Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary order at this time?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if we could have order in the Senate, I wish to open debate on S. 1.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I know Senators have an opportunity to talk to one another, and I appreciate that, but it is hard to make our thoughts come out right when there is so much talking in the Senate. I thank the Presiding Officer very much. Here is the deal. Why on Earth would the Republicans make the first bill a bill to help Canadian special oil interests that will bring in tar sands oil and has caused terrible problems for our communities? It is the hardest oil to clean up. Why would they do it, and why would they go against public opinion? A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 61 percent of Americans support the President's position on this pipeline, which is: Don't stop the process. Keep it going. Let's see what this does to our people and to our communities. I spend a lot of time on environmental issues, and I am saying to you that as you look at the environmental laws of our great Nation, we find that they brought such a better quality of life to people. We can turn that around if we decide at this point--there are all of the challenges we face in our communities, such as, the challenges of lung disease, the challenges of heart disease, and the challenges of stroke. That is what happens from the pollution we get from the tar sands oil. Earlier I said that misery follows tar sands. I met with the Canadian people who live near the tar sands excavation site. They have terrible rates of cancer. The bottom line is that because of climate change--and we see it all around us. Just the other day we learned a remote Alaskan village has to be relocated due to climate. We know the impact of this dirty tar sands oil on that, and we know what happens when the tar sands pipeline spills. We know all of these things. I think the President is right by allowing the process to continue. He was very right to veto this bill, and I hope we will have enough votes to sustain his veto. I yield the floor for my friend Senator Cantwell.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a great friend and gifted wordsmith, Dan Hammer, who is retiring after a long and distinguished career in public service. Born and raised in San Jose, Dan attended UC Santa Cruz before moving to Boston to manage an antiwar printing press. He returned to the San Francisco Bay area soon afterwards, where he cut his editing teeth as a typesetter for Rolling Stone magazine. I first crossed paths with Dan during my 1992 Senate campaign. Dan stopped by my San Diego campaign office after work one day, and his immense talents immediately caught the attention of my local campaign manager. Dan quickly became one of my hardest working volunteers, doing everything from writing memos and news advisories to helping manage my public events. After I won the election, I knew I had to have Dan on my team. Although it took some convincing, he joined my San Diego district office in 1994. Dan has held many positions in my offices over the years. As a San Diego-based field representative, he served as my eyes and ears on the ground, keeping me apprised of critical issues in southern California. As my deputy press secretary based out of my Washington, DC office, Dan worked many late nights writing press releases and staffing me at events. As my constituent communications director, Dan moved my entire legislative correspondence operation from DC to southern California, managing the full operation with discipline and precision. Under his leadership, my legislative correspondence team answers 200,000 letters and emails every month, and he uses his exceptional communications skills every day to share my work with the constituents I serve. Through it all, he has helped teach a generation of young staffers how to effectively communicate about the most important issues and ideas of our time. Outside of work, Dan selflessly gives his time to the causes he believes in. Whether volunteering with environmental organizations like the Planning and Conservation League, working for other elected officials including Congresswoman Susan Davis, or joining the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, Dan has always been dedicated to making his community a better place to live. For more than 20 years, Dan has been a trusted ally, advisor, and friend. As he begins his retirement and embarks on the next exciting chapter of his life, I send him, his wife Shelley, and their entire family my best wishes, deep affection, and abiding gratitude.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, because I was helping a family member recover from recent surgery, I was unable to attend rollcall votes Nos. 59 through 63. Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted in favor of the cloture motion on H.R. 240; against the motion to table S. Amendment No. 258; in favor of S. Amendment No. 255; and in favor of H.R. 240, the clean Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill. I would have also opposed the cloture motion to proceed to S. 534 because this legislation would be destructive to families and our economy.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 15 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before the Senator from Illinois leaves the floor, I just want to thank him for his amazing leadership on this whole issue of immigration. The Senator and I share a similar background because my mother also was an immigrant, and the thought of our moms being ripped out of our lives is just untenable. We are not going to let it happen. I wish to thank him so much because he has been, I would say, the grandfather of the whole DREAMer movement. So thank you, Senator. We all know Republicans won in huge numbers in the 2014 election and they took over the Senate and they run it. They run it--or at least they are trying to run it. Let's be clear. Less than 8 weeks after they took over the Senate we are facing a shutdown, a shutdown of the very agency that protects the health, the safety, the lives of the American people--the Department of Homeland Security. We are 4 days away, and even if they come up with a continuing resolution, a small little patch, they are shutting down the programs that fund our firefighters and our first responders back home. So any way we look at it, this is a