Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, please, a parliamentary inquiry.

Mrs. BOXER. And what rule is that that governs that?

Mrs. BOXER. Well, you allowed another parliamentary inquiry. Why wouldn't you allow my parliamentary inquiry? All I want to know is how many minutes we have gone over the vote. I hear it is 11 minutes, Mr. President.

Mrs. BOXER. The sufferance of the Chair?

Mrs. BOXER. Well, the Senate is definitely suffering. But, in any event, we are 11 minutes over. Let's bang the gavel.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will just take 20 seconds and yield the rest. I hope we all vote for this because it doesn't do anything to cause disarray in negotiations. What it says is if there is a deal and there is a breakout and it is certified that there is a breakout with Iran, we would have a very quick way to restore sanctions.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there are two ways to repeal landmark environmental law. One is through the front door, and the amendment would say we abandon the Endangered Species Act. It is gone. And one way is through the back door. This is through the back door. If radical amendments like this one were in place, we would not have saved the great American Bald Eagle, the symbol of our Nation. If you believe that God's creations should be preserved, vote no on the Cotton amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, colleagues, this is very important. Today, every single Senator is treated like every single person in the country who works for a large employer. Those large employers all make a contribution to their employees' health care. We don't get any subsidies. We don't qualify for subsidies. We are treated like everyone else in this country who has an employer contribution to their health care. Now, colleagues, you do not have to take that employer contribution. If you don't want it, give it back. You don't need this amendment to give it back. If you feel as strongly as Senator Vitter does that you and your family don't want or need this employer contribution, then give it back to the Treasury, as I assume Senator Vitter does. Again, we don't need this amendment. If you don't want your employer contribution, you vote yes.

Mrs. BOXER. And if you believe we should be treated like everyone else in the country, vote no. That is how I am voting.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing William F. ``Zeke'' Grader, Jr., who is being honored by the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations and the Institute for Fisheries Resources in recognition of his extraordinary contributions to the fishing community. Zeke's roots to fishing date back to his childhood. He was raised in Fort Bragg, a small coastal town in Mendocino County, and spent his free time down on the docks helping his family's fish business. Zeke later attended Sonoma State University and graduated with a degree in political science before going to law school at the University of San Francisco. In 1976, Zeke began working as the executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, PCFFA, a trade organization supporting commercial fishing and fishermen rights. Throughout his 40-year career with PCFFA, Zeke worked tirelessly to support fishermen and their families, serving with unmatched distinction and skill. Zeke always understood the importance of ocean conservation, supporting groundbreaking legislation such as the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the California Coastal Act and advocating for sustainable fisheries that protected against overfishing and restored fish habitats. Zeke's passion for the ocean led him to other leadership positions, including roles as the founding executive director of the Institute for Fisheries Resources, a member of the U.S. Department of Commerce's Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee, and a member of the Marine Fish Conservation Network. A resolute and determined defender of the sea and those whose livelihoods depend on it, Zeke Grader is truly a force of nature. His work will continue to make a difference for years to come, and I send my deepest gratitude to Zeke for his outstanding service to California and the Nation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Rebecca Alexander, a native Californian who has overcome tremendous obstacles and inspired countless others to face their own challenges with courage and strength. On April 14th, the Foundation Fighting Blindness will honor Rebecca Alexander with its Hope and Spirit Award at the Thirteenth Annual For the Love of Sight Visionary Awards Dinner here in Washington. Rebecca was born in Oakland with Usher syndrome type III, a rare genetic disorder that causes progressive blindness and deafness. She began losing her sight as a teenager, and suffered a fall at age 18 that broke nearly every bone in her body. Today, Rebecca is almost completely blind and deaf. Despite these daunting setbacks, Rebecca has persevered. Now 36 years old, Rebecca is a psychotherapist with two master's degrees from Columbia University and a successful private practice in New York City. She is also the author of a moving memoir, ``Not Fade Away.'' In addition to her professional achievements, Rebecca regularly teaches spin classes and competes in the Civilian Military Combine, CMC, for extreme athletes. Some of her extraordinary athletic feats include helping run the Olympic torch across America, participating in a 600-mile bike ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles, skydiving, and bungee jumping. As the Foundation Fighting Blindness prepares to honor Rebecca, I want to join them in expressing my congratulations, appreciation, and profound admiration for this remarkable young woman.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if no one arrives, may I have 10 minutes?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am so grateful to Senator Sanders because he explains things like no one else. He takes it down to the average working family in America. That is really who we are here to protect, not the super top rich people. They are doing fine. Senator Sanders taught me something this morning. I am just going to make sure I remember it correctly. The wealth of the top 14 richest people in America in the last couple of years went up over $100 billion. How much was it?

