Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, we are trying to figure out how to do a fair division of the time that remains. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Stabenow and Peters have 5 minutes between them to discuss an amendment they have been working on, followed by Senator Cardin, who would have 3 minutes to explain his, followed by myself having 2\1/2\ minutes to discuss my amendment, then Senator Heitkamp would have 5 minutes after that, and then the remaining time for Senator Sessions. Because that would be equal. That would add to our having as much time as Senators Sessions or Murkowski, whoever at that point wants to speak.

Mrs. BOXER. Well, I am going to take the time now--the entire time-- and yield to colleagues for them to ask me questions. So I will speak for 2 minutes or less and then I am going to ask unanimous consent on my amendment. We want to have a study of the significant human health impacts of the Keystone Canadian XL tar sands pipeline. I do not believe they were adequately addressed in the supplemental environmental impact report or completely analyzed. I held a press conference with doctors from Canada who spoke about the adverse impact on the health of people living near the pipeline. We have had spills along the pipeline in Michigan, in Arkansas. Those spills are not adequately cleaned up as we speak. As Senator Cantwell informed me, there have been an additional two spills since the new Congress came into session. From extraction to transportation to refining to waste storage, misery follows the tar sands. We know there are dangerous air pollutants and carcinogens that have been documented from tar sands refining--all of this to help a Canadian private company make a whole bunch of money, and we cannot even keep the oil in this country. Are you kidding me? Thirty-five permanent jobs. The least we can do is have an in-depth health impact study before we approve this pipeline. I am very sad to say--you know, we still have this kind of gag-athon going on from the other side. They would not even let people speak for 1 minute on their amendment. That is why I am grabbing the floor here. I could not even get agreement to divide up the time, so I am taking the time. I will be happy to yield to my friend from Michigan, through the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. I could not agree more with my friend. Her question is pertinent and to the point of this debate. We are giving permission to a Canadian company to come through and use America as a passthrough. They are going to leave behind petcoke, leave behind spills--they have already done it before with the tar sands pipeline. This is the hardest oil to clean up. I absolutely know that my friend Senator Peters has a question as well. Without losing my right to the floor, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that I may call up my amendment. I will wait for the objection to be heard. I am not going to plow through this.

Mrs. BOXER. That was my amendment No. 128. I am very disappointed, because what the Senator is talking about, making sure the pipelines are safe, and what I am talking about, a health study, are quite related. I know my friend from Michigan wanted me to yield for a question. I am happy to do so.

Mrs. BOXER. If I could answer the question posed to me by my friend-- he asked do I think there ought to be an open amendment process. Not only do I think there should be, we were promised an open amendment process. What occurred here at midnight on Thursday night, before the Senate left--some of our colleagues who are running for President went out to my beautiful State to make their case, as they have every right to do. But instead of staying on Friday, we adjourned on Thursday night. It was anything but an open amendment process. I see the Senator from Massachusetts on the floor. He had a critically important amendment. He asked for 60 seconds to explain his amendment. I have been here over 20 years. I have never seen a situation, ever, where five Members in a row, five great Senators representing their great States, were told: Sit down; we are gagging you. That is what happened. This is wrong. So we are going to be asked to proceed today and shut down the amendment process even further. I do not know how the Senate is going to vote. However the Senate votes, it votes. But the bottom line is, this has been anything but an open amendment process. My friend is absolutely right. I know the Senator from Maryland wanted to ask me a question.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my colleague from North Dakota, of course, I agree with her. We don't agree on the tar sands pipeline, but we do look for common ground, and she has found it. The importance of inspecting the infrastructure can't be overstated. I say to my friend, before she leaves the floor, this is a picture of a recent spill. Actually, it was 2013. It still has not been cleaned up in Arkansas because the pipeline burst--200,000 gallons of tar sands burst from the pipeline, and it spilled all over the streets of a subdivision. Residents were exposed to high levels of benzene, a known carcinogen, and hydrogen sulfite. They suffered from dizziness, nausea, and headaches--all classic symptoms of exposure to the chemicals found in tar sands. Rainfall causes oil to float to the top of the soil and off gas. What is happening here is it still has not been cleaned up. My friend has an amendment that would say: Let's inspect the infrastructure to make sure things such as this do not happen. Of course, I support it. I hope she will vote her conscience and hopefully vote to keep this amendment process open. I know my friend from Massachusetts has a question, and I yield to him if he does.

