Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 578, H.R. 4007.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Carper title amendment be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I know we have a lot to talk about. This will be very quick. I want to point out that is an opening at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is such an important agency because they work on the safety of powerplants, many of which are aging. We voted for Mr. Baran for a short-term seat. He had extensive hearings, 88 questions asked in writing. I feel very strongly that he is very suited for this position. He worked for the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House and worked in a very bipartisan fashion. In any case, I think this is a very important position and a very qualified individual, and I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, one would think this is the first time any President ever nominated someone who is a political appointee. That is ridiculous. Just because somebody is a producer of a very popular show doesn't disqualify them. It is ridiculous. I could point out people who had the support of the Senator from Arizona who perhaps didn't work at all. So let's be clear. This nominee is an intelligent woman. She knows how to be successful. She will do a good job. I think she will do very well in this position because I know her well. She knows how to make friends. She is not angry. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing my friend, Dr. Thomas Truhe, a generous supporter of the arts who was recently honored with a Golden Palm Star on the Palm Springs Walk of Stars in recognition of his many contributions to the civic and cultural life of his hometown. This prestigious honor is well deserved. For more than 6 years, Tom Truhe has served tirelessly as chair of the Palm Springs Museum's Annenberg Theater Council, ATC, which supports the museum through an innovative program of music and theatrical performances. The ATC's busy season includes an Opening Night Gala, a major fundraiser for the museum; the ``performance series,'' featuring outstanding Broadway artists; and the tremendously popular Cabaret 88, a series of nine sold-out shows with top musical talents. Tom introduced the Cabaret 88 concept and is responsible for every aspect of its production, from selecting the talent and overseeing promotion to securing sponsors for each show. In addition to his involvement with the Palm Springs Museum, Tom gives generously of his time and energy to numerous other area organizations and charities. He is a volunteer for ``One Night Only,'' Michael Childers' annual gala concert benefitting Jewish Family Service of the Desert, and he served on the event committee for a recent luncheon honoring Mr. Childers for his contributions to JFS. As a dedicated patron of the arts, Tom also makes a point of attending theatrical productions, concerts, local performances, and other charitable events in the community. On November 16, 2014, Tom Truhe's Gold Palm Star was dedicated and Mayor Stephen Pougnet officially proclaimed the date to be Dr. Thomas Truhe Day in the City of Palm Springs. As his friend and Coachella Valley neighbor, I am pleased to join in honoring Tom Truhe for his outstanding service to the community.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington for her strong statement. It makes so much sense. We have this poster here, ``510 Days.'' That is how long ago the Senate passed the bipartisan immigration bill that Senator Murray talked about and Senator Schumer talked about. That is 17 months; 510 days is 17 months. So here is the deal. The Republicans in the House refuse to take up the Senate bill, which strengthens the border while giving a pathway of legality to hard-working immigrants here who are undocumented. It is pretty simple but comprehensive--common sense. Here is the thing: They will not take up the bill. So then we say: What is your idea? Where is your bill? They don't have one. So then President Obama, knowing we have 11 million undocumented immigrants living in America, realizes he can't let this matter go on. He has waited 100 days, 200 days, 300 days, 400 days, 500 days. The country has waited for 17 months. So the President is going to do what Presidents are supposed to do, which is look at a problem that is hurting the country and do his best to fix it. The President has said to the House he would be thrilled to sign the bipartisan immigration bill the Senate passed. Take it up and pass it. Oh, no. Do you know what their answer is? To verbally threaten the President and, frankly, the American people by such comments as--this is one that I heard the Republican leader Mitch McConnell say: If he does this, if he takes this action, if he takes action on immigration, it would be like waving a red flag in front of a bull. No, it wouldn't be. It would be a President who understands that action is needed. Guess what. Eleven other Presidents, Republican and Democrat, have taken Executive action on immigration. I never in all my years ever heard one Republican take to task any of those other Presidents, and I will give you the list of who they are: Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George Bush, Sr., Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and President Obama used his authority for the DREAMers. The charts are being held up to show you how many actions have been taken. We have these two charts here that show a lot of Executive actions by Presidents on immigration. What is wrong with my