window of opportunity to prevent really, really serious problems. and i would hope that my colleagues would support that provision. and, lastly, and what logically follows from the previous four positions, is the following: and that is that it is imperative that the united states transforms its energy system away from fossil fuels and toward energy efficiency and sustainable energy as rapidly as possible. that doesn't mean you close down yoaferl-burning plant in america tomorrow. but it does mean that we move away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy as rapidly as possible. so i think in terms of this bill, we have already made some good progress. i would look for bipartisan support tomorrow so that the senate goes on record in supporting the overwhelming

percentage of scientists who are in agreement with what this amendment says. and with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: mr. president, at this point i ask unanimous consent to call up amendment 80 which i have discussed previously today and which is at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from louisiana, mr. vitter, proposes an amendment numbered 80. mr. vitter: mr. president i ask that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: and mr. president, i ask that the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk. the presiding officer: the amendment is so modified. mr. vitter: thank you mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president i rise to set aside and ask consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up my amendment number 72 to protect private property from unjust seizure by a foreign corporation. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk

will report. the clerk: the senator from new jersey, mr. menendez proposes amendment number 72 to amendment number 2. mr. menendez: mr. president i ask waiver of the reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. menendez: mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: this is a very simple amendment. it prohibits trans-canada from using eminent domain proceedings to seize private property in order to build the keystone x.l. pipeline. as we all know, eminent domain is the power of a governmental entity to take private property and convert it to public use subject to reasonable compensation. now traditionally property could only be seized for public use such as a public park or a public road, but increasingly the exercise of eminent domain has been used for private gain.

many including some of my most conservative friends on the other side, are outraged by the idea that eminent domain proceedings could be used to seize private property for private gain. president bush issued an executive order restricting the use of eminent domain by the federal government to -- quote -- "the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interests of private parties." the senior senator from texas introduced the protection from homes, small businesses and private property act of 2005 which would have prohibited the use of eminent domain by federal, state or local government entities for private economic development. now i have been working very closely with senator cantwell on this amendment and we agree

with our conservative colleagues that using eminent domain proceedings for private gain is outrageous. here on the issue of keystone, a foreign-owned company is using eminent domain to seize private property so it can better export canadian oil. the project is not in the public interest but it is clearly in the special interest. now, i do not begrudge the fact that a canadian company wants its subsidiary to build this pipeline so it can export foreign oil to distant shores through american infrastructure. they want to make a profit, and i understand that. but i do not think we should allow our sovereignty to be compromised in order to do it. right now the u.s. federal government is trying to build a

ferry terminal in canada to serve alaska, but canadians are protecting their sovereignty and objecting to u.s. steel and other u.s. content from being the sole source for the ferry terminal. i disagree with canada on that point, but i understand that they want to protect their sovereignty. so similarly we need to protect american sovereignty and american landowners from a canadian-owned company who wants to seize our private lands for private gain and force americans to take a risk of canadian pollution. now over the weekend we saw landowners along the route of the keystone x.l. pipeline are seeing a pipeline spill on the yellowstone river in montana. it's happening now. and if you were to see pictures of it, you would see that the efforts to clean up the spill are being hindered by a sheet of

ice. who knows what damage is being done by 50,000 gallons of oil in this river. we might not know until spring. landowners are wondering if their family farm will be the victim of a similar spill wondering if property that has been in their family for generations can still be farmland passed on to the next generation. one landowner who has seen firsthand what can happen when a pipeline is put on your property is laurie collins. in october of 2012, laurie collins walked outside her home to find that construction workers for a trans-canada contractor trying to clear the way for the southern leg of the keystone pipeline. they had dug up the lines to her septic system, completely destroying it. when she asked the workers to

repair the damage, they did not. instead they piled dirt over the damage and clogged the system. the result was raw sewage flooding back into the collins home staining walls and carpets, leaving black mold throughout their house and leaving laurie collins with seeferg respiratory problems. the collins family were eventually forced to move out of their home. while they were able to get a settlement after suing trans-canada the family says they can never repair the damage to their lives. jim tarnack a farmer in nebraska has heard of trans-canada's track record and fears that he might have to suffer similar damage or worse face an oil spill. trans-canada wants to put the pipeline right through his front yard on his property that has been in his family for over 100

years. mr. tarnack's farm sits near the ogallala acquifer that provides critical fresh water for farmers and ranchers in the heart of u.s. farm country. a pipeline spill like the one in the yellowstone river over the last few days could damage the acquifer and therefore jeopardize a resource relied on by nebraskan farms and ranchers. mr. tarnack feels that he will be served with papers invoking eminent domain on his property any day now. trans-canada is asking that he and other nebraskans trust that they will protect the ogallala acquifer and the livelihoods it supports. instead of forcing mr. tarnack to host the keystone pipeline against his will, let's instead let trans-canada work with landowners who are willing to take the risk and will be paid