national disgrace. Think about what our friends abroad and those who are not our friends are thinking about this. Republicans say we are in danger. We have to go to war, put combat troops on the ground. But they are willing to shut down the Department that protects Americans in the homeland from a terrorist attack. This is a self-inflicted crisis made up by the Republicans. It is dangerous. It is the height of irresponsibility and it is unnecessary. Let me tell you, how does it make sense in the very same week that terrorists are threatening our shopping malls that we would shut down the very agency charged with protecting those malls? How does it make sense at a time when we are facing serious threats to our national security to furlough 30,000 Department of Homeland Security workers and to force more than 100,000 frontline Homeland Security personnel to work without pay? Why don't these Senators go without their pay? Give up your pay. Do you want to come to work every day and stand there and look for threats to our homeland and worry about how you are going to pay the bills for your kids? Go without pay before you do this. You tell me how that makes sense not to pay people who are in charge of our security. It is a disgrace. Give up your pay--give up your pay, give up your health care, give up your benefits, if this is so important to you. Oh, no. They will collect their pay. Tell me, how does it make sense to shut off the grants that protect our cities, our ports from terrorist attacks, and how does it make sense to stop local communities from being able to hire police officers and firefighters? The Department of Homeland Security is very large. When it was created I was troubled by that because it includes so many important things in one department, including FEMA. So when we have a natural disaster such as an earthquake, fire or flood, that is the Department that deals with it. How does it make sense to disrupt disaster recovery operations such as the efforts in California to recover from our devastating Napa Earthquake and the Rim Fire in Yosemite? So not only are they disrupting Homeland Security and the protections of our perhaps most-targeted places in America, but they are disrupting recovery from natural disasters, and God forbid if we have another one. And the reason they are throwing a hissy fit is because the President stepped in and has a policy to take care of immigration. Why did the President step in? Because Republicans refused to take up a bipartisan bill, pass it, and take care of the immigration problem the way they are supposed to. They are paralyzed on that point. They cannot do it. We had a bill that garnered 68 votes in the last Congress. All they have to do is bring it up, pass it here, and then pass it in the House. It will pass with overwhelming majorities. The President will sign it, and that would make his Executive order unnecessary. The only reason he issued an Executive order is that we are facing a crisis in this country. There are 11 million undocumented folks. Some of those undocumented folks are DREAMers. To me, that is the most important category. They are young people who were brought here when they were children. They know no other home. All they want to do is stay here and give back to America. Republicans want to deport them and their parents. They want to deport the parents of American citizens. I thank God these people were not in charge of Congress when I was growing up or else they might have deported my mother. It took her awhile to get through her naturalization. What if they passed something such as what the Republicans are proposing? I thought they were the party of family values. Show me where that is true--ripping families apart. I thought they were the party of economic prosperity. Show me how that is true when we know from study after study that one of the greatest things we can do for our economy and job creation is to get people out of the shadows so they can go and buy a home and hold a good job. They can't or won't pass an immigration bill. They will not do their job. So when the President steps in and does his job, they say: Oh, this is terrible. Let's shut down a totally unrelated department, the Department of Homeland Security. Again I say, let's look at fiscal responsibility. According to the Center for American Progress, it would cost more than $50 billion to deport the entire population that the President is protecting. And here is the deal: I never heard a Republican--and I will stand corrected if any Republican corrects me--complain when President Eisenhower used his Executive power to help immigrants or when President Nixon did the same thing to protect immigrants or when President Ronald Reagan, their hero, protected immigrants or when George Bush, Sr., protected immigrants or when George W. Bush protected immigrants. They all used their authority. Show me one Republican who stood up and said: This is outrageous. Let's impeach the President. But they are annoyed because it is President Obama, and he won twice. Sorry. Wake up and smell the roses. He is the President, and he is doing the right thing for America because he loves America and he understands that these people, who the Republicans want to deport, are going to help America move on to an era of greatness and keep us going. Let's look at some of the young people Republicans want to deport. Alexis Bux is a 21-year-old student from central California. He is the oldest of three siblings. His younger two siblings were born in the United States, but he was not. So these great family-value Republicans want to rip away the oldest child from this family. His parents were farm workers in the fields of San Joaquin Valley. Alexis received immigration relief under DACA in 2012, and he will transfer to UC San Diego this fall where he will pursue his dream of a career in biomedical engineering. Tell me, Republicans, how our country is better off when you deport a young man such as him. He hopes to use his education to develop a sophisticated medical application and tools that will help cure deadly diseases. All he wants to do is contribute to the Nation he loves. If the Republicans had their way, they would deport people such as Ana Albarran, who left Mexico at age 8. She came to this country with her younger brother and sister to join her parents. Her parents worked 11 hours a day as trimmers for a landscaping company in downtown Los Angeles. After Ana received immigration