Republican friends? Do they not know history or are they just blindly attacking this President because they are annoyed that he got reelected? Step up to the plate, smell the roses, look at the reality. The reality is all these other Presidents have taken action. Look what the immigration council says, the American Immigration Council said: Past Republican presidents have not been shy to use the White House's power to retool immigration policy. In fact, Obama could learn a lot from Presidents Ronald Reagan's and George H.W. Bush's Executive actions to preserve the unity of immigrant families and move past congressional refusal to enact immigration reform. So, Earth to the Republicans: You refuse to take up the bipartisan Senate bill which strengthens our border while giving a legal path to citizenship or legality to our undocumented, making sure that those who commit crimes are deported. We look at what is happening in our ag community and fix that. They won't do it. So they are stamping their foot and saying what President Obama wants to do is unconstitutional. Excuse me, unconstitutional? Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Eisenhower--I read the list. They never said that before. They never said that before. Carter, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Clinton, Bush, Sr., Reagan, George W., and Obama. Now they say to the President--and I don't have the exact quote. We heard a comment from the Republican leader. What they are basically saying to the President is, If you do your job, we are going to be mad. And what the President has said to them is, Please do your job. If you do your job, I won't have to take Executive action. I would prefer to have this in legislation. And as Senator Murray has said, that is the preferable road. But they either won't do it or they don't want to do it or they want another confrontation with the President. I think it was John Boehner, the Republican Speaker, who said if the President takes this Executive action, which as I have shown you many other Presidents have done, he will ``poison the well.'' He is telling the President that if the President does his job--my words--as 11 Presidents have done, it will ``poison the well.'' And what are they going to do about it? Who knows. Are they going to try to impeach the President or sue the President? I guess they have to impeach 10 others. And by the way, I wrote the President a letter and asked him to take Executive action. In my view, it is absolutely necessary, because if you follow the law, 11 million people could be deported--our neighbors, our friends, families would be split up. I thought Republicans were the party of family values. Family values--I have been lectured on family values. Somehow if one supports a woman's right to choose and to get health care, it is not following family values, but one can break up families and have parents and children separated, and that, I guess, doesn't fall under the definition. It has been 17 months since we passed our bill and either they are too lazy to take it up or they don't want to take it up. They would rather threaten this President. I just have to tell them, we have a Congress, we have a court system, and we have a President. We don't have President McConnell, we don't have President Boehner, we don't have President Reid, we don't have President Boxer. We have President Obama, and he has to do his job. If you don't like it, that is fine. Lord knows I have served with five Presidents. I didn't agree with them half the time, but I didn't threaten to shut down the government or impeach them or sue them. Now here is the deal: Why can't they find time to take up our bill? They have voted 50 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act--50 times-- but they cannot find time to debate or pass a bill to reform our Nation's immigration laws. I served in the House for 10 years. The rules in the House are easy. It is nothing like the Senate where you need unanimous consent to do anything, to even open up the Senate. In the House, if the majority, who are now the Republicans, wants to introduce a bill, all they have to do is introduce a bill. They won't do it. It has been 17 months. Then the President says, oh, my God, we have got an issue here. Everyone agrees we have 11 million undocumented immigrants here. We have issues at the border. We have issues at detention facilities. We have issues in the ag industry. We have issues of families being torn apart. The President is going to do what he can do, just as 10 other Presidents have done previously. So what does he get in response from our Republican friends? Nothing that would allay our concerns. They don't say, Mr. President, we understand your frustration. Don't worry, we will get a bill done. It may not be the same as the Senate. We have other ideas. They do nothing. They are do-nothing and they want our President to be do-nothing when it comes to immigration. Frankly, if our President did not take action, it would be a terrible mistake. I have already established that he is within his constitutional rights. He would be joining 10 other Presidents who, by the way, acted on 40 occasions over the last 60 years. So here is a group of Republicans threatening to impeach the President, sue the President, shut down the government over something that 11 Presidents have done over the past 60 years on 40 occasions. I never ever, ever heard one Republican or Democrat threaten to shut down the government when a President took action over immigration. The Republicans won't act. So what do