Mrs. BOXER. The Senator has to ask if I would yield for a question.

Mrs. BOXER. I would say in response to my friend's question, I was so shocked when the Senator asked for 1 minute to explain his amendment and we heard multiple Republicans saying: No, no, a thousand times no. As Senator Durbin said, this is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. I grew up thinking that was true. I never saw this before where colleague after colleague after colleague after colleague was essentially shouted down. I haven't seen it here. It has reached a new low with a Republican majority since. They absolutely won a huge election victory. There is no question about it. There was the promise that it would be an open process, and then we can't even have colleagues talk for 1 minute. I know the Senator from New Jersey has a question as well. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey, because time is running out at 5:30.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I will.

Mrs. BOXER. Senator Booker should be proud of this contribution to this debate and what he is doing in the environment committee. Let me say quickly--because I know we are running out of time--here is the deal. You raised the golden standard--NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. The underlying bill says everything is satisfied. All you want to make sure of in your amendment is that if there is new information which shows this could harm the public--maybe cause more cancer, cause more asthma, and cause other problems--that we need a supplemental EIS, that we need a supplemental study before we approve this pipeline. Right now, they are not letting you offer that amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. My time has expired. I thank the Chair very much for his patience.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Presiding Officer. I heard the words of my friend, and he was eloquent in his remarks, but I don't think he would be surprised to know that I see this issue very differently. Before Roe v. Wade was decided in the 1970s, women died because they could not end a pregnancy even if they were raped. There are bodies buried in America, and we don't know the cause of death because if a woman tried to end an unwanted pregnancy--sometimes as a result of rape or even incest--she would be considered a criminal. And that is what you hear from my colleagues on the other side. They say, let's go back to the last century--let's undo Roe v. Wade. It is hard for me to believe that here I stand in this century arguing that women should be respected, that families should be respected, and that everyone's religion should be respected. I support a woman's right to choose, and that means if your religion says you will never end an unwanted pregnancy, I support you. I believe this decision should be between a woman, her doctor, her family, and her God. I don't think any Senator should get in the middle of a woman's private life. It is dangerous to do so, it is wrong to do so, and to do so in the name of doing something that is going to help the family--it doesn't make sense to me. The Republican Party used to be the party of individual freedom and individual rights. When I was on the board of Planned Parenthood so many years ago, before Roe v. Wade, do you know who was very active and on their board? George Herbert Walker Bush. This was an issue that was embraced by Republicans and Democrats--individual respect and rights for women and caring about a woman's health. It was not a partisan issue. I don't see how interfering with a woman's health, or her right to choose, in any way is helpful to her in a time of need. It should be her decision within the law. We don't want to go back to the last century. I was glad to see that the Republicans in the House pulled a bill off the floor because it was so nasty to women. It didn't even allow women the right to terminate a pregnancy at a certain date if the woman was a victim of rape. They pulled it, but then they replaced it with another terrible bill that also limits a woman's right to choose. My Republican friends would make doctors criminals and put them in jail for years and years. They would make women criminals. They have even had a bill that said that a grandmother should be put in jail if she helps her granddaughter. As a grandmother, that was too much for me. How dare some Senator come down here and tell a grandma what to do for her granddaughter? This is the party of individual freedom that always decries too much government? Come on. This is putting the government right in the middle of our most personal decisions. It never used to be that way, but that is the way it is now. Everyone deserves respect for their views. They should not be taunted for their views, and that is why the right to choose makes so much sense. You don't tell someone that the government says you must do A, B, or C. You tell the person within the law--within Roe, which was a modest decision at the time--you make a decision, we respect that decision, and we don't need to know about it. Putting Senators in the middle of our private lives is not why I came to the Senate. We have a lot of work to do. We have to work on good jobs. We have to pass a highway bill. We have to make sure this planet is habitable for people. Talk about kindness. Think about future generations who have to live on a planet that is increasingly inhospitable. Scientists tell us if we don't do anything about climate, at the end of the day it may be an uninhabitable planet. We have a lot of work to do. We all do. It seems to me we should start off by doing what government should do, not putting ourselves in the middle of private lives. Again, I greatly respect my colleagues whose views are different than mine. All I ask them to think about is this: If we embrace the right to choose, then we are saying to women all over America that this is a tough decision and we understand that. Make it with your God. Make it with your loved ones. But we are not going to be right there in the middle of people's living rooms telling them what we think is right, because that is not why we were elected. I am glad I happened to be on the floor to follow the remarks of Senator Hatch. I feel very strongly about this. As many of my colleagues know, the Democratic women of the Senate and several of our Republican women colleagues will continue to fight against saying to a woman that she has no right to make a most private, most personal decision without satisfying U.S. Senators, most of whom are men, by the way. It is just not right. Speaking of polls, because I think Senator Hatch mentioned one, people want us to have a moderate approach on this. They don't want abortion on demand and neither does any pro-choice Senator. Roe v. Wade spelled it out. In the early stages we know a woman has that right; later, only if her health or her life is threatened. It is pretty modest. It makes sense. Leave it alone. That decision was made in 1973. Don't turn the clock back in this century. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. I call up amendment No. 113.