relief, she felt confident enough to begin applying for jobs, and now she is finishing her final year at UC Merced so she can begin her career as a bilingual first grade teacher. Tell me, Republicans, how does it make sense to deport people such as Ana and split her up from her parents when all they want to do is contribute to the country they love? How does it make sense just because you are too incompetent to hold a vote on your immigration plan? If you want to kick people out of the country, put it to a vote. Let's go. If you want to deport 11 million people, then put it to a vote. Don't hide behind the Homeland Security bill and hold the President's work hostage. You never did it to the other Presidents. Don't do it to this President. How does it make sense to deport these moms, these dads, and these young kids? I mentioned before that I am the daughter of an immigrant mother. I tried to think of what my life would have been like without my mother. She gave me my conscience. She gave me my values. She gave me all the love and support I needed to pursue my dreams. I am the daughter of an immigrant mother who never graduated from high school. I am a Senator in the U.S. Senate. But they would have deported my mother. I would not be here today if it were not for my mom. So tell me how it makes sense to deport moms and dads and rip apart the lives of children. Our national security is at stake, our family values are at stake, and our economy is at stake here. So get over the fact that you don't like the President. We get it. You couldn't beat him. It is too bad for you. You are in charge here in the Senate. Do your job. Bring an immigration bill to the floor. Let's let this Homeland Security bill go. It is a bipartisan bill. It is funding for the most important issue we are dealing with today. Let's get to it. Don't hold it hostage because of your hatred of this President--and I use that word because that is what I think. That is what I think. In California alone, the President's Executive actions could boost California's economy by as much as $27.5 billion. The President's action will aid our economy. It will raise the Nation's gross domestic product by up to $90 billion over the next 10 years by expanding the labor force and allowing immigrant workers the flexibility to seek new jobs. Why is that the case? Why does every independent study show us this is the case? The reason is simple. When workers come out of the shadows, their wages rise, they open bank accounts, buy homes, start businesses, and spend money in their communities. So I say this to my Republican friends. There is a Presidential race coming up. Forget the last one. Get over it. Let's work together. Listen, I served with five Presidents. I am a strong Democrat. Everyone will tell you that. But I have respect for the office of the Presidency. If I didn't agree with Ronald Reagan, I came down here and said it. We had respect back and forth. If we lost, we lost, and we moved on. That went both ways. I know how it feels not to like the policies of a President. I get it. But don't overdo it and make it so personal. Get on with it. Grow up. Do your job. Have respect for the Office of the President. Don't suddenly say Executive orders are bad when the President you don't like does it, but you don't say one word when a Republican President does the same thing. It doesn't pass the smell test. Three things could not be more important in this battle. We need to fund our Department of Homeland Security--especially when we are facing serious threats to our security. We need to uphold our family values and not split up loving families, and we need to protect and grow our economy. We can do this in the simplest way. First, I say to House Speaker Boehner--because under the Constitution all funding bills start in the House: Send us a clean bill. Send us the bill that everybody supported before you took it hostage on this immigration issue. Send it over clean. Let's fund everything in that bill to protect our shopping malls, to give grants to our first responders, and to give grants to our local fire departments. Send it over. We will pass it, and immediately following that, we will bring up an immigration bill. We have it all ready for you. It passed with 68 votes. There is not much work to do. If you do that, the President's Executive order will not be necessary because we will have taken the steps ourselves to fix our broken immigration system. Let's stop the lawsuits. We have one judge who said there was overreach, but the next judge may say there is no overreach. Let's keep this out of the courts. Let's do our job. Let's stop the self-inflicted crisis. Let's stop the shadow that is hanging over the Nation. Let's do the right thing here. We can protect the American people from threats to our national security. We can protect and grow our economy, and we can treat hard- working immigrants and their families with the dignity and respect they deserve. It all lies in the hands of Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell. When you took over the Senate, you said: no more threats of shutdowns. Eight weeks later--not even 8 weeks--we are facing a shutdown of one of the most important departments. This is a disgrace, and it is self-inflicted. All you have to do is talk to Speaker Boehner. Send over a clean bill so we can vote on it. Then we will take up immigration, and you can show us all your great ideas on immigration. Let's hear it. Do you want to deport the DREAMers? Come on with it, and we will have a vote. You want to deport the parents? Come on with it, and we will have a vote. You want to kick 11 million people out of this country? Come on with it, and we will have a vote and debate on it. But don't hold the Department of Homeland Security hostage because of this issue. If there is one thing the American people hate more than anything else, it is attaching unrelated matters to spending bills. I don't care if they are conservative Republicans or liberal Democrats or Independent voters. They think it is the dumbest idea. They really do. They don't understand it. Pass your funding bills. Then battle your ideological issues separately and apart from that. Don't hold these departments hostage to your decision that President Obama did the wrong thing. If you don't like what he did, put forward your own bill. You have not even done that. I have been here a long time. I will tell you something. I have never seen anything like this. It is a self-inflicted wound. Who gets hurt? Not the Republicans--they will keep getting their pay. They are fine. The people who will be hurt are those whom we trust and count on and the families that thought they could stay together. They are on the verge of that. That is what this party--the Grand Old Party, the GOP-- have brought to us, but they can get out of it in 5 minutes. Speaker Boehner can pass a funding bill that will pass in a heartbeat. Send it over here, and we will pass it, turn to immigration, and then we can have it out on that subject. I think it is worthy of a debate. But don't hold an important funding bill hostage to that debate. It is ridiculous, unnecessary, destructive, and cruel. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Alan Arkatov as he celebrates his recent appointment as the Katzman/Ernst chair in educational entrepreneurship, technology and innovation at the University of Southern California's Rossier School of Education. Alan has long been an innovative leader in the field of education. His remarkable career has included roles as the founder and chairman of OnlineLearning.net, CEO of the Teaching Channel, president of Changing.edu, and a creator and executive vice president of 2U, the technology company that pioneered USC Rossier's online master of arts in teaching program. He has also served as a member of the California State Board of Education, California Postsecondary Education Commission, Los Angeles Commission for Children, Youth and Their Families, and the Los Angeles Information Technology Agency. A man of many talents, Alan is also a skilled communications and public relations expert and has served as a strategist for academic institutions, nonprofits, governments, corporations, and political campaigns. In announcing Alan's appointment, USC Rossier Dean Karen Symms Gallagher said, ``With his broad and unique experience in education, communications, public policy and the arts, he is someone who can make important projects, programs and initiatives a reality at Rossier and USC.'' I have known Alan for many years and have had the opportunity to see his immense talents and his passion for education. I congratulate him on his recent appointment at USC's Rossier School of Education and wish him the very best as he writes this next exciting chapter in his extraordinary career.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I come to the floor, and I have been trying to get time to do this, because I stand here in amazement that after the Republicans took over on January 6--after they won big in November and they took over the Senate on January 6--it took them 1 month to threaten a government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. Unbelievable. It took them 1 month to get into a situation where we are threatened with a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. It is unbelievable to me because we know the threat of terrorism that is all around us, and playing politics with this is absolutely uncalled for. Why did they do that? They did that because the President under his authority said we shouldn't deport immigrants who were raised in America. That is what they didn't like. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. With terrorists all around us, Republicans are playing politics with the critical funding for the Department of Homeland Security and threatening a shutdown. It took them exactly a month in power to do that because they didn't like the fact that the President, who is in line with Presidents of both parties, issued an Executive order. By the way, President Obama has issued the fewest number of Executive orders in the history of any President. I never heard one Republican complain when Ronald Reagan did a number of Executive orders or George Bush did Executive orders, all on immigration. And I have those, for the record. But they didn't like this. I guess they would rather deport these DREAMers. One of my colleagues said they are more scared of the DREAMers than they are of ISIL--a joke. What are they afraid of? Some child who was brought here at 3 years of age, went to school, is holding down a job, doing great? Those are the people the President's Executive order is affecting. They are in my State, they are in Texas, they are in Arizona, they are all over the country. If there is anyone swept up in that who is not a good citizen, they don't get to have this benefit, which, by the way, does not include citizenship. It just says action on your deportation is deferred. I would say to anyone within the sound of my voice, if anyone from your family ever came here from another country, think about what they are doing. Think about what they are doing. It will cost billions of dollars to deport these students. Then, by the way, they don't take up an immigration bill. If the status quo prevails, you are talking about deporting 11 million people. You have got to be kidding. We had an independent analysis done by USC which shows how important it is to resolve this immigration issue, and what a boon it is to our society if we do so. Well, the Republicans are stomping their feet. They never said anything when Ronald Reagan issued an Executive order on immigration. They never said anything when George Herbert Walker Bush did it. They never said anything before. But when this President does something that I think is very wise to make sure we keep these young people here, they threaten to shut down the Department of Homeland Security. Now let's talk about what that means. You would stop command-and- control activities at the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. You disrupt important programs that protect weapons of mass destruction and train local law enforcement. You force critical frontline personnel such as Border Patrol agents to work without pay. Now maybe my colleagues would like to work without pay. Go for it. Most of us need our pay to live. Imagine the Border Patrol agents and TSA agents who work every day to support their families--they don't get paid. It would jeopardize the safety of my constituency. During the last fiscal year California received over $200 million in crucial grant money that enabled State and local authorities to respond to national security threats and prepare for natural disasters. The Republicans are putting this crucial funding in jeopardy. Let's be clear: Even if they back off their threat to shut down the government by shutting down Homeland