they think is going to happen, status quo? The status quo doesn't work. It is not working at the border. It is not working for our families. It is not working at the workplace. It is not working in our communities. I was in the House when President Reagan signed into law a major immigration bill legalizing 3 million immigrants in 1986, and then the Congress didn't do the next step. They didn't take the next step. So he took Executive action to stop deportations that would interfere with family reunification. President Reagan--I didn't hear one Republican threaten to impeach the President, sue the President, take action, shut down the government, make life miserable for the American people. No. But they are doing it now. In 1990, President George Herbert Walker Bush directed his Attorney General to halt deportations of an estimated 190,000 Salvadorans who were fleeing the civil war there, and he used his power to halt the deportation of up to 1.5 million spouses and children. I did not hear one Republican--not one--threaten to sue the President, threaten to take him to court, threaten to impeach him, threaten to shut down the government and make life miserable for the American people. President Bush's family fairness policy Executive action was sweeping. It affected more than 40 percent of the undocumented population in the United States at the time. He thought big--George Bush, Sr.--he thought big, and this President should think big. I will tell you why. If you ask economic experts what are the best measures we can do for our economy, they are clear about it. They say one measure we should implement is to raise the minimum wage. We Democrats are trying to do that and we will never give up trying to do that. Reforming immigration is another measure that is one of the best ways to stimulate our economy and create jobs, and it is all laid out in a USC study which shows that immigration reform with a path to citizenship would inject $8 billion into my State's economy--my State of California--each year--$8 billion each year. Nationwide it would increase our gross domestic product by $1.5 trillion over 10 years, increase wages for workers, and lead to between 750,000 to 900,000 new jobs. That is almost a million new jobs created, according to the Center for American Progress. So help me out here, Republicans. What is your problem? You never complained when Republican Presidents took Executive action to fix a broken immigration system. You say you are for jobs and the economy and business, and if you look at the support for immigration reform, it runs right through our society from the Chambers of Commerce to labor and everybody in between. And if we don't act, the dire situation of undocumented immigrants will only get worse. Families will continue to be torn apart. People will continue to live in the shadows. The reason our economy will be thriving once people get out of the shadows is they are not afraid to come out. They are not afraid to buy a house. They are not afraid to spend money. They are not afraid to start new businesses. They are not afraid to hire workers. It is a no-brainer. This is one of the most important things we can do for our economy, for jobs, for prosperity, for our communities. In closing, because I see my friend from Connecticut is here, and I want to yield the floor, there are two priorities that are at stake: a healthy economy--and I have laid that out--and family values. The American people, including the people of California, support bold and compassionate action on immigration reform. We have already established that the President has the legal authority to act just as other Presidents of both parties have in the past. I say to the President today, as I have said to him in writing, if you act you will have my strong support and you will have the support of so many people across this country. You will keep our families together, you will strengthen our economy, and you will make our country stronger. I say to the House again, while you are still here in Washington, if you don't want the President to fill the void for your lack of action, then take up and pass the Senate immigration bill. Get to work. If you don't like that bill, then make another bill, but take care of this problem because if you continue to be a do-nothing House when it comes to immigration, I can assure you this President will not follow your lead and be a do-nothing President when it comes to immigration. That would be terribly wrong. It would be wrong not only for our immigrant community but for every single one of us. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have two articles printed in the Record, along with an article in the National Journal that details the number of times Presidents have used their authority to act on immigration.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my colleagues who have come to the floor this afternoon and are still to come to the floor, thank you. Republicans have threatened to close down this government. They are having a temper tantrum and refuse to act on immigration and want to paralyze the Presidency. It is time to get behind this President. It is time to get behind the American people. It is time to take a stand for this economy and for family values. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I have a parliamentary inquiry. I am confused because Senator McConnell called the bill the Cassidy Keystone bill, and I thought we were debating the Hoeven-Landrieu bill. Could you tell me which bill it is, because that is very important.