what they feel is fair rather than what trans-canada's lawyers can convince a judge is fair. senator cantwell and i feel this amendment is one of simple fairness and should be a no-brainer. an easy amendment every senator can support. mr. president, in recent years republicans have insisted on similar language prohibiting the use of eminent domain when we establish national parks. if eminent domain cannot be used to establish a national park in the public interest to conserve our national treasures and preserve america's beauty for future generations then surely it should not be used to benefit private interests. in this case, in the interest of a foreign-owned oil company seeking to ship its product around the world. i call on my colleagues to be

consistent stand on principle and logic protect landowners and support my amendment to protect private property from seizure by foreign corporations, preserve our sovereignty and preserve the rights of u.s. citizens along the way. with that, mr. president i yield the floor. and i observe the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized in morning business for such time as -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. inhofe: dispense with the quorum call. i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized as if in morning business for such time as i shall consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president first of all let me kind of address what happened today because i think it's

significant. i know a lot of people are a little bit confused over what did happen and it was somewhat of a surprise. we have, i think as the president knows, i have been kind of leading the opposition of this whole idea of cap and trade originated way back in 2001. and since that time we voted on it many, many times. and i always will remember back in those days, mr. president that most people believed that manmade gases were contributing to global warming and that the world was going to come to an end because of man-made gases and co2 emissions. and at that time, real early on i was on the environment and public works committee. i think at that time i was not chairman but i was chairman of one of the subcommittees and i thought it must be true sshes everybody says it. time went by and we got a report the first one came from

the wharton school where they talked about the fact that if we were to pass cap and trade -- at that time there were two bills that were up before the united states senate. it was not in the house. just in the senate. those bills would have been cape and trade types of bills. they calculated what would this cost if we in the united states passed cap and trade. this was way back in 2002-2003. they said the range of the cost to the american people would be between $300,000 -- $300 billion and $400 billion a year. i do something i don't think very many people do this, but i always do it. every time i hear a large number, i go back and get the latest figures from my state of oklahoma as to how many families file a federal tax return. then i do the math to determine how much it's going to cost my average family who pays taxes. it came back in excess of $3,000

a year. and i thought that is a lot of money. let's be sure that there is science behind this idea knowing that it all came from the number of u.n. that's what started this whole thing. by the way this ipcc is intergovernmental panel on climate change. that's what -- and that's the united nations. so that's where it all started. you might remember that was during the clinton-gore administration when al gore went down to south america and came back with this idea, they had the kyoto treaty and we're all going to sign it and if we don't do this, the world will come to an end and we'll all die because of man-made gases. we started to look at it to see if the science was there because the only science we heard from was the united nations science which was ipcc. we started getting phone calls from scientists all over the country. put that chart up there on the scientists. i came down to the floor -- this was a long time ago -- and i started naming scientists calling in and groups of scientists. we got up to 100 and then up to

1,000 and then 4,000. this is all in my web site even though it is a long time ago. you look at all these renowned scientists, all of them -- here's one. richard lindzen is with m.i.t. richard lindzen is one who is considered by a lot of people to be the foremost authority on this and he's the one who came out adamantly and said science is not there, it is not settled. so several others started calling in. he in fact, i will quote him if i have it here, what richard linsen actually said at that time. he said -- he said -- "controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. if you control carbon, you control life." this is what bureaucrats would like to do, you understand that, i'd say to the chair because he has served in the other house is new here in the senate. linsen also said, talking about al gore. al gore at that time was vice

president of the united states. he was the run that was really -- one that was really pushing this. he says to treat all change as something to fear is bad enough. to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. of course, what he was talking about, richard linsen, m.i.t., was the fact that al gore at that time, they speculated he would be the first environmental billionaire. that was speculated in "the new york times." anyway after that happened, all the other scientists started checking in. these are scientists that cannotting challenged, these individuals. we have hundreds more that -- i have a make on each one of these that i would be glad to discuss or debate with anyone, but at the same time other things were happening. one of the universities here in virginia commissioned a poll to be done of all of the weather testers of -- on -- weathercasters on tv. they came back that 63% of the weathercasters said that any global warming that occurs is a result of natural variation and