Security, if they back off and say, well, let's just fund it at last year's level, let me tell you, we will not see those safety grants. Last year, Texas, for example, received $105 million from these grants. You cannot go home and tell your Governor, too bad, we are stepping out. You step up. It doesn't work like this. We are one Nation under God. We have to protect our people. I will tell you what else is threatened. Even if they back down and let the government stay open but they fund it at last year's level, firefighting grants such as the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grants Program would be delayed. These programs are vital to California. We have a nearly year-round fire season. Last year California firefighters received $20 million in fire grants that allowed fire departments all over our State to purchase necessary equipment. Let me tell you, I have been to fire scenes I will never forget where we have lost firefighters. They need equipment that saves their lives. They are so great, but the wind changes and they find themselves in a canyon, and if they don't have the right equipment--horrific results. We also received $50 million in SAFER grants last year that allowed fire departments to hire and train firefighters. Sometimes you are in a situation and if you haven't been trained on how to respond, it puts your life and other lives in jeopardy. Other States such as Ohio received a total of $33 million in fire and safety grants last year. I have to say, this kind of threat, after what we saw the last time Republicans threatened a shutdown, makes no sense at all. We need a clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill. When I say that, I hope people understand I don't mean scouring the bill. What I mean is keep extraneous issues off the bill. We all have our pet peeves. Listen, a lot of people don't like the fact that the DREAMers are staying here. They want to deport them. Introduce the bill to deport the DREAMers, bring it to the floor--have at it. I will talk about what it would have been like for me, whose mother was born in Europe, and it took her a while to get her naturalization papers, if she was ripped out of my life. You know, I thought we had family values around here. We need a clean bill. If you want to deport all the undocumented people--11 million--who are living in your communities and a lot of times fearful, that is a position you can defend. Defend it. Explain why we should spend billions deporting these people. Put up your solution. Don't try to kill a bill by holding it hostage to your demands. We had an immigration bill this past year. It was terrific, it was bipartisan. Let's go for it. Let's go for it again. Let's have a debate. Oh, no. They are in power for 30 days and they are already threatening a government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. I tell you, this is no way to run the greatest Nation in the world. These programs are critically important and are we going to turn our back on those who keep us safe? TSA officers would not be paid during a DHS shutdown. The agency that seized a record 2,212 firearms last year from passengers' carry-on luggage (of which 83% were loaded)--would be doing their important work keeping the traveling public safe without pay. And communities that are relying on federal FEMA funding to help them get back on their feet, after disasters have shattered their lives, will have to wait to be reimbursed during a shutdown. California emergency officials expect slowdowns in ongoing disaster recovery operations like the RIM Fire and Napa Earthquake. By failing to pass a clean DHS funding bill, we're putting the safety of our cities and our citizens at risk. The United States Conference of Mayors agrees--they are urging us to pass a clean DHS bill to keep our cities functioning. Unless Republicans stop catering to their extreme Tea Party wing, critical programs that protect us from terrorists will be undermined or frozen just weeks after the horrifying attack in Paris and evidence that our enemies are willing and able to launch cyberattacks against us. Republicans would rather tear families apart than provide critical funding for the homeland security infrastructure that was built following 9/11. It's clear that Republicans hate DREAMers more than they hate ISIS. The Republicans' extreme anti-immigrant amendments would have a chilling effect on the Latino community, instill fear of deportation for victims of domestic and sexual violence, and subject DREAMers, who are peacefully contributing to our economy and community, to deportation and exploitation. These are young men and women who have been living in the U.S. since they were children and came here by no fault of their own. They consider themselves just as much a part of the fabric of their communities--and this country--as their classmates and peers. Specifically, the Republican amendments would prevent the implementation of President Obama's DACA initiatives, which would enable many unlawfully present young people who came to the United States as children to apply for ``deferred action,'' a temporary relief from removal not permanent immigration status--and work authorization. It would also prevent the implementation of President Obama's DAPA initiative, which would enable the parents of U.S. citizens or green card holders who have lived here for years to apply for deferred action and work authorization as long as they pay fees, have not been convicted of a serious crime, and submit to a background check. It would prevent ICE from using its expertise to set immigration enforcement priorities, to focus on the most serious public safety threats, as it has done for years. It would put domestic violence survivors in danger by taking away their ability to stay in the United States and obtain the help that they need and ensure that the perpetrators of this violence are punished. DACA and DAPA will strengthen community policing, improve community safety, and help more immigrant women come forward sooner to protect their children and themselves from domestic violence. Immigration law already provides abused women an opportunity to apply for protection. Why would we want to potentially curtail these protections from the women and children who need them the most? Specifically, President Obama's Executive Actions on Immigration will improve California's economy with an $11.7 billion increase in GDP over the next 10 years, by giving