Mrs. BOXER. So we are considering the Hoeven-Landrieu bill. I just wanted that to be clear.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his remarks. They mean a lot. I want to put this vote into perspective. This is a major decision. People sometimes say: Oh, what is the big deal. It is a little pipeline. We build pipelines all the time. Well, it is a major decision, and I know each of us, regardless of our party, before we cast a major vote, thinks about whether our vote is going to make life better for our people we represent, the people who send us here and who count on us every day. I am going to do everything in my power to make the case that building the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is going to make life worse for the people we represent and those generations to follow because I think I will prove today that misery follows the tar sands. I said before it is called Keystone XL--extra lethal--not extra large but extra lethal. Senators should ask themselves three questions before they cast their vote on the Hoeven-Landrieu bill. First, why does it make any sense for the Senate to force the approval of a project that will bring millions of barrels of the dirtiest pollution you could think of into America? Why do we want to bring barrels of filthy, dirty, dangerous pollution into America? This isn't an ordinary pipeline. This pipeline is carrying tar sands oil, which is, in fact, the most polluting kind of oil and I am going to tell you why. This isn't hyperbole. Tar sands oil contains levels of toxic pollutants and metals that are much higher than conventional crude oil. I want to make this case. President Obama said when he became President that he would do everything in his power to make us energy efficient and to make us energy independent, and he has worked on both fronts. We have seen a tremendous rise in domestic oil production. It is not tar sands oil. It is not filthy oil. Conventional crude oil is different than the tar sands. The tar sands have 11 times more sulfur and nickel, 6 times more nitrogen, and 5 times more lead. Let me say that again. Before we invite a 45-percent increase in this filthy, dirty oil, let's take a look at what this tar sands is. It has got more sulfur and nickel and nitrogen and more lead. I know my colleague who is sitting in the chair cares deeply about environmental justice, and in the course of my presentation I am going to show what happens in places such as Port Arthur, TX, in minority communities when this oil is refined. We can show that photograph now. What I am trying to impress on the body today is I am proving the point that I am making. The facts are the facts are the facts. This is what it looks like in Port Arthur, TX. This is what the kids have to put up with. Here is a playground in a low-income community, and I had the activists from Port Arthur, TX, here saying, please, please, please, protect us from this oil. Now these dangerous pollutants I cited and these metals can be very harmful to human health. Sulfur dioxide penetrates deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs and it causes respiratory diseases such as emphysema and bronchitis. You will not hear a word about that from the proponents, but this needs to be looked at. This is why I stood with the nurses, that is why I stood with the public health doctors, to say time out for a minute here. What are we doing to our people that we are saying we are helping with the tar sands? It aggravates heart disease, leading to increased toxic emissions and premature death. Nitrogen dioxide increases symptoms in people with asthma. When I go to the various schools in my State, I ask the kids: How many of you have asthma or how many of you know someone who has asthma? Almost half the class raises their hands, if not more. Tar sands will exacerbate that problem. We know how dangerous lead is, how long it took us to get lead out of paint. It adversely affects the nervous system, the kidney function, the immune system, the cardiovascular system. Misery follows the tar sands. The Keystone XL-- extra lethal--pipeline. We are talking about huge quantities coming through this pipeline-- 830,000 barrels of filthy tar sands oil coming across the Canadian border heading down to our gulf coast region every single day--again, a 45-percent increase in the tar sands oil, a 45-percent increase in those heavy metals and those dangerous pollutants. This project could be just the beginning. We already know again, misery follows the tar sands from the extraction to the transportation to the refining to the waste disposal. Let me show you a picture of petcoke, petroleum coke. Again, it is an environmental justice question, because what we have