Mrs. BOXER. In a 2-year period--the wealthiest of the wealthiest, 14 people--that wealth rose $157 billion. Yet when we look at this Republican budget, those people get every benefit we can imagine. They are not asked to do a thing--a thing. When people are struggling sending their kids to college, Lord knows, when people are struggling trying to afford a new home, when people are struggling every day to make ends meet--some even to put nutritious food on the table--this budget is a blueprint of unfairness. This budget, this Republican budget, is a blueprint for another recession. It is a terrible budget, and it makes believe it balances. It doesn't balance one bit. Our ranking member will explain the smoke and mirrors that have been used in this budget. I used to serve on the Budget Committee. Let me be clear to anyone within the sound of my voice. In recent times the only time the budget was balanced was when President Clinton was President, and only Democrats voted for his budget. We balanced the budget. And you know what; we created 23 million jobs because we invested in people, in education, in our children. Not this budget--they cut--deep cuts out of domestic spending. They take $236 billion over 10 years from nondefense. That means they are cutting education, scientific research, food safety, law enforcement, and every single program the middle class and working Americans depend on. I want to thank the ranking member of the Budget Committee. He is taking on such leadership in his position here and on the Environment and Public Works Committee by calling attention to our failing infrastructure. There are 63,500 bridges that are structurally deficient in America, and 50 percent of our roads are in less than good condition. And what does this Republican budget do? By the way, this is a big problem for our businesses. They cut 17 percent of overall spending, ignoring the fact that our roads are in disrepair and ignoring the fact that we face the prospect of crumbling bridges. That is a blow to everyone who drives on our roads. At a time when energy costs are weighing heavily on families and businesses, they cut 85 percent in overall energy spending, including weatherization funding. What are they thinking? When a middle class family weatherizes their home, the energy bill goes down. They are putting a tax on every middle class person who has to pay a heating bill. Energy efficiency grants, no--cut. Research to clean energy, cut. It is a blow to our consumers and to our efforts to mitigate climate change. At a time when college is a necessity and priority, they want to cut Pell grant funding by 30 percent over 10 years and to reduce overall spending on education and training by 15 percent--a blow to our students. Not for the students whose parents are in that top echelon-- there is no problem there. They can afford $40,000 a year college-- $30,000, $60,000. It is for our middle class and for those striving to be in the middle class. They are doomed with this budget. Now, President Obama has turned this great recession around, but our ranking member points out the problems that remain. The solutions aren't that hard to come by. You make investments--not wasteful spending but investments in energy, investments in transportation, investments in finding cures for diseases. And what do you do? You make this a greater country, and you make lives better across the board. There are 45 million people who are still recovering from the recession, including 16 million children who live in poverty. The Republicans leave the top echelon alone, who are making billions of dollars, and they are cutting $660 billion from income security over 10 years. That means they are cutting supplemental nutrition assistance, school lunch, unemployment insurance, earned-income tax credit. I don't know who they think they represent, but I will tell you who they fight for--the wealthiest of the wealthiest few. That is who they fight for. That old notion that you give billionaires money and somehow it will trickle down to the rest of us doesn't work. It doesn't work to cut education funding. It doesn't work to cut transportation funding. It doesn't work to cut energy assistance programs. I have to say that it is a shock to see this budget. If that is why they think they got elected, then the people better pay attention. Listen to what they do with health care. They do away with the Affordable Care Act, when 16 million people now have insurance who didn't have it before. And guess what; do they have a replacement? They are working on it. Oh, good, we worked on it for 50 years. We finally got it done. It is not perfect, but it is working. In my State it is magnificent to see people who now know they won't lose everything if they get sick. At a time when 70 million Americans rely on Medicaid and children's health coverage, they want to block grant that program and cut it by more than $1.2 trillion. What will it mean for maternity care when half of all births in the U.S. are financed by Medicaid? This is another blow to our families, to our babies. They fight for your right to be born. How about after you are born? How about after you are born? At a time when more than 50 million seniors and disabled Americans are on Medicare and the baby boomers continue to age in, they want to cut Medicare by $430 billion. Now, look, they are afraid to spell out how they want to cut it. They kind of hide it in the documents, but we know