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

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes just before the vote starts to explain this amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Excuse me for interrupting. I assume we have at least a minute to talk about our amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you. I have a minute. I actually asked for three, but as I understand, I have a minute. Is that where we are? I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you so much. I know what a hard job it is to get this bill moving, and I am trying to be very helpful. I am offering an amendment I didn't expect to offer because basically my amendment says that we should acknowledge the benefit that parks provide to our local and regional communities and their economies for small business and enhanced local tourism and how much they contribute to employment and provide opportunities to our families. Can my colleagues imagine America without Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, the Statue of Liberty, Natural Bridges in Utah, Scottsbluff in Nebraska, Muir Woods in California, Glacier Bay in Alaska? These were all protected by Republican and Democratic Presidents, and in many cases, by Congress. Why do I offer this? It seems to me we shouldn't have to argue about this. It is because my friend, the Senator from Nebraska, Mrs. Fischer, has an amendment that I think is very dangerous. I know she modified it, and I appreciate that, but at the end of the day, it is so vague that I think it is going to lead us right to the courthouse door. For example, if a President now or in the future, Democratic or Republican, decided in California--because the community really wanted it--to declare a national monument as we just had recently, in many cases, I would tell you this: Under this Fischer amendment, what would happen is there would have to be under consideration what does this do to other monuments, to other parks, to the budget deficit. If someone who did not like this said, I am taking this to court because the President didn't consider this, you would not have any more national monuments, and you would not have all the beautiful iconic things we have such as the Grand Canyon and Scottsbluff. I think it is a bad amendment. I know my friend is trying to make a point, but I think we should defeat it and pass the Boxer amendment.

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are about to vote on something that I think will be recorded as a breakthrough moment in the climate debate. For the first time we will go on record saying the following: Climate change is real and human activity contributes to climate change. What a breath of fresh air this amendment is, and I urge an ``aye'' vote very strongly. The front part of the amendment accurately quotes the EIS, parts of which a lot of us agree with and parts of which we don't. Let it be known that the parts we don't agree with are under review by various agencies, but this is accurate. This is a quote from the current EIS. You are not voting to endorse the EIS, you are just voting to acknowledge that is what it says. But you are voting on original language written by Senator Hoeven that says climate change is real and human activity contributes to it. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry--I wish to speak on the Hoeven amendment and take the 1 minute. Excuse me. I withdraw my request.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize my great friend and former colleague Sam Chapman, who is retiring on February 1, 2015, after a long and distinguished career in public service. I first had the opportunity to work with Sam when we were both county supervisors in northern California. When I was elected to the Marin County Board of Supervisors in 1976, Sam had already served 2 years on the neighboring Napa County Board of Supervisors after successfully defeating an incumbent. He was only 26 at the time, but he had been motivated to launch his underdog run after watching the incumbent fall asleep at a public meeting. Although he called his 1974 win ``the beginning of my career in politics,'' Sam had already shown a deep dedication to the ideals of public service. After receiving his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, Sam joined Volunteers in Service to America, VISTA, a national public service program envisioned by President John F. Kennedy and implemented by President Lyndon Johnson to fight poverty in America. He worked with VISTA as a volunteer attorney in the field of poverty law and later became a staff attorney for the Napa County Legal Assistance Agency. He then opened his own general practice law office in Napa prior to running for supervisor. Sam and I have always shared so many values--he has always been a strong advocate for the environment and other progressive causes--and during the 6 years we served together, we worked to improve the lives of people throughout our North Bay communities. When I was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982, I knew right away that I wanted Sam on my team. For more than 20 years--as press secretary, legislative director, and finally as my chief of staff--Sam worked tirelessly every day to serve the people of the State of California. In 2004, seeking a new way to serve his community, Sam left the U.S. Senate to become the publisher of the Pacific Sun, a weekly newspaper focused on Marin County. He always had an interest in the news media, having worked as a reporter and editor for the Napa Valley Register prior to receiving his law degree. In 2010, following his lifelong interest in the environment and renewable energy issues, he became the State and Community Affairs Manager at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, where he has worked to strengthen the lab's ties with the local and regional community. Throughout his career in public service, Sam also found the time to serve on a number of environmental commissions, lending his expertise to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and California Air Resources Board. For more than three decades, Sam has been a trusted ally, advisor, and friend. As he begins his retirement and embarks on the next exciting phase of his life, I send him and his family, especially his two beautiful daughters Allegra and Sabrina, my best wishes, deep affection, and abiding gratitude.