is what is left after the refining, and it gets sent all across the country. This is a picture of petcoke piles in Chicago. Senator Durbin is going to talk more about this. This is a serious environmental hazard. The poison that is in this residue in a windstorm just blows around and we have stories in the press in Chicago of a Little League game being interrupted because the petcoke was blowing all over the field, and the kids were getting pitch black with the petcoke. So, yes, I have stood with doctors and nurses and people in these communities who have faced harm along each step of the tar sands oil process. These are cancer-causing pollutants. So when somebody tells you: Oh, this is nothing. This is a pipeline. We have a lot of pipelines. This is nothing. No big deal. Why are you fighting? Why are you standing up here? Why did I demand 3 hours of time in opposition? Because this is a dangerous project. Why should we vote to force the approval of a project that would bring this dirty, polluted tar sands into the United States when we know it is the most difficult type of oil to clean up in case of a spill? According to the EPA, tar sands oil creates especially difficult challenges to clean up when the pipelines rupture because it is so heavy it sinks to the bottom of the water. You only have to look at the spill in Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010 which they still haven't cleaned up. In Mayflower, AK, in 2013, we will show you a picture from there. This is what happened when there was a spill. These spills are not cleaned up. This came right into residential communities. So again, dirty, filthy oil and the toughest to clean up in case of a spill. We know as sure as I am standing here if this is built there will be a spill, because that happens; and it has already happened in 2010 and in 2013. Of the projected 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil, most of it isn't going to our domestic use. And that is the other question. Why would you want to bring this dirty, polluted tar sands oil that you cannot clean up into our country if practically all of it is going to be exported? And we will have to bear the burdens of the refining, the filth in the air, the petcoke in our cities, as we see the products being exported to other countries. Now I could stop here--I am sure the proponents wish I would, but I am not, because if you are not convinced this is an enormous mistake, I have got five reasons--a deeper look at the health of our people. I have already said tar sands is the filthiest oil on the planet. And I have already told you that I have stood with nurses and doctors to make this point. Downwind from the tar sands extraction site and the refineries in Canada there are significantly higher levels of dangerous pollutants and carcinogens have been documented. People living in the nearby communities are suffering. I have met them. I have talked to them on the phone. They flew down here to stand by my side to call attention to the health impacts. People living in nearby communities are suffering higher rates of cancers linked to toxic chemicals including leukemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. That is a fact. The big oil companies won't talk about it. The Koch brothers won't talk about it. My Republican friends won't talk about it. But I am going to talk about it and I am going to enter into the Record a University of California-Irvine, University of Michigan peer-reviewed study documenting elevated cancer rates near tar sands processing zones. This was a peer-reviewed article dated September 2013. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Once it leaves Canada and is transported to refineries in the United States, the tar sands would increase the pollution in already plagued communities such as Port Arthur, which I showed you and I will show you again. Port Arthur is already refining tar sands oil. This is going to greatly increase the amount of tar sands oil they are going to be refining. They are on the EPA's list of cities with dangerous ozone levels, people suffering from asthma, respiratory ailments, skin irritations, and cancer. The oil companies aren't going to tell you about this and the Koch brothers aren't going to tell you about this and my Republican friends aren't going to tell you about this, but I am going to tell you about this. Tar sands will add another threat to Port Arthur and other communities that are already in distress. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article describing health problems experienced by families living near Port Arthur refineries, and it is entitled ``Everyone Deserves Clean Air and Equal Protection From Pollution,'' dated August 12, 2014.