what happens. People will be suffering, paying more, getting less care--a blow to our seniors. They do not close one tax loophole for the wealthiest corporations-- some of which pay no income tax--or these billionaires. Now, I have nothing against being a billionaire at all, but this Congress ought to ask everyone to pay their fair share, including billionaires--not just the middle class. Now, their gimmicks are unbelievable. They hide defense spending in an off-budget account called OCO. Oh no, OCO--they hide it, but we got their number. I think Al Sharpton says on his show: ``We gotcha.'' We know what you are doing. Where is the emergency fund for our children? Where is the emergency fund for education? Where is the emergency fund for transportation? No, there is no OCO for that, no. Then they claim they balance the budget. That is the biggest fib ever. Look at their record. When George W. Bush got elected, he had a surplus. It took him 15 minutes to blow it--two wars on the credit card, tax cuts for the rich on the credit card. This budget continues that legacy of shame--shame--hurting our seniors, hurting our children, hurting our middle class, all at the expense of the wealthy few. We see that President Obama has cut this deficit by more than half. We are on the right track. Let's not walk away from policies that work. I want to say to the ranking member, Senator Sanders, I am strongly supporting your amendment on infrastructure, because to be a great Nation we have to move people, we have to move goods. This is a global marketplace. Ships are coming in to California--40 percent of the imports. They are transferred to trucks, and they go on roads that are full of pot holes. They are a mess. They have rail crossings that are dangerous. So I will conclude in 20 seconds, if I might.

Mrs. BOXER. I will conclude. I want to thank our ranking member on the Budget Committee because he talks from the heart, the soul, and from facts. If we follow his leadership, rather than the leadership of those on the other side of the aisle who want to go back to the days of high deficits, high unemployment, and chaos--and we were here; we know there was chaos--if not, then vote for this Republican budget. I hope we will vote no, and I hope we will support the amendment that will come forward to put us on the right track again. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I want to thank my colleague and friend from Oklahoma, and I also want to thank the ranking member of the Committee on Finance for being here because he is so right, we have to work together. On the EPW Committee, we know how critical this is. The Committee on Finance knows how critical it is because they have to figure out the pay-fors--let's be honest, the hardest part of all this--and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation also has to work. I am sure Senator Thune is very aware of that, and his ranking member as well. MAP 21, our transportation bill, is set to expire as the summer construction season is beginning. Several States--Arkansas, Georgia, Wyoming, and Tennessee--have already delayed or canceled construction projects due to the uncertainty in the Federal transportation funding system. Other States are considering similar actions as the construction season fast approaches. I want to make this point. We are going to hear from all of our States. I am fortunate, I have such a large State they can go a little longer with the uncertainty, but even California, which receives quite a bit from the highway trust fund, is going to start to hurt pretty soon. I am so proud that my friend, my chairman, is here, because we have such a great history of working together on infrastructure projects-- not so good on the environment; we go toe to toe and don't work together on that, but we work together on infrastructure. He talks about it as a proud conservative and I talk about it as a proud liberal, and we see why it is so critical for our Nation. So we do have to work carefully to craft another bipartisan MAC-21, and I look forward to bringing that bill to the floor. I want to make sure that when we do bring that bill to the floor we have no controversial riders on it to bring it to a dead stop. We have seen that on so many bills already. I am really looking forward to bringing such a bill that is a clean bill that addresses our transportation funding to the floor with Chairman Inhofe, with the support of Chairman Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden and others.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, our Republican colleagues say they are here fighting for women. If that were the case, then they wouldn't have snuck into this bill a provision that hurts women. It is not just me saying this; it is a story in the Washington Post. I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. The article states in part: In an early January e-mail reviewed by the Post, a Republican Judiciary Committee staffer sent a Democratic staffer a summary of changes to the previous version of the bill, in seven bullet points. Guess what. They left out the change they made to women's reproductive health. Now, I have been around here a long time and I thought there was trust in this body, but don't stand up and say it is a phantom problem when the Washington Post confirms it. They have the email that proves this change was made and was not told to the Democrats on the committee. If it had been told to