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I congratulate the Presiding Officer on his election and welcome him to the Senate.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I remember when I first came to the Senate and I sat in that chair, it was a moment to really learn a lot about the heartbeat of the Senate--the ebb and flow. So congratulations to you. I was a little shocked to hear the majority leader, Senator McConnell, say that the economic uptick coincided with the election of the Republicans in this last election. There is no question that the Republicans won many seats here, and it is clear that the Democrats lost, but to say that is why we are having this economic uptick, I believe, would win my friend, the majority leader, the award for most creative spinner. I see he is here because I think he wants to stop me from speaking at this point. Without losing the floor, I yield to my friend.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the majority leader for allowing me this time to proceed. It is one thing to rewrite history a few years after it passes. It is another thing to rewrite it while you are still living through it. To say that this economic recovery is a Republican recovery is kind of funny and strange. In fact, the year 2014 was the best year for job creation since 1999, and it could have been a lot better in 2014 and in prior years if our Republican friends had not filibustered every single job proposal that President Obama put forward. It is sad because we could have gotten here much quicker. The economy added almost 3 million jobs in 2014, averaging almost 250,000 jobs a month. The unemployment rate has fallen to 5.6 percent, and most of that decline--and here is the good news--came from long- term unemployed workers getting back to work. The GDP growth has accelerated, reaching an annualized rate of 5 percent in the third quarter of 2014. This is the best GDP growth we have seen in over 10 years. Our economic recovery has been long, it has been tough, but it is happening and I thank the President for his leadership. We have added 11.2 million private sector jobs since February of 2010. That is the longest streak of recorded private sector job gains in American history. The stock market has bounced back from the crash and added more than 10,000 points, reaching an all-time high of over 18,000 points. Our annual deficit has been reduced by almost two-thirds. I think it is important to put into context the job growth under Presidents Democratic and Republican. I think we need to look at private sector job growth. This is an extraordinary chart. Under George Herbert Walker Bush, there were 1.5 million jobs created in his term of office. In Bill Clinton's term of office, there were 21.2 million jobs created. I have seen that number up to 23 million, but that is probably including the public sector. But during Bill Clinton's term, there were 21.2 million private sector jobs. Under George W. Bush, there was a loss of 460,000 jobs. Under President Obama, there is a gain so far of 7 million, and he has 2 years to go, and we are just moving forward. To me this says that we Democrats know what we are doing, and if you want to look at deficits, that is another day's speech. It was Bill Clinton who balanced the budget. It was George W. Bush who unbalanced it, put two wars on a credit card, gave a tax cut to the rich, and we had terrible deficits. Barack Obama has now reduced this deficit by two-thirds. So I say all this leading up to my discussion of the Keystone Pipeline. How does that even connect? I will tell you. When a new majority takes over in Congress you know the first bill they take up symbolizes their priorities. Out of all the things that they pick, all the things that they pick, they pick a bill that in terms of permanent job creation will be thirty-five jobs. And that is proven by the State Department--35 long-term jobs. One has to wonder, Why are they doing this? I believe I know the answer. This is really a big hug and a big kiss to big oil and Canadian interests. That is what it is about. Otherwise, why wouldn't we turn to the highway bill? I think the Presiding Officer and I know we have worked across partisan lines on that issue, and it means good jobs for America--good jobs, long-lasting jobs, rebuilding our bridges and our roads and making sure we have transit systems that work. We have a terrible record in terms of the condition of our bridges today. Thousands and thousands--tens of thousands of bridges are not in good shape, and we have seen bridges fail, and we know the outcome. Why are we pursuing a project for Canadian oil business interests that they will make billions off of instead of pursuing projects for America-- America--such as building our infrastructure? This