not human activities. so when i hear people -- and i know -- i have good friends on the other side that really believe this, and i think that, you know, sometimes you have to open it up and realize there is another side to this story so when they say that 97% 98% of the scientists agree that just isn't true. and we have the names and the things that have actually been said. i think one thing that people are going to have to remember -- let me first of all say what happened today because i know that they have been told that i would explain what happened today. my good friend, senator whitehouse had an amendment. the amendment was one sentence. it says that global warming -- i'm sorry. climate change is real and -- and -- and it is not a hoax. well, there is a rule against talking about your own votes on the senate floor so i can't do that but that hoax came from a totally different

interpretation. the hoax was the idea that this is happening, climate change, but it's due to man made gases. in other words man is causing that. so what i said on the senate floor today i said how arrogant is it for people to say that man can do something about changing climate. climate has always changed. and i quoted this morning. i said it's changed. go back and read the -- the -- look at the archaeological findings. they talk about climate from the beginning of time has changed and changed both ways. they talk about -- and the scripture is talking about it. and so this is something that everyone has agreed and no one would debate that it has always happened. the debate is whether man is causing that to happen, so here we have a chart that shows the -- do you remember the hockey stick? the hockey stick was the concept that one of the guys with the ipcc came out and he said that it's like a hockey stick. we had this weather going like

this for a long period of time, then all of a sudden it shot up and it resembled a hockey stick. what they forgot was to put these two things in the hockey stick where it's supposed to be level. one is the medieval warming period that is between about 1000 and 1500 a.d. we're talking about recently. and then that went into the little ice age. well those were kind of left off the chart. so we have looked back, everything you look at talks about how many years in the past we have had this change that's taken place in climate. i will go and do this from memory but there are in addition to these major changes like you're seeing on this chart which is a chart that no one -- this actually is ipcc's chart so no one is going to argue with that because they are the ones that dreamed up this whole idea. that's an intergovernmental panel on climate change. but within that, i can remember when i first heard the terms global warming or -- and ice age, it was when they went back and they started tracing not

long-term trends in climate change in weather but short term starting in 1895, from 1895 to 1918, they had what they referred to as a -- a cooling spell, another -- possibly another little ice age. then in 1918, it started getting warm again so from 1918-1945 was a little warming period, and so that took place kind of every 30 years. then in 1995, from that period until 1975 for 30 years it again went into a cooling period. here mr. president is the key. no one will argue with the fact that 1945 was the year that we had the maximum increase surge in co2 emissions and that precipitated not a warming period but a cooling period. then of course 1975 came along -- where are those charts that showed in 1974, "time"

magazine or one of those. yeah. here it is. this is "time" magazine. this is the front. they said is another ice age coming, this is 1974. this is making the case. everybody believed it. they talked about global warming before that and then another ice age, but we're all going to die one way or another. now put up the other chart which is also "time" magazine, and this is when they said oh, no, there is the last polar bear and all the ice, we have another global warming period. both of them "time" magazine, both of them 30 years apart. this is what has been happening for a long period of time. so recognizing this, we had illegal little experience and getting back -- so i made a determination that i would not only support the white house amendment since it was just one sentence and it said that climate is changing and it's not a hoax. i could clarify that, maybe become a cosponsor to his

amendment. so i did that on the floor just a few minutes ago. and i said on the floor that, yes, it is changing, no question about that, but the hoax, the hoax is that there are people who are so arrogant that they think they have the power to change climate. now, that's the hoax. not the fact that climate is changing. so that is what has been happening. and when some of the scientists came out and they started changing back and forth and all of a sudden people realize this whole thing was cooked up by the united nations ipcc was part of that group then they found out that some of the -- the scientists that were behind this were -- it was discovered that they had some emails that were sent out saying and proving conclusively that they were cooking the science that these scientists were lying that they were -- and one of the things that was -- was discovered, came out was an email from one of these scientists to another.

it was 1999, and it read, and i'm quoting now -- "i have just completed mike's nature trick adding in the real temperatures to each of the series for the last 20 years." in other words they were cooking the science at that time. this thing was such a scandal that throughout the world -- we didn't hear nearly as much in the united states but we did throughout the world. the "u.k. telegraph," that's maybe the largest communication in the u.k. they said it's the worst scientific scandal of our generation. what they're talking about the scientific scandal, is that they are trying to make it sound like man is responsible for all these things. the financial times came out they said the closed mindedness of these supposed men of science is surprising even to me. the stink of an intellectual corruption is overpowering. one of the ipcc physicists said that climategate was a fraud on a scale i've never seen before. and this went on and on.

