe the Senator and I 
share the same opinion, but I think it is important to have a 
discussion about it.
  With all of the discussion about how we are not moving legislation 
forward in the Senate, I am curious as to why someone would object to 
that consideration and moving that bill forward. It seems as though it 
is a reasonable and appropriate consequence.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I know my colleague from California wishes to answer, 
but I will say that I share the Senator's disappointment. I think this 
was a great opportunity for us to address both energy efficiency in the 
Shaheen-Portman legislation and to also get a vote on the Keystone 
Pipeline, which is something we discussed several weeks ago when the 
energy efficiency legislation came to the floor. I thought we had an 
agreement where we would vote on the bill and then separately vote on 
Keystone, and they would both have a 60-vote threshold. Sadly, some of 
those sponsors of the legislation didn't vote for it when the bill was 
filibustered, and so it did not pass. I am hopeful we can still bring 
it back. I am happy to bring it back in a way that allows us to have 
the same 60-vote threshold for a vote on the Keystone Pipeline.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I wish to say through the Chair, I spoke for quite a 
while on why I feel it is not good governance to come to the floor and 
ask unanimous consent to move to a bill and to short circuit a process 
that is in place and has been in place since 1968. The process was 
renewed by President George W. Bush to make sure when we build an 
American infrastructure project that it is safe, that it is in our 
national security interests, that public health is considered, and all 
the rest.
  I have said all along on an amendment of controversy--I am ready to 
vote on the Keystone Pipeline, and I support Senator Shaheen and 
Senator Portman's bill. What a great bill. What a win-win. Senator 
Shaheen is willing to take a 60-vote threshold for that, and those of 
us who worry about the pipeline are willing to vote with a 60-vote 
threshold. That is the way to go.
  The minority leader, the Republican leader Senator McConnell, said it 
over the years over and over. Whenever there is controversy, if people 
feel it is controversial, have a 60-vote threshold. He said that I 
don't know how many times, but I have the quotes. All of a sudden, when 
it comes to repealing President Obama's Climate Action Plan or 
Keystone, somehow that doesn't qualify as controversial from his point 
of view, but the thing about ``controversial'' is it is in the eye of 
the beholder. I don't think it is controversial to raise the minimum 
wage. It hasn't been raised in years, but my friends on the other side 
don't like it.

[[Page 10723]]

They demand 60 votes. So we had a 60-vote threshold.
  That is where we are, and that is why we are in this mess.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I applaud the Senate today for voting on 
the confirmation of Leon Rodriguez to be Director of the United States 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS. This is a vital leadership 
position within the Department of Homeland Security, responsible for 
administering and processing asylum and refugee applications, 
immigration benefits, and naturalization and visa petitions, including 
the EB-5 Regional Center Program.
  Mr. Rodriguez's confirmation comes at a critical time. Nearly 1 year 
after the Senate's historic vote on the Border Security, Economic 
Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, House Republicans have 
failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and have maintained a 
status quo that leaves our immigration system in tatters. We are now 
seeing the human cost of this inaction, as tens of thousands of young, 
unaccompanied alien children flood our Southwest border. Many of these 
children fled their homes to escape unimaginable violence, only to 
endure a harrowing journey and, once here, yet another humanitarian 
crisis. House Republicans must act to fix our broken immigration 
system, as we did in the Senate 1 year ago this week. Until then, our 
borders will be undermanned, our immigration courts overwhelmed, our 
economy will lag, and millions of people who have lived and worked in 
our country for years will be left in limbo.
  Although he will face these extraordinary challenges, I am confident 
that Mr. Rodriguez will ably lead USCIS. He currently serves as the 
Director for the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services. He previously served as the Deputy Assistant 
Attorney General and Chief of Staff for the Justice Department's Civil 
Rights Division. Prior to joining the administration, Mr. Rodriguez was 
the county attorney for Montgomery County, Maryland. Before that he was 
in private practice here in Washington. He has vast leadership and 
management experience, spanning both public and private practice, and 
often intersecting with issues of national origin and immigration 
status, making him extremely qualified to lead USCIS effectively.
  Mr. Rodriguez understands the need for both a comprehensive and 
compassionate response to the humanitarian crisis facing children 
seeking refuge in our country. With parents who fled an oppressive 
regime in Cuba, and grandparents who fled anti-Semitism and poverty in 
Turkey and Poland before that, Mr. Rodriguez understands the challenges 
and remarkable potential of immigration, both for the immigrant and for 
our country. This process begins with the fair, swift adjudication of 
asylum, refugee, and visa petitions.
  Mr. Rodriguez also understands how important the USCIS-administered 
EB-5 jobs program is to States like Vermont. This important economic 
program has transformed parts of our State, providing much-needed 
capital and creating jobs. I have spoken to Mr. Rodriguez about the 
challenges facing the program, including long application processing 
delays that have threatened to undermine important projects. He is 
committed to working with us in Congress to strengthen the program and 
make it permanent.
  He has the strong support of law enforcement, including the Major 
Cities Chiefs Association, as well as a coalition of 37 Latino 
organizations from across the country. I too support Mr. Rodriguez. I 
was proud to advance his nomination through the Senate Judiciary 
Committee and on the Senate floor. He is uniquely suited to lead this 
important office, and I look forward to seeing the progress to come at 
USCIS.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Leon Rodriguez, of Maryland, to be 
Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
Department of Homeland Security?
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) and 
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Schatz) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) and the Senator from Nebraska 
(Mr. Johanns).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 211 Ex.]

                                YEAS--52

     Baldwin
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Cochran
     Johanns
     Pryor
     Schatz
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. The President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________