bill isn't about helping American workers or families. Let's be very clear. It does nothing. Again, when I say 35 permanent jobs, I am not making that up. That is in the final supplemental environmental impact statement which I believe the Republicans want to make final, so they are accepting it. The Republicans are accepting the fact that there are 35 permanent jobs, because they, in their language, say, We approve of the final supplemental environmental impact statement, which is where it says there will be 35 permanent jobs. Now, yes, there are temporary jobs for 2 years--a couple thousand-- but the fact is we can have millions of jobs when we rebuild our infrastructure. We have 400 new jobs coming to the Imperial Valley in my home State because we have lithium there and they are going to start producing it. So 400 jobs, just one little project. This is 35 jobs for Americans. They have to be kidding. This is what they have for us, after all that blood, sweat, and tears during the election? I think that wasting another minute on the tar sands project doesn't make any sense. What we need is a multiyear surface transportation bill. We still have unemployed people in the construction industry. We have 600,000 construction workers who remain out of work. What are we giving them? We are giving them 2,000 temporary jobs and 35 permanent jobs? Let's do a highway bill. By the way, the trust fund is running dry and in 4 months will be completely dry. Let's step up to the plate and do our job, not do the job for the Canadian oil interests. I don't get it. I don't think it makes sense, because I know we have worked together on transportation projects. We are worried. Billions of dollars going to our States--whether it is Oklahoma, California, Nevada, east coast, west coast--the funding is going to be delayed or stopped. And all these short-term extensions the House did are absolutely irresponsible. It doesn't provide stability to our local governments, to our businesses. So we know what we have to do. We have to invest in our aging infrastructure. No country can be great if we don't have an infrastructure that moves people and moves goods. Again, 50 percent of our Nation's roads are in less than good condition and 63,000 bridges are structurally deficient. Let's do something for America. That is what we are here for; not to do something good for Canadian oil companies. Let's focus on what is good for the people. Now let's turn to this infrastructure project, the Keystone Pipeline. I want to say unequivocally--and I don't have any doubts because I resource everything I say--that from extraction to transportation to refining to [waste/waist] storage, misery follows the tar sands. That is the oil that gets put in the pipeline--the dirtiest oil. I think XL stands for extra lethal. So a pipeline is a pipeline. Fine. It is what we put in it. This is the filthiest, most polluted kind of oil. Tar sands oil contains levels of toxic pollutants and metals that are much higher than conventional crude oil--11 times more sulfur and nickel, 6 times more nitrogen, 5 times more lead than conventional crude oil. Who is saying that? Is it Barbara Boxer? No. Let me source it: The USGS, the U.S. Geological Survey, the heavy oil and natural bitumen resources in geological basins of the world--documented. Tar sands equal the dirtiest oil. Why do some of my Republican friends and some of my Democratic friends--I admit that; I know there are a few--want to rush to bring this filthy oil into our country? The only benefit is to the Canadian oil interests. The fact is we need less pollution, not more pollution. Now high levels of dangerous air pollutants and carcinogens have been documented downwind from the tar sands refineries. People in nearby communities are suffering higher rates and types of cancers, such as leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Again, is this me saying it? Some rightwing blog took me to task the last time I said it. They said, Oh, she was on the floor making stuff up. OK. Let's be clear. I am not making stuff up. I am telling the truth, and I am going to document it in every case: Significantly higher levels of volatile compounds and carcinogens were found downwind of tar sands processing facilities. There were elevated rates of cancers linked to these toxic chemicals, including leukemia and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Where does this come from? Simpson, I.J., et al., air quality in the Industrial Heartland of Alberta, Canada and potential impacts on human health. Characterization of trace gases measured over Alberta oil sands mining operations: 76 speciated C2-C10 volatile organic compounds, and they list what they are. This is from two peer-reviewed papers. Is this what the Republicans do first? I thought we wanted to make people healthy. It is one thing to want to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which now, in my State, has reduced the uninsured by close to 50 percent--that is bad enough. Now they want to bring in this oil and help the Canadian oil people and it is going to bring all of these carcinogens and all of this pollution to our country. We already know about the people from Port Arthur, TX, where they have these refineries. Look at this picture. A picture is worth a thousand words. I know that is a cliche, but it is a fact. I could try to explain to my colleagues what happens near the playground when this stuff is refined. One might say, Oh, that is nice, Barbara, but are you really making this up? No. Here it is. Look at it. They suffer asthma, respiratory