we could quote "newsweek," "the guardian" and all the rest of them. it was known worldwide as a scandal. what was the scam? they had a bunch of scientists saying we're going to have to pass something like cap-and-trade because man is causing the world to come to an end. so that is really what that was all about. now, we're going to have the debate and we want to do that. i chair the committee called the environment and public works committee. i did not -- i chaired it eight years ago. then when the democrats got control of the senate. now i'm back in that position. so we'll have a chance to have hearings. and, mr. president weerg going to have hearings with prominent scientists to come in and talk about this thing because all they say now is oh, the scientists is settled. the science is not settled. that's the reason my good friend senator wyden i know is wanting to make some remarks but that's the reason that i made that statement today. and i think that we will have that very healthy debate, but

let's keep in mind what the president was suggesting last night it would cost the american people $479 billion a year and that would constitute the largest tax increase in the history of america and that's one of his legacies that he is trying during the last part of his presidency that he announced last night that he is going to put as a top priority. so we'll be there to be the truth squad in that and make sure that my kids and grandkids and i have got 20 of those are not going to be encumbered with the largest tax increase in the world, particularly when their own taylor said if you pass it, it will not reduce co2 emissions. with that, i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president i ask unanimous consent to call up and make pending wyden amendment number 27 to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to clarify that products derived from tar

sands are crude oil for purposes of the federal excise tax on petroleum. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oregon mr. wyden for himself and others, proposes an amendment numbered 27. at the appropriate place insert the following -- mr. wyden: mr. president i would ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president this amendment closes a tax loophole that currently places canadian tar sands oil ahead of the american taxpayer. while oil produced here in the united states in places like north dakota and texas pays into a cleanup fund for oil spills, tar sands does not. mr. president, the bottom line

here is simple. this means that when canadian tar sands oil is spilled on american soil, the american taxpayer pays up. in effect, it's possible to state what this is all about in straightforward english. right now our tax code is so out of date that it says that oil from the tar sands isn't actually oil. put your arms around that for a second. in effect, the tax code is in this time warp and under the current policy the judgment that undergirds the position that concerns me essentially has made a judgment that oil from the tar sands in fact isn't actually oil

at all. now, all other crude oil product refiners have to pay an eight-cent-per-barrel tax to support the oil spill liability trust fund that pays for cleaning up the spills. this in effect puts our own domestic producers at a competitive disadvantage. i see my colleague from colorado who cares greatly about these issues and i'm saying to myself in colorado or texas or north dakota in effect the policy that we have today on tax law -- and i'm the ranking democrat on the senate finance committee and as i looked at it, the first thing that came to mind is we have a tax policy here that actually, without the amendment

i offer with my senate finance colleagues and senator markey and others without it, we are putting domestic american producers, whether it's colorado or north dakota or texas we're putting them at a competitive disadvantage. while they willingly contribute to clean up the oil spills, those domestic producers their canadian competitors in the tar sands of north of edmonton simply do not. this just, mr. president defies common sense. there is no other way to put it. oil from the tar sands is just as likely to spill as other kinds of oil. unfortunately, you don't have to look much beyond today's headlines to get a sense of what an oil spill actually means for communities across our country. this past weekend an oil

pipeline ruptured in montana pouring about 50,000 gallons of oil into the yellowstone river five miles upstream from the city of glendive. now local residents are reporting that their water smells like diesel fuel. officials tested the water in glendive and found oil in the drinking water and along with it elevated levels of benzene a cancer-causing agent. so that's what's under consideration with this amendment making sure that the parties responsible no matter where they are from all of those parties would pay their fair share when they put our citizens' health and safety at risk. the discrepancy the double standard the standard that is much more exacting of our domestic producers than it is of

the canadian tar sands producers, ought to be fixed. tar sands oil producers ought to pay in to the same fund as other oil producers to clean up the spills. because, make no mistake about it mr. president, at the end of the day without this amendment that closes the tar sands loophole canadian tar sands oil will keep getting a free ride. the last point i want to mention, mr. president in effect is just to put this issue in context. before, in the last congress, i chaired the senate finance committee i had the honor of chairing the senate energy and natural resources committee. and at session after session of the energy and natural resources committee proponents of the pipeline said we've got to have

this to lower gas prices. if we're really going to lower gas prices, said the proponents -- and this was at session after session after session -- got to build the pipeline. well we all have seen that prices have fallen dramatically. to a great extent it's due to exciting developments in the bakkens and others. we're now essentially the saudi arabia of oil production. and this is good news. the this is a real tax cut for working-class families across the country. so one of the judgments that i reached in making the decision to oppose the pipeline is i really didn't think it made much sense to tamper with something that was such a promising development as real rate relief at the pump. and a fair number of experts -- there's a difference of opinion -- but a fair number of experts are concerned that the pipeline if it's actually built