Mrs. BOXER. To get to the gulf coast, tar sands will be transported by pipeline through communities in environmentally sensitive areas in six States. We know from experience how harmful this could be, again, because of how hard it is to clean up after a spill, and we know about the petcoke. I have shown you the petcoke, which is black dust containing some heavy metals. Open piles of this waste began to appear at unprecedented levels in midwestern communities and it sparked health and environmental concerns in many neighborhoods in Detroit and Chicago. Let's take this back and show the Chicago picture again. In this Chicago neighborhood, billowing black clouds of petcoke forced Little League players off the baseball field. The children were forced to seek cover from the clouds of black dust that pelted homes and cars. According to one newspaper, ``Kids that were playing ball were sent scurrying away because the stuff was getting into their eyes, on to their faces and into their mouths and everything. They just had to get the heck out of there.'' I would like to enter into the Record at this time an article that says, ``In Chicago, piles of petroleum coke suggest the future of Canadian tar sands oil,'' dated November 17, 2014. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record as well.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I think we are going to take a recess shortly. I just wanted to thank everybody on both sides for their statements. To sum it up from my perspective, you have a situation here that, frankly, I am very glad we are confronting because there are lots of people who say: Oh, this is no big deal, it is just a little pipeline, and we have so many pipelines. Senator Thune said: Oh, it is so much safer to transport this oil by pipeline than other ways. Just try telling that to the people of Marshall, MI. There was a spill in 2010 in the Kalamazoo River. They are still trying to clean it up. It is not the pipeline that is the issue, folks, it is the dirty tar sands oil that is so much more dangerous, has more heavy metals, and more carcinogens. It is a problem. By virtue of its weight, it sinks to the bottom, and they cannot clean it up. I can't believe the statement was made about how safe this is. We have seen stories that there are problems with the welding in the existing pipeline. We might want to speak to the people in Mayflower, AR. Do my colleagues know that Exxon had to buy back the homes because they couldn't be lived in anymore because this stuff spilled and contaminated an entire neighborhood? So I call this the extra lethal pipeline. The pipeline itself is benign. It is what is going through it and what it will unleash in terms of 45 percent more carbon over time and 45 percent more tar sands than we would otherwise have, so we figure that everything gets increased by that amount. There is going to be more carbon, there is going to be more sulfur, more mercury, more lead. This is important today. I am so glad we are having this debate. My colleagues say we never allowed a vote. There was a lot of boxing around in the boxing ring on that one. We tried. I don't mind having a vote on this. I have never minded having a vote on this. I think it is an important debate. People disagree. It is OK. We should air it out. But the bill before us would stop a process that is in place that is very important, not because it is a ``process'' but because 2 million people wrote comments about the Keystone Pipeline. We should not say to them: Your voices don't matter; we are going to truncate the process; I don't care what you said. We already know there is a court case. This bill would approve the EIS. Even if Nebraska moves the route to another route, guess what: This bill that is pending here--the Hoeven-Landrieu bill--would already say the new EIS is approved. That is wrong. So only 35 permanent jobs. Most of this oil is exported. Economists say the price of gas in the domestic market will go up. And we compare it to embracing a clean energy agenda while we still develop oil where it is safe and sound, and we still develop all of the above when it is safe and sound. But if we embrace clean energy, I have to tell my colleagues, the jobs will dwarf the 35 permanent jobs for sure that this pipeline brings us. In California we are so excited with what is happening. And we don't want to look like the people in China where they walk around in masks, and we don't want to have little girls and boys with those inhalers because they can't breathe the air. This is real. This is about health. Yes, it is about jobs. Yes, it is about prices. And I find it really fascinating that a few years ago when this all came up, what did we say? We said, Oh, this pipeline will make us energy independent. Now we know that we are going to allow this oil to go right through the middle of our country. Misery follows the tar sands: spills. We have already had spills. We know what happens when there is a spill. And what do we get at the end? The oil goes to the rest of the world. Our friends say, oh, it is still good. It is good for prices. No, it isn't good for prices. Economists have told us it is not good for gas prices, and it doesn't help us become energy independent. It imperils our planet with large amounts of carbon going into the air. It imperils our families with pollutants that are very carcinogenic and very dangerous. So I hope we will let the process continue. I don't know what happens today. I know the handwriting is on the wall. I know it is on this one. But when we see the country we love going down a route that makes sense, following a procedure that makes sense, letting court cases resolve themselves, letting the people's comments be looked at, making sure we know exactly what we are doing, and we see that process shortcut by legislation and people who, by the way--and I am talking about my Republican friends: Oh, we are not scientists. We don't know if there is climate change. That is right, they are not scientists and they don't know, so they should listen to 98 percent of the scientists who are telling us that the Keystone is a dangerous move for this planet, because it is going to allow this oil that is far more carbon intensive. I am a humble person. I am not a scientist; I do listen to them. I have to say to go blindly down this path is a huge mistake. Yet, that is what we are facing, and it is fine with me that we are facing it. We will stand and we will debate until there is nothing more to be said. We are probably getting to that place right now, so I will stop and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Before the Senator from Iowa leaves the floor, I thank him not only for his heartfelt remarks, because what we are doing here--we are here a short period of time in essence, whether we are here 6 years or 26 or 36 or even longer. How long has the Senator been here?