ailments, skin irritations, and cancer. This is what happens, right near a playground. Now, there are some politicians down there saying, Bring it on. We want it. We like it. But talk to the real people there who live there with children. They have had enough of tar sands. They have had it up to here with them. They want none of it. Let's not forget about the waste. Once they burn all of this stuff, they have waste left over. It is called petcoke, petroleum coke. Look at this. This is what it looks like, as shown in this picture. It is stored in the Midwest. A lot of it is stored in the Midwest. What happens? In this photograph we can see it is not wet, so it can blow in the wind. Billowing black clouds have contaminated our children. They contain heavy metals. Children playing baseball have been forced off the field to seek cover from the clouds of black dust that pelted homes and cars. This happened. This is why my friend Senator Durbin is so concerned, because it happened to his Little League players in the Chicago area. When inhaled, these particles can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks. They can aggravate bronchitis--I am coughing just at the thought of it--lung disease. They reduce the body's ability to fight infections. Where does that come from? I will say it again. 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. What is the source of that? California Air Resources Board, Air Pollution Particulate Matter brochure dated May 6, 2009. So I don't know how exposing Americans to this kind of pollution is in the national interests. I believe instead of waiving all of the environmental reports as my Republican friends do in their bill, they ought to call for more studies on the health impact of the tar sands oil so our families know what they are going to get with this pipeline. Also there are spills to worry about. Not only is the Keystone tar sands pipeline harmful to human health, it hurts environments and communities located near it, because if there is a spill, it is the toughest kind of oil to clean up. Here is the source for that: The EPA NEPA compliance comment letter, State Department. That is what they talk about. We have had spills at the tar sands--spills in Michigan, spills in Arkansas. If my colleagues don't believe me, ask those folks. Do my colleagues know in 2010 a pipeline ruptured and spilled over a million gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan? The local health department ordered the evacuation of 50 households and approximately 100 families were advised not to drink the water. The Michigan spill was the largest inland spill in U.S. history and more than 40 years and $1 billion later, it is not cleaned up. So wait a minute. Let's review. Republicans take over and the first bill they give us is the tar sands bill. The only people it helps, in my opinion, backed up by fact, are Canadian oil interests. The only jobs it creates permanently are 35 jobs. What it does to our health is a disaster, because the tar sands oil is the most toxic, dirty type of oil, and if there is a spill, it is the hardest to clean up. Who do we think is paying the $1 billion to clean up a tar sand spill in Michigan? I can tell my colleagues. It is probably most of the government. Maybe we are trying to collect some from the private sector. If my colleagues don't believe me about Michigan, let's turn to Mayflower, AR. This is a beautiful neighborhood of homes, as shown in this picture. This is filthy, dirty, disgusting oil and the camera is taking pictures of it. In 2013, 200,000 gallons of tar sands burst from a pipeline, because it is volatile. It burst from the pipeline and spilled into the streets of a subdivision. It forced the evacuation and abandonment of 22 homes--residents who were exposed to high levels of benzene, a known carcinogen, and hydrogen sulfide. People in this community--not some made-up, mystical community or mythical community-- in this community they suffered dizziness, nausea, headaches, respiratory problems, all classic symptoms of exposure to the chemicals found in the tar sands. So remember this picture and remember the picture of the filthy, dirty oil and the petcoke, because a picture tells a thousand words, and that is the picture my friends want to make a reality in America. Their first great bill, their first great contribution to the economy, 35 jobs. Please. We can do better. We can work together on a highway bill, on a transportation bill. We do so well on that. And we can add millions of jobs, especially in the construction industry. Now there is the issue of climate change. We know we are dealing with a lot of deniers on the other side of the aisle. They deny climate change is real. It doesn't matter what we tell them. July was the hottest month, August was the hottest month, and September was the hottest month in 2014. We know what is happening. The world knows what is happening. We have deniers here, so they deny any problem and they go rush to build the Keystone Pipeline. What will happen is the Keystone Pipeline will undermine our efforts to address climate change. The State Department's own analysis says a barrel of tar sands oil carried by the Keystone tar sands pipeline will create at least 17 percent more carbon pollution than domestic oil. Peer-reviewed research estimates that the increase in oil consumption caused by Keystone could result in up to 110 million metric tons of carbon pollution each year--four times the State Department's estimate. So this is even more than the State Department says. The source there is Erickson et al., ``Nature