built, could actually raise prices particularly for vulnerable parts of the country. the midwest would be one but certainly there would be others. so i've had reservations about this from a variety of standpoints. the standpoint that obviously tar sands is very carbon dense from the standpoint of prices, but i'm particularly concerned tonight about something that is as inequitable as the tar sands loophole where the canadians get a free ride at the expense of communities all across the nation. my amendment would close this flagrant abuse close this loophole help us put our tax priorities in order and protect american citizens and american communities rather than giving an undeserved advantage to

foreign oil. i urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment to reform the internal revenue code of 1986 to clarify that those products derived from tar sands are crude oil for purposes of the federal excise tax on petroleum. i hope that this amendment will generate bipartisan support. no matter how a senator feels with respect to the pipeline, i don't see how you can make the case that you shouldn't correct something that defies commonsense. before the president of the senate came in, i made mention of the fact that right now the absence of the amendment that i offer puts at disadvantage, a serious disadvantage, all of america's domestic producers who did an awful lot to make it possible for americans to get relief at the pump. that doesn't make any sense.

so i hope my colleagues tomorrow will support this amendment on a bipartisan basis to close a flagrant tax loophole to end what amounts to an inequity that hurts at a minimum our producers but puts at risk our communities needlessly. and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah is recognized. mr. lee: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate is in a quorum call. mr. lee: oh. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments and call up my amendment number 71. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from utah mr. lee proposes an amendment numbered 771. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent

to suspend further reading of the amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lee: mr. president on a different matter, i rise today to pay tribute to becky lockhart former speaker of the utah house of representatives who tragically passed away on january 17 after a brief battle with a rare and devastating disease. becky lockhart was the first woman to serve as speaker of the house in the state of utah and she did so in a truly extraordinary manner. she established a pattern of leadership that will be a model and a guide for wise legislative leaders in our state and across this great nation for many, many years to come. i affectionately and admiringly referred to speaker lockhart as "the iron lady of utah." as she possessed so many of the qualities of the original iron lady margaret thatcher. grounded in conservative

principles passionate about policy and committed to federalism and local control she knew where she stood and she stood firm every single time. she followed the admonition of another great leader in american politics abraham lincoln who said, "i will stand with anybody that stands right stands with him while he's right and part with him when he goes wrong." professionally trained as a nurse speaker lockhart also understood the softer, yet equally important gifts of compassion and concern, as well as listening and laughter. even in the most heated discussions, she could change a room with the flash of her charismatic smile a wink and a grin or even some well-worded sarcasm to provide a little bit of leavitt.

combining her nurse's intuition and strong leadership made her the perfect combination of satin and steel. she could and would and did stand up to any political or business bureaucracy forcefully correct a colleague rebuke an inaccurate report, and challenge small-minded ideas. and thinkers. less reported was her impact and influence as a mentor to new members of the utah house of representatives. her work in helping more women become involved in the political process and how she gave voice to those who didn't have a strong voice of their own. above all speaker lockhart looked out for longed to be with cherished and loved her family. she knew that the work she did within the walls of her own home was the most important work she would or could ever do.

becky also recognized that family is the bulwark of society and the strength of our nation. more than the ink of good press or the accolades of others, speaker lockhart knew that her most important legacy would not be recorded in history books it would not be recorded in the utah state code that has so many of her words written on it. no, it would be written in the hearts of her family and her friends. i've been lifted by becky lockhart's leadership, inspired by her insight and her integrity, encouraged by her commitment to the u.s. constitution and her love of country and most blessed to call her my friend. speaker becky lockhart, "the iron lady of utah," will, indeed, be heralded for her satin and steel leadership in the utah house of representatives. she will, indeed, be remembered

for all that she did but more significantly she will hold a special place in countless hearts because of who she was. mr. president, i pay tribute to this special person this amazing leader and this beloved friend whose loss we mourn this very week and who some members of this body were privileged to know. it's my honor to do so. thank you mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico is recognized. mr. udall: thank you mr. president. and let me just say to my cousin cousin, my heart goes out to you and my condolences are there on what you've talked about here

today and really appreciate you coming down and talking so sincerely about things. at -- at another place in the record with consent to do that let me talk a little bit about -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: -- yeah, talk a little bit about this evening amendment number 77 that i've filed, mr. president. this is -- this is an amendment i've filed to the bill that is pending with us now on the -- what i would call the oil sands pipeline. and it's been called a jobs bill i know on the other side, but you know, the reality is there are good construction jobs here but as soon as the pipeline's built, the permanent jobs are really very small. and what we need to do, my belief in terms of energy, is