the Democrats on the committee, we would have worked this out. If they want to fight for women, take the provision out that harms the victims of trafficking. If they want to help women, bring up Loretta Lynch for confirmation--a fantastic woman, qualified--held up by the Republicans longer than any other Attorney General nominee ever. If they want to help women, those are two ways to do it. Solve this problem. Don't stand up and say it is a phantom problem when the Washington Post saw the email. We know the bill before us has an extremely worthy goal. We want to help victims of human trafficking. I wish to ask rhetorically, How does it help women who have been brutally trafficked when we don't let them access their legal right to end a pregnancy that resulted from their enslavement? A woman is enslaved. She becomes pregnant. Shouldn't she have the ability to get the same kind of health care as any other woman? But, no, in this bill, they say she can't use that victims compensation fund for that legal right. Republicans are doing this all over the place. They attached immigration to the homeland security bill. They are threatening to attach the Keystone Pipeline to a highway bill. Now they include abortion in a human trafficking bill. And then they tell us we are seeing phantom problems? I don't think so. They have been in charge for more than 8 weeks and all we see is them taking hostage after hostage after hostage legislatively to get their way on their philosophy. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. If they don't like it, why don't they just propose doing away with it. Let's have that out. This bill singles out and hurts vulnerable women--women who have been the victims of a heinous crime. Women who face deplorable conditions, ripped out of their homes, taken advantage of, treated brutally, women who many times are forced into pregnancy by their captors, and in an unprecedented manner, because of sneaking this language into this bill, the bill imposes abortion restrictions on private funds--private funds that have been collected from the criminals and the perpetrators of these unspeakable acts. Don't these women deserve better? Shouldn't these victims have access to services that are guaranteed to them by the Constitution? My friends on the other side don't like it. They want to tell women what to do. They want to get into the most personal decisions that women and their families make. Let them do that for their families. But if they want to change the law of the land, Roe v. Wade, and tell women they are criminals--and doctors, make them criminals too--then why don't they just have the courage to bring it to the floor directly, not sneak it into a bill and have the staffers write a note to their colleagues saying, Oh, they are silent. Oh, we didn't do anything on that. Oh, no. I will tell my colleagues there is one advantage to being around here for a long time. One has a sense of what used to be decent around here, when one's word was one's word and one's bond was one's bond. Thank goodness we have proof. We have proof that the Republicans left this out of a memo in which they told the Judiciary Committee the changes that were made. We have proof. Don't call this a phantom problem because we have it in writing. This is a clear path of injecting these unrelated, extremely politically charged provisions into key pieces of legislation. I have not seen it. We used to have a little bit of an understanding around here that if we agreed on a piece of legislation, we would keep out the poison pills. We wouldn't put them into bills, whether they were written by Democrats or Republicans. We know at the end of the day what happens. Everybody gets hurt because nothing gets done. If this is the new way it is going to be around here, it is a bad way for the people. We should be working on a bill that protects the victims of the most heinous crime: human trafficking. We should be protecting our society's most vulnerable people and making sure they are not denied their rights. The Republican provision that was added in secret and tried to be kept quiet would hurt every single woman we are trying to help. They inserted language that was not in the same bill last year that was supported by Democrats and Republicans. They added the new language quietly, hoping nobody would notice, and then we would all march down there--I put my name on this bill, by the way, because my staff trusted the Republican staff when they said there wasn't any change in abortion language. How awful it was for my staff that they said to me, Senator, we feel terrible. We took their word. So I got my name off this bill. Why on Earth would anyone want to single out these victims of human trafficking and take away their constitutional rights? At least own up to it, I say to my Republican friends. They got caught. We have the email. Don't get up here and say it is a phantom problem. Don't make these speeches about how Democrats want to hurt women, when they put a poison pill in the bill, hurt the very women they say they want to protect, did it in secret, and then call us out for it as if we are doing something wrong. The American people were not born yesterday. They are pretty darn smart. If I stopped one of them on the street--I don't care if they are a Republican or Democrat or what their view is on abortion--and I said to them: If a friend tells you they have made no changes to a letter you asked them to write, and