Climate Change.'' That is a peer-reviewed study as well. This is equivalent to carbon pollution adding 23 million new cars to the road or building 29 coal-fired powerplants. So the State Department is very modest in its projection. Even that is too much. Here is more. Here is the State Department. That is the 17 percent quote. And it could add up to an additional 27 million metric tons of carbon pollution each year. That is more of the State Department. This is their modest conclusion. We believe the peer-reviewed study shows it is far worse than even the State Department says. If you don't believe climate change is a problem, I am really sorry for your constituency because let me tell you what scientists are saying. And I am saying it is 98 percent of scientists. Let's be clear. Ninety-eight percent of scientists say climate change is real, and 2 percent say: We are not so sure. So my friends side with the 2 percent. Suppose one of my friends didn't feel well and went to the doctor, and the doctor said: I am sorry to tell you this, sir, but you have a cancer that is raging over your body, and we need to operate today. You say: I want a second opinion. That is good. You go get a second opinion. The second doctor says: Absolutely, you better get that operation. You say: Well, I want a third opinion. All right. I understand it. You go for a third opinion. Absolutely, those two doctors were right, but you keep going, and you get nine opinions that all say: Sir, you are a dead man if you don't get this operation. And then you find the 10th, and he says: You know, just go on a vegetarian diet, and you will be fine. If you listen to that one out of 10 doctors, there is something wrong with you. It is just like Big Tobacco. They did the same thing. They said: Oh, tobacco is fine, not a problem--until we realized there was a whole campaign by the big tobacco companies to turn us away from the fact that tobacco causes cancer. That is the truth. Guess what we found out. In a Union of Concerned Scientists expose, they found out that the same people who led that fight of tobacco denial are leading the fight of climate denial. If this was just going to hurt you, I say to my Republican friends rhetorically, I wouldn't care. I mean, I would be really sad and sorry if one of my friends went to the doctor and didn't listen to the best advice. But you know what. That hurts him. I would be miserable, and I would try to talk him out of it. But this is about my constituents and the people of this country. I have to say this is wrong. This is just wrong. This is an opportunity to bring the parties together. We could have done it around so many issues and in particular the highway bill. So common sense tells us this isn't the right thing to do. We are looking at unleashing this dirty, filthy oil. It is going to be harmful to our families' health. It is going to worsen the impact of climate change. It will not create the jobs we need to create. Again, I urge my colleagues vote no. It is not ready for prime time. There are going to be amendments that will reveal the fact that if we go forward with this, it is actually going to raise gas prices for Americans because all this stuff is going to be exported. Even the tar sands that are now currently in America--they are going to export it because of the world market. We are going to have amendments that are going to show that. This bill doesn't even have a ``Made in America'' amendment to it. We are going to offer that. Why don't we make this deal here? Why don't we put people to work here? That is not in this bill. This bill is not ready. This bill does not help us; this bill hurts us. I know my friends came here to make this country better. I think they think it helps. I don't question that. But if you look at all of the facts--and I have them lined up here, one after the other--whether it is the jobs impact, the health impact, who benefits, who gets hurt, it is pretty clear. It is on the record. All you have to do is look at it. Don't shop around for a doctor who will tell you this is a good deal because they have already spoken. It is not a good deal. We can do so much better. Because I think it is going to be a contentious debate, after this I hope we turn to the highway bill. My friend Jim Inhofe and I, who worked so well together, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and across the Capitol on the other side, the House, can finally come together and do something that will send a strong signal to the American people that the election just ended, now let's govern. But when you bring things before the body that some of us feel are so detrimental to the American people, I am willing to vote on it at midnight. It is OK with me. We will vote at midnight and vote at 1 o'clock in the morning. I don't care what time we vote, but why are we taking this up? This is not what we should be doing. S. 1--I looked at some of the S. 1 bills the Democrats have put forward, and they mostly have to do with creating a lot of jobs or making sure there is equal pay for equal work or making sure the minimum wage is increased. We could be doing all of those things together. It is with pride that I stand here again for my State. It is with no animosity about the election. It was hard-fought and hard-won. But I believe this is an enormous mistake, and I will continue to stand on my feet as long as it takes to make the case as to why I think it is wrong and make the case where I think there is so much else we could do for the good of our people. I thank the Presiding Officer for his courtesy. I yield the floor.