work to wear there are largers numbers of jobs. -- larger numbers of jobs. and i don't know whether people know this or not but the energy that is being added to the system now both worldwide and in the united states is renewable energy. sometimes it's wind. sometimes it's solar. to a lesser extent, biofuels and biomass and things like that. but the renewable sector is growing and the new energy is growing. and some of this is rather dramatic in terms of the numbers and the size. and that's the direction clearly we need to head because we want to in the future be lessening our carbon footprint. there's absolutely no idea -- no dispute that we need to be moving in that direction. that's where all the scientists are. we're even seeing today in the

amendments that we had on the floor our friends across the aisle agreeing that we've got a real problem with climate change and that human beings are causing this and we need to -- we need to address this. and so i applaud them stepping forward and saying that. how do you do this? how do you encourage more of the renewable forms of energy? and -- and let me say before i get into that my hope is to have a discussion with the two senators on our side that are leading the debate here, senator boxer and senator cantwell, about offering this amendment and getting in line in the next tranche on the amendment. but how do you -- how do you get moving in the direction of more renewable energy? well we already know. we've got a very, very good pattern here. we have started in the states

and started in the district of columbia. more than half our states in the united states of america have adopted what have been called renewable electricity standards. new mexico has one. we have 15% by 2015. some of our bigger states have been more aggressive, states like california and new york are really pushing the envelope. they are saying that by about 2025 we're going to have 30% or close to 30% renewable energy. and so really what they're doing, by putting a standard in place, is they're saying to their power companies in their state, this is important to do. we know that it's cost-effective. and go out and develop your portfolio so that you put more renewable energy in that. and the remarkable thing looking around the country is

how many states have done that. we've seen 29 states, i believe including the district of columbia for a number of years now -- a number of years now -- that have put a renewable electricity standard in place. and so that's something that we know is working at state level. and, in fact, my senator from new mexico, who retired just a couple of years ago senator bingaman one of the things that he did is go out to stanford and study all of these renewable electricity standards that were in place and came up with ideas on the best practices and the things where there were disadvantages. and he's actually published a report with a bunch of other researchers. and so there's a good wealth of knowledge about what's working and what isn't working. but the major thing that is working is when you encourage a

marketplace in renewable energy, you don't necessarily call out the winners and losers. i know that's something that on beth sides of the aisle we object to -- on both sides of the aisle we object to. what you're doing is saying, let's try to move towards renewables, let's put a goal out thrrgs andthere, and then let's let the marketplace work on that. let's see innovation, let's move forward down that road. so we've seen these 29 states do it and the district of columbia. and so my proposal in this amendment -- and it is one i've worked on -- this has a good history. one of the things that we know is when senator bingaman was here and was head of the energy and natural resources committee he was able to pass through the united states senate three times over his career there as chairman a renewable electricity standard out of the senate.

so three times it passed out of the senate. when i was in the house of representatives from 1998 to 2008 me and my cousin mark udall work on a renewable electricity standard in the house and for the first time we were able to get a bill through the house of representatives. so our big challenge was, we were never able to match up the house bill and the senate bill and put in place something that a president can sign and have a national standard. and so that's where we are today. we've had good support for this and really what this amendment would do is set up a national marketplace. and many states across the nation in many every state has renewable energy. if you go into the south it may be more biomass than it is solar. if you go into the west and

midwest, it may be more wind than solar. and it depends on the location. but the thipg thing that's clear from all the experts that have looked at this is that it is easy to really focus on when you have a goal and you say -- in the case of this amendment by 2025, let's get 25% of our energy from renewable sources. so if you have a goal like that, you can get there. and so i'm urging everybody to take a look at this amendment to see what it is that we should be doing. i mean, if we're talking about moving down the road with this proposal that we have before us where we're scavenging in a way for the dirtiest forms of energy these tar sands, which are much dirty as the environmental impact statements says -- not only are they

dirtier by about 17% but when you tear down all those forests which are taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, you are putting yourself in a position where you're headed down the wrong road in terms of easing our carbon footprint. so i would ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, take a locket a look at this amendment of i want to visit with the leaders on the floor about aabout this and see if we can't get it in line in terms of being considered. so, with that, i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. udall: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. and then i ask that my -- the presiding officer:. mr. udall: thank you.