California a boost in productivity from up to 1.5 million more people who could pay taxes and contribute to the state's economy. This will increase the average wages of U.S. born workers across the country by $170 a year and raise the Nation's gross domestic product by up to $90 billion over the next decade by expanding the labor force and giving immigrant workers the flexibility to seek new jobs. Let's come together. We had a really good meeting of the minds in a lovely setting last week, and a lunch. We agreed these differences are not personal and it is fine that we have them. I don't mind. That is healthy in a society. We want to have differing views. That is what makes everyone in our country feel represented. The fact that I have certain views and the Presiding Officer may have a different view is fine. What isn't fine, in my view, is using your views to hold the Department of Homeland Security funding hostage. Too much is at stake. This Chamber is empty. We are not doing a darn thing. We even have Republicans on our side and saying, no, this is not the right way to go. Why don't we do this: Why don't we fund the Department of Homeland Security--it went through the entire process--and then make an absolute commitment, which the Republicans have the ability to do, to take up immigration reform. Then let's debate it. Let's hear why some of my friends on the other side want to deport the DREAMers. Let's find out why they don't want to do much about keeping families together. That is fine. Let's debate it. Let's move on. But let's not hold hostage the Department of Homeland Security funding to some ideological debate on immigration, which should stand on its own and have the focus it deserves. Frankly, I hope we will begin with these unanimous consent requests-- I won't do it today because I haven't warned anybody I want to--but fulfill the Department of Homeland Security and then immediately go to immigration reform where we can hash it out and become the deliberative body we are supposed to be. Nobody is here. We are not doing anything right now, because we are stopped dead because of this dispute that has nothing to do with homeland security, in my view. The American people agree across the board on this. You shouldn't attach irrelevant legislative matters on a funding bill. They have a funding bill. They have a job to do. In this case it is protecting Americans from terror, OK? That is over here, and over here is a very legitimate debate on immigration policy, and one that deserves the full time of this United States Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a document entitled ``Executive Grants of Temporary Immigration Relief, 1956-Present'' be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. With that, I yield back my time.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to recognize my great friend and an extraordinary philanthropist in my State, Helene Galen, who was honored over the weekend with the Desert AIDS Project's ``100 Women Award.'' Helene's immense contributions throughout California--especially in her beloved Coachella Valley--have left a legacy that will benefit the people of our State for decades to come. She has worked tirelessly to fight child abuse through the Barbara Sinatra Children's Center for almost 30 years. Her strong support for Jewish Family Service of the Desert has provided critical social services to seniors, children and families throughout the area. A devoted advocate for people living with HIV and AIDS, she has been a leader of the Desert AIDS Project's ``100 Women'' program, which supports women and children affected by HIV and AIDS with food, housing and life-saving health care. Whenever Helene sees an unmet need, she doesn't wait for someone else to step up. She jumps in with all her heart and all her passion. She led the effort to build a new performing arts center and theater at Rancho Mirage High School, which will ensure that generations of young people can pursue their dreams. A longtime member of the University of Southern California School of Fine Arts' Board of Councilors, Helene and her late husband, Louis, were the driving force behind the construction of USC's Galen Center, an arena that opened in 2006 and has provided the community an incredible venue for sporting events, concerts, and school activities. A former executive in the retail industry, Helene has used her financial savvy and management experience to benefit a host of charities and institutions. She has served on the boards of the Eisenhower Medical Center, the Palm Springs Art Museum, the McCallum Theatre, and the Palm Springs International Film Festival. A devoted mother and grandmother, Helene truly embodies the saying in the Jewish tradition, ``Whoever saves a life, it is as if that person has saved the whole world.'' Without a doubt, Helene's work has saved countless lives, and her impact will be felt in California for many years to come.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to 12 servicemembers from California or based in California who have died while serving our country in Operation Enduring Freedom and in Operation Inherent Resolve since I last entered names into the Record. CW2 Edward Balli, 42, of Monterey, CA, died January 20, 2014, in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, of wounds from small arms fire when he was attacked by insurgents. Chief Warrant Officer Balli was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 2nd Cavalry Regiment, U.S. Army Europe, Vilseck, Germany. SPC Daniela Rojas, 19, of Los Angeles, CA, died May 3, 2014, in Homburg, Germany, due to a noncombat related illness. Specialist Rojas was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO. CW2 Deric M. Rasmussen, 33, of Oceanside, CA, died May 11, 2014, in Mazar-e Sharif, Afghanistan, as the result of a noncombat incident. Chief Warrant Officer Rasmussen was assigned to the Company C, 1st Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment, 1st Air Cavalry Brigade, Fort Hood, TX. SPC Adrian M. Perkins, 19, of Pine Valley, CA, died May 17, 2014, in Amman, Jordan, from a noncombat related injury. Specialist Perkins was assigned to 1st Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO. SPC Terry J. Hurne, 34, of Merced, CA, died June 9, 2014, in Logar Province, Afghanistan, from a noncombat related incident. Specialist Hurne was assigned to the 710th Brigade Support Battalion, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, NY. SSG