Mrs. BOXER. Forty years. When we look at the universe, we are here a very short time. He always thought about our kids and grandkids because that is what our job is. We are so fortunate that we had a life in America that gave us the opportunity with policies that kept us healthy enough to do our work. The tar sands are the dirtiest kind of oil there is. My friend makes that point. We need to protect the health of our families and the health of the planet, as my friend pointed out. I just want to say to him how much I think it means to all Americans, the leadership the Senator has shown his entire career and the passion he is still showing today.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you so much. I see that Senator Murkowski is here. We will reserve the balance of our time.

Mrs. BOXER. I am going to yield Senator Sanders 10 minutes. I heard ``clean energy.'' Just for the record, let's be clear. The tar sands oil is one of the dirtiest known on the planet. Heavy metals--we went through it chapter and verse. The hardest to clean up-- it is a nightmare. So if my friend wants clean energy, she should vote no. With that I yield 10 minutes to Senator Sanders.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield without losing his time?

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the time I use in this colloquy be taken off the time I have left.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to the Senator, your point is so well taken. I just want the Senator to know that this morning I said that the CEO of Keystone commented that there will be only 35 permanent jobs with the pipeline. I stand corrected. I went back and looked: 50 jobs--50 jobs. The reason I want to take a minute to engage in this colloquy is that my friend has been, I think, one of the strongest and most effective voices for job creation and building a middle class that we have in the Senate. I was just looking at the numbers and wanted to go through a couple of things without my friend losing any time. In 2012 the U.S. installation of solar panels grew at a rate of 27 percent. I know my friend is trying desperately--and we work together on a lot of issues-- to get us to put more of these solar panels on. In 2013 the solar industry employed 142,000 Americans in good-paying jobs. In 2013 the U.S. solar industry added 24,000. So just looking at solar--and wind is another great story. At the end of 2013 the U.S. wind industry supported 560 manufacturing facilities and supported 50,500 full-time jobs in development, siting, construction, transportation and manufacturing, operation and services--direct jobs. When we look at putting 50,500 full-time jobs, 142,000 jobs from solar, and you compare it to 50 full-time jobs, I think the Senator was so right to make the jobs argument what the Senator is making of it. It is not 50 jobs to do something that is going to make life better for our people. It endangers the planet, and it has these terrible pollutants which cause respiratory illness, cancer, and the rest. But I just wanted to thank the Senator for bringing up the issue of jobs because it is the biggest phony-baloney argument when you have the CEO of the company itself--of the pipeline--admit that it is 50 full- time jobs permanently. I think we have to shatter this illusion and continue to talk about clean energy future and really good jobs. I yield to my friend.

Mrs. BOXER. I am so pleased the Senator made the point. Today we had Senator Thune make an eloquent statement about jobs-- eloquent--and I thought he was going to change his position on minimum wage. How about that. Try raising a family on that. These wind tax credits and these solar tax credits, this is creating a boom. I will say in my State, as in yours, I put something in the Record today, we have bounced back from this recession better than almost any State because of clean energy. It is such a win/win. But our friends on the other side, when it is something the oil companies want--oh, they are out there, oh, yes, yes, jobs. But we know this is 50 jobs. This is the CEO of this pipeline company admitting that is it, 50 jobs. So it is not about the jobs, it is about their view of energy, which is the old way, which is the going backward. This was not embracing the clean energy future so that we can, in fact, create many more jobs and keep the planet clean.

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