and my full statement be put in the record as if spoken p. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. murkowski: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska is recognized. ms. murkowski: mr. president request the proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you mr. president. on behalf of senator blunt i ask unanimous consent to call up amendment number 78 which is at the desk. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from alaska ms. murkowski for mr. blunt and mr. inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered 78. at the appropriate place -- ms. murkowski: i ask further reading of the amendment be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you mr. president. mr. president, we are wrapped up here for the evening insofar as amendments. i just want to thank colleagues for the discussion that we have had today the opportunity to bring forward some issues that clearly generate their own level

of passion and emotion and again, the chance to -- to bring forth issues that we have been waiting for some period of time to have before us. and, while some may suggest that these are hard and these are hard votes to take, nobody ever said that voting should be easy here in the united states senate. the issues that come before us are issues that the nation considers and that we as their representatives should take seriously, and so sometimes there are hard votes and we will argue and debate over the wording and critically and that is appropriate. so again looking forward to tomorrow we've got an opportunity to have now eight

amendments that will be pending tomorrow morning tomorrow afternoon, and i look forward to -- to continued discussion and a new day. with that, mr. president i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow january 22. i ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. i further ask the senate then be in a period of morning business for up to one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes, with the democrats controlling the first half and the republicans

controlling the final half, and that following morning business, the senate then resume consideration of s. 1. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: we were able to process several amendments to the keystone bill today and there are now seven more in the queue and pending. senators should expect votes related to amendments to this bill throughout the day tomorrow. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of senator whitehouse for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: senator whitehouse the chair apologizes. the senator from rhode island is recognized. trying to get rid of my old house habits. mr. whitehouse: you are very welcome. let me ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you mr. president. mr. president, this week marks a somewhat dark milestone, which is the five-year anniversary of the supreme court's in my view, reprehensible decision in citizens united vs. federal election commission. this was some feat of activism by the conservative bloc of the

supreme court. it overturned the laws of congress. it overturned the will of the american people, and it gave wildly outsized influence over our elections to corporations and big money interests creating what one newspaper in kentucky called a tsunami of slime. well five years on, the evidence is in. the evidence is in our elections where this dam burst of outside cash has wiped out previous campaign spending records and the evidence is in this chamber where we once had a thriving

bipartisan conversation on climate change. and instead of that, we have now been reduced to this keystone x.l. pipeline bill a show of force what the fossil fuel industry and virtual silence from the other side of the aisle on climate change. i will say that today marked an unusually bright spot in that darkness when 98 out of 99 senators voting voted that climate change was real and not a hoax and when we came so close to an amendment that stated that climate change was real and caused by human activity, that the sponsor of the amendment had to vote against his own amendment in order to keep the

number under 60 because there were enough votes at one stage in the vote count for that bill to have passed even the filibuster threshold. so that made it an interesting day today but normally we are in blockade. the purpose of the effort that we have been on has been to fast track the keystone x.l. pipeline a tar sands pipeline that may at this present oil price be an economic zombie basically dead pipeline walking. canadian authorities say that the tar sands can't be extracted profitably under $85 per barrel. the report from the state department said that the break price where you could take it out by train as an alternative to the pipeline was at $75 per

barrel and the price today is around $50 per barrel. so we really don't know whether this pipeline actually has an economic future. what we do know is that if it were to operate it would pass enough tar sands through it to unleash additional carbon pollution equal to six million added cars on the road each year for 50 years. if you take a look at this conversation here, other than the votes that we forced today the affect of climate change on our politics is pretty plain to see. i'm sorry the affect of citizens united on our politics is pretty plain to see. citizens united has not expanded debate in the senate. it has crushed debate in the senate. why?

because since the supreme court's decision in citizens united the big fossil fuel polluters and their network of associated interests have become among the biggest spenders relying heavily by the way on undisclosed untraceable dark money. according to the center for american progress oil gas and coal companies and electric utilities alone reported spending more than $84 million on the 2014 elections and that's just what they reported. the industry's undisclosed spending in that election through groups that are not required to disclose their donors or on so-called issue ads that don't need to be disclosed.

the total is estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. well, money talks and in politics it talks plenty loud, and a hundred million dollars has a lot to say. one example americans for prosperity, a koch brothers venture, disclosed election spending of $6.4 million to the f.e.c. for last year's midterm elections. but that group's own officials have boasted that the real number is as much as $130 million. $130 million in just one election by just one group. it is that kind of extravagant spending that has bought the koch brothers a fast -- bought

the koch brothers a vast political network with employees in visitor states, with databases tied into our consumer data, with advertising and media buying specialists. indeed, that sophisticated koch brothers electioneering capacity has now been reported in the general media to rival or exceed that of the republican national committee. think about that. a few very wealthy individuals in the fossil fuel business -- huge polluters -- are now such big players in our politics that they rival our national parties. small wonder that it's hard to have an honest conversation about carbon pollution in the senate. and most of it is hidden. "the washington post" has

reported that at least 31% of all independent spending in the 2014 elections which were, by the way the most expensive midterm elections in american history 31% of that was spent by groups that are not required to disclose their donors. and "the washington post" also noted that this 31% doesn't even include those issue ads. they're also not disclosed. so we don't know fully how bad the influence of the fossil fuel polluters is but we sure know it's bad. interesting, that same supreme court that decided citizens united as a part of that decision decided by a margin of 8-1 that disclosure of outside spending was necessary and