Scott R. Studenmund, 24, of Pasadena, CA, died June 9, 2014, in Gaza Village, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered while engaged in a combat operation. Staff Sergeant Studenmund was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 5th Special Forces Group, Fort Campbell, KY. Sgt Thomas Z. Spitzer, 23, of New Braunfels, TX, died June 25, 2014 while conducting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Sergeant Spitzer was assigned to 1st Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, CA. PFC Keith M. Williams, 19, of Visalia, CA, died July 24, 2014 in Mirugol Kalay, Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when the enemy attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device. Private First Class Williams was assigned to 1st Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO. SGT Christopher W. Mulalley, 26, of Eureka, CA, died August 22, 2014 in Gardez, Afghanistan, as the result of a noncombat related incident. Sergeant Mulalley was assigned to 1st Battalion, 3rd Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, TX. Cpl Jordan L. Spears, 21, of Memphis, IN, was lost at sea October 1, 2014 while conducting flight operations in the North Arabian Gulf. Corporal Spears was assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron-163, Marine Aircraft Group 16, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA. LCpl Sean P. Neal, 19, of Riverside, CA, died October 23, 2014, in Baghdad, Iraq, from a noncombat related incident. Lance Corporal Neal was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force, Crisis Response, Central Command, whose headquarters element deploys from Camp Pendleton, CA. CDR Christopher E. Kalafut, 49, of Oceanside, CA, died October 24, 2014, in Doha, Qatar, of a noncombat related incident at Al Udeid Air Base. Commander Kalafut was assigned to Naval Amphibious Liaison Element, Combined Forces Air Component Center, U.S. Central Command.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. If I could ask for the attention of my friends. The reason I so wanted have this 1 minute even though I am not asking for a rollcall vote is because I want to make clear what we are doing in this underlying bill. This is the only time in the history of the Senate that we have given such a big hug and kiss to a private company--any private company, American or foreign. My amendment simply says that if TransCanada breaks the rules related to any permit they have--for example, there is an oilspill and they don't follow the oilspill plan or they don't handle hazardous waste in the right way--a whole list: They use the wrong steel. It is dangerous. They are dangerous to their workers. It doesn't matter what they do, under the underlying bill, S. 1, they can never lose their permit. We don't do that for any other company, let alone a foreign special interest company that is going to take this oil and siphon it right out of America. There are 35 permanent jobs. A trail of misery follows the tar sands. I am not going to ask for a rollcall vote because I get the writing on the wall. I would hope we would have a voice vote, and I would urge my folks to yell a ``yes'' if they can.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life and work of Teamsters Local 350 Secretary- Treasurer Bob Morales, who died in South San Francisco on January 26 at the age of 71. Bob was a great labor leader and a dear personal friend, and I will miss him terribly. Born in El Salvador in 1943, Bob came to the United States with his family as a teenager. After completing his education in San Francisco, he served in the United States Army for 2 years, reaching the rank of Sergeant Fifth Class. Bob began his extraordinary career with the Metal Polishers and Platers Union of the AFL-CIO. He joined the Teamsters Local 350 in 1973 as a business representative, quickly becoming secretary-treasurer after only 2 years. In this role, Brother Bob negotiated some of the best union contracts in the Nation, providing his members with outstanding wages and benefits. A fearless advocate for California workers, Bob held several positions within the Teamsters, serving as the first and only director of the union's Solid Waste, Recycling and Related Industries Division, secretary-treasurer of Teamsters Joint Council 7, and Chairman of both the California and National Teamsters Hispanic Caucuses. As a testament of his successful leadership, Bob's colleagues named him a trustee to the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust--the largest labor pension fund in the western United States. In 1992, Bob was honored as Labor's Man of the Year in San Francisco. Beyond his tireless work in the labor movement, Bob was involved with numerous charitable organizations, including the United Way of California, the Martin Luther King Jr. Society of San Francisco, the A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Hispanic Foundation, and the San Francisco Senior Centers. On behalf of the people of California who Bob so diligently served, I send my deepest condolences to his wife Maria, son David, their extended family, and Bob's many friends, colleagues, and admirers.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 35

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank both of my colleagues for working so hard. I am trying to be a facilitator in this process as well, as the ranking member now on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I want to remind everyone that this bill deals with environmental law. Amendment No. 130 to Amendment No. 2 I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that I can call up amendment No. 130.