you took their word for it and signed the letter and later found out there was something in that letter that they knew would hurt you, would you be angry, they would probably say: I don't even want to deal with that person anymore; they can't be trusted. One thing I have learned around here is your word is your bond, and the relationships we have with one another across the aisle are precious. They are important. So let's not make these phony arguments. Let's fix the problem. Let's remove this offending language. Let's come together, for once. Let's pass a bill that helps these victims. Then my colleague says: Well, all the groups want this bill anyway. Let me quote from one of them, the Polaris Project: ``The bipartisan support to address modern slavery should not be held up by a separate debate on partisan issues.'' That is a direct quote. If ever there was a partisan issue, it is the right to choose. That is a partisan issue. Then there is a letter from the National Network For Youth: ``This legislation is desperately needed and we cannot let this moment pass us by because of the addition of partisan and divisive provisions.'' Let me read that again: ``This legislation is desperately needed and we can't let this moment pass us by because of the addition of partisan and divisive provisions.'' Again, we are offering Republicans a simple solution: Remove the language. Go back to the same language that was in the bill last year which enjoyed broad support. If Republicans do that today, we would pass this bill today. I know this is the Democratic time to talk, so I am going to allow Senator Hirono to continue. We need to end this sneak attack on women's health so we can get the victims of human trafficking the services and support they need. We are ready, willing, and able to sit down and work with our friends on the other side to drop this provision. The Senate is not going to get things done if the Republican majority continues to insist on putting politically charged, extreme measures on bills that should pass with bipartisan support. I hope my colleagues will work with us. I certainly want to be able to trust the staffers again and trust my colleagues again, and it would start with removing this provision. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I honor the life of Aaron Anderson, a longtime resident of San Francisco, a passionate advocate for education, a devoted and loyal friend, and most of all a dedicated family man, who passed away on February 7, 2015. He spent 25 years in higher education as a learner, educator and contributor, most recently as an administrator and instructor at San Francisco State University's College of Business. He was 50 years old. Aaron was originally from Old Saybrook, CT, and attended the University of Connecticut, where he was captain of the men's cross country team. He began his career in higher education in student services at California Polytechnic State University and University of California, Berkeley, and went on to receive his Ph.D. in higher education from the University of Michigan. He was an expert and author in the area of organizational behavior and change, and brought this expertise to his passion for advancing education at all levels. At SFSU, Aaron served as director of strategic organizational initiatives, following stints as executive MBA program director and graduate business programs acting director. As an instructor in organizational change and psychology, he inspired and fostered creativity in his students and colleagues and served as a mentor to many of the graduate students in his classes. His passion for education extended outside the classroom as well, where he found time to serve as a Board member for Educate Our State and as President of the McKinley Elementary School PTA. In addition to the passion he brought to his profession, Aaron had a love for life that could not be suppressed. He remained physically active, biking wherever he went and never missing an opportunity to run up Mt. Tam or windsurf at Chrissy Field. He played weekly at traditional Irish music sessions in Berkeley and San Francisco and was an avid photographer and a prolific user of social media. Most importantly, however, he was deeply committed to his family, and embraced his early role as a stay-at-home dad. Aaron will be deeply missed by all those lucky enough to have known him. I send my heartfelt condolences to his loving wife, Darby Davenport, as well as his two sons, Clayton and Jeremy.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, sadly, today the Republicans are again coming to the Senate floor--not to help the working people who work every day to make our country great--but to silence their voices. They aren't here to reward the hard-working families that work from paycheck to paycheck just to give their children a better life and the education that they deserve. They aren't here to pass a highway bill that would support millions of jobs. Instead, they want to hold the highway bill hostage to big polluting Canadian special interests and build the Keystone pipeline which will only create 35 permanent jobs. They aren't here to raise the minimum wage. They aren't here to expand the child care tax credit. They aren't here to ensure equal pay for equal work. They aren't here to try to make college more affordable for middle-class families. They aren't here to help workers get health care--we know that because right now Republicans