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have a very simple amendment. I hope it will be unanimously accepted. I think anyone within the sound of my voice who cares about the health and safety of people would support this amendment because we know this underlying bill facilitates the building of a Canadian project, with all the benefits going to Canada, none to America. We have established that there will be 35 permanent jobs. We have established that we could have oilspills because we have already had several serious oilspills and this oil is very hard to clean up. We have established by the Republicans' votes that they will not vote to keep the oil in America, so it doesn't even help us with energy independence. They even voted against the amendment to make sure the steel was from America. They voted against that. So this is a Canadian bill. This is a wonderful bill for Canadian oil interests. Frankly, that is not why I was elected. I was elected to fight for California, fight for American jobs, fight for middle-class jobs, and not sit by while we see what is happening here, which is that the very first bill brought to us by this new Republican Congress turns out to be a bill for Canadian oil. One of my colleagues--I don't know if it was Senator Cantwell who coined this or Senator Markey--said it is basically a big straw that runs from Canada and has the potential to spill all the way down, and then it is refined here, and all the filth and dirt gets stored here and goes into the air, and then it goes out of the country. It doesn't do a thing to help us. So all I am asking for is a little bit of relief for the people of this Nation. Right now, S. 1 says that all permits ``shall remain in effect'' for this TransCanada pipeline regardless of any actions taken in building the pipeline, even if the company violates the permits. So we know this company had to go and get a number of permits. What this bill does is it says: Once you get a permit, TransCanada, no one can take it away from you. Imagine. We don't do that for our companies. They have to walk the walk and talk the talk. All we say here is, if you violate your permit, it can be revoked. You cannot willy-nilly get permits from the Commerce Department, EPA, the Corps of Engineers, or other entities and then violate them and know that the permit can never be taken away. I was stunned when I learned this. So this would very simply say that if, in fact, there is new information that requires a permit to be changed or modified, it can be done. We do not waive protecting the health and safety of the American people. Let me give an example. Back home I have a bridge that was built, unfortunately, with foreign parts, and those parts failed. It is a nightmare to try to fix it. If TransCanada violates their permit and uses the wrong materials-- let's say the bolts rupture--they still get to keep their permit. We are saying: No. Your permit can be revoked. Another example: This is the handling of hazardous waste. We know this is filthy, dirty oil, and we know what is in this oil. It is toxic. Peer-reviewed research established significantly higher levels of carcinogens. We know this. We have met with the people who live in Canada who have had to breathe in that air. Data collected by the Texas Cancer Registry indicates that cancer rates among African Americans in Jefferson County, Port Arthur, TX, are 15 percent higher than for the average Texans. They live right near the refineries. We know these permits are only as good as they are enforced. If they are enforced and we find they haven't lived up to their commitments on the handling of hazardous waste--by the way, to get their permit from Commerce, they also have to put out a plan that deals with a spill. Let's say there is a spill and they don't live up to the permit. They still get to keep the permit. This is an extraordinary piece of legislation. I have never ever in my time here or ever in history known of any American corporation getting a free pass in terms of the health and safety and the protection of the air and water that this company is getting. They could literally avoid following any of the steps they committed to in their permit, and this legislation gives them a free pass. My amendment simply says that we are able to revoke a permit if it is not followed. I would ask the Senator from Washington if I could at this point yield the floor. My amendment is pending. I appreciate the work of the Senator from Alaska in allowing this amendment to be offered, and I appreciate the work of my colleague from Washington.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Well, some will ask for amendments to be pending. I know I will. Some will not ask that; they just want to be heard. But there is 30 minutes left in the debate. Your side just finished. Obviously, if we do not want to be fair, somebody could grab the time on our side now and talk for 30 minutes. We do not think that is right. We are trying to divide it up between our side and your side. So I have divided about 15 minutes on our side and given 15 minutes to Senator Sessions, who wanted to be heard on the matter.

Mrs. BOXER. Reclaiming my time, we have already wasted 4 minutes of the 15. The Senator can object if she does not want to allow us to have an amendment pending, but I am going to start off here. Is the Senator still objecting? Instead of Senator Sessions, I will give--now it is about 12 minutes to you at the end. Is that all right with the Senator?

Mrs. BOXER. Well, if I might say this: Every Senator has a right to ask unanimous consent on anything. If the Senator does not like it, she can say, ``I object.'' I do intend to--I cannot speak for anybody else. I want to make my amendment pending because it is germane. I want to make sure it is heard. It is about public health. So if my friend does not want to agree to this unanimous consent, then I think what we will do is I will hold the floor and I will yield to colleagues for questions and they can make their points. I do not understand my friend's objection to the way we have it laid out.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend for the question. Again, we were promised an open amendment process. I wish to make a point to my friend who has worked so hard on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I am so appreciative of his work. Do you know, if an amendment like yours does not pass, what it means is that American companies will be treated in a much harsher fashion than a Canadian foreign oil company--in other words, because the other side is just saying: No more facts, no more information, no more environmental impact statement--even though we know there are health impacts due to the tar sands. The Senator has pointed out the possibility of having a bad impact on drinking water. We have seen what has happened in West Virginia when we don't worry about that. So my friend is absolutely right, and I am honored that he asked me to comment on this particular amendment. And I hope that he will ask--I know you are pending. I hope that you are going to get a vote on this amendment one way or another. I know some other colleagues may want to ask a question.

Mrs. BOXER. I am pleased to yield to the Senator.