are suing to take away health care from more than 8 million Americans. They certainly aren't here to fix our Nation's broken immigration system. If Republicans were interested in that, they would be supporting the reasonable, commonsense immigration measures proposed by President Obama that will result in indisputable economic gains for our country--raising the Nation's GDP by up to $90 billion over the next 10 years. No, the majority in the House and Senate don't have time for any of these measures to help working families--they are too busy pursuing their latest attack on the middle class. I oppose this resolution because it would impede one of the basic rights of America's workers: to form a union. If enacted, this resolution would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from implementing rules to streamline and modernize union election procedures that will ensure union elections are conducted in a more fair and efficient manner. These employees who work so hard deserve a union elections process that is free from unnecessary delays and wasteful stall tactics. Let me tell you a little bit about those tactics. This comes from the testimony of someone who represents unions in California. In 2010 a petition for representation was filed for approximately 45 automobile mechanics. Even though there were well-established NLRB rules that governed the proceedings on a petition for a unit of automobile mechanics, management asked for hearings, extensions, filed objection after objection, until finally, 427 days after the petition was filed, the union was certified. Corporations are getting the benefits of increased profits and productivity. Why should they be allowed to stall these proceedings? Why do they oppose giving these workers a voice so that they can improve their working conditions and wages? First, let me tell you what these rules do not do: They do not mandate timetables for elections to occur. Rather, the new rules simply eliminate existing barriers that get in the way of providing both employees and employers with access to a fair election process. These rules do not prevent employers from discussing their views on unions with workers. What these modest changes will accomplish: The new rules, which will go into effect on April 14, will reduce unnecessary litigation on issues that are not relevant to the outcome of the election. The new rules will modernize the current outdated process. In the past, employers had to send out mail through the post office, which cost time and money. The new rule will allow employers and unions to file forms electronically. It will also allow the use of more modern forms of communication to employees through cell phones and email. Instead of standing up for workers across the country who are struggling with stagnant wages, Republicans have chosen to challenge these common-sense reforms. The right to form a union is a right guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act and by the First Amendment of our Constitution. These modest changes will merely allow workers to exercise that right in a fair and efficient process in order to protect their rights, increase wages, and grow our Nation's middle class. What is so sad is that this is just the latest attack on the middle class and their economic security. Instead of taking up more floor time going after the rights of workers, let's fight to help working families. Instead of trying to undo measures that help the middle class, let's fight to do more for them. At a time when wages are stagnating, instead of trying to silence the voices of hard-working men and women, let's fight to empower them through collective bargaining. I urge my colleagues to support modernization and oppose this resolution. Let's let our workers know that we hear them, that we support them, and that we will fight to make life better for our middle class families.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Presiding Officer. Senator Cantwell will be comanaging this bill, and I thank her very much for her strong leadership. The vote that is going to occur at 2:20 p.m. is a very important vote. I rise today to oppose the attempt to override President Obama's veto message of S. 1, the very first bill the Senate majority brought to the floor. As I look at this bill, it says to me that the only people who are helped by this bill are the big Canadian special oil interests.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Keystone Pipeline is presented as something that is going really to help this economy and help oil prices. I think the only thing it helps, frankly, are the special interests in Canada--the special big oil interests--which, by the way, will carry the filthiest, dirtiest, tar sands oil into our great Nation. If we look at the history of the tar sands, we will find that misery follows the tar sands. We still have terrible problems in Michigan and Arkansas because there was a spill of this dirty, filthy oil, and they cannot clean it up because it is so, so difficult to clean. This is a picture of a tar sands spill in 2013 in Mayflower, AR. That has not been cleaned up because this is tar sands oil. We had a spill in Michigan, and we know that since 2011 they have not been able to clean up that spill. So why would we build a pipeline to bring dirty, filthy oil into our great Nation and our great communities when we know the dangers? Mr. President, I ask again that there be order in the Senate.