appropriate. the majority said this. i'll quote the decision. "prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable." yet these intervening five years have seen a concerted effort to prevent and frustrate disclosure disclosure. dark-money spending by so-called independent groups with no disclosure requirements has more than doubled since 2010. ludicrous fact finding by the court's five conservative activists concluded that corporate spending could not ever corrupt elections. it's laughable on its face. but that laughable conclusion also overlooks a very clear fact

fact. limitless, untraceable political money doesn't even have to be spent to corrupt our democracy. it can corrupt through the threat of spending. or through the promise of spending. what citizens united gave corporations and their political instruments the power to do it also gave them the power to threaten or promise to do. and we in the public will never see those backroom corporate threats and promises or the deals that result. the candidate will know. the special interest will know. but the public will be the ones left in the dark. now, some lobby groups are a

little boulder -- a little bolder. the koch-backed americans for prosperity openly has promised to wipe out candidates who support curbs on carbon pollution. the group's president said "if republicans support a carbon tax or climate regulations they'd" -- and a quote -- "be at a severe disadvantage in the republican nomination process. we would absolutely make that a crucial issue." the threat is plain. step out of line and here come the attack ads and the primary challengers -- all funded by the deep pockets of the fossil fuel industry enabled by citizens united and largely protected from disclosure. so it's the public that can't see what's going on.

mr. president, the effect of citizens united has been particularly clear in the senate. there once was an active heartbeat of republican activity on climate change. senator mccain ran for president on an active, robust program of addressing climate change. senator collins did a bipartisan bill on climate change. senator kirk voted in the house for the waxman-markey cap and trade bill. senator flake wrote articles supporting a carbon fee as long as the taxes were reduced elsewhere to offset the increased revenue from the carbon fee. and on and on. my first exposure to this was the warner-lieberman bill and the warner was a republican senator, john warner. well that's been awhile. since 2010 the year that citizens united was decided

this honest debate about how we address this problem for the benefits of the american people has flatlined. now, since 2010, the climate evidence has only become stronger. nasa and noaa just officially declared 2014 the hottest year ever recorded. ever. easily breaking the previous records the agency said. but as the climate alarm bells grow louder, as the he earth sends her signals to us through our scientists, through their measurements about what is happening to the oceans, measuring the acidification in our oceans, about what's happening in our atmosphere, measuring the carbon concentrations in the atmosphere atmosphere, as all that information has advanced, there has been this silence in this

building since then. instead of talking about what carbon pollution is doing to our atmosphere and oceans, instead number one the first agenda of the new majority we're talking about letting polluters pump mortar sands crude -- one of the most toxic fossil fuels on the planet -- out on to the global market. citizens united did not enhance speech in our democracy. instead it allowed wealthy special interests to suppress and silence real debate. so i have filed an amendment to the keystone bill to see what corporate influence purveys this effort. my amendment would affect any company that stands to make over $1 million from the development of the pipeline, or from the development of the tar sands to disclose its campaign spending

over $10,000 from the last election cycle and going forward. the public needs to be able to connect the dots. and i'm also reintroducing the general disclosure act called the disclose act to require all groups spending on elections to report their large expenditures and their high-dollar donors. the supreme court has said we can't keep corporate interests from meddling in our popular elections. they are people too now. so now that the corporations are people too let's at least show the voters who it is who's trying to sway their votes. it's a pretty simple idea. it's what the supreme court justices themselves proscribed and it's an idea that republicans over and over and

over have supported in the past. the fact we must face here in the senate is that polluter money has polluted our democracy democracy. just as their carbon pollution has polluted our atmosphere and oceans. so it's time to disclose. and on climate change where we've got an overwhelming scientific consensus where we've got the american people majorities of democrats and republicans supporting strong congressional action on climate where we've got american businesses, small and large that see the folly of ignoring the looming risk, and where we've got the national security community, our armed forces actively preparing to face the threat climate change poses to american safety and international stability.

and here, by the way just as an example is the department of the army's high-level climate change vulnerability assessment. i don't think they're kidding us. i don't think they're part of a hoax. mr. president, i thank you for your patience this evening and i'll conclude with the remarks i ordinarily conclude these speeches with -- it is time to wake up. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. and any

others in the queue. now, mr. president last night the american people heard two mr. present last night the american people heard two very different addresses. one was focused on the middle class and how washington can work together in a serious way for better jobs, higher wages and more opportunity.

it was a call for constructive cooperation. it was a call for new ideas. so i want to commend senator arce for her thoughtful address. she understands the needs of working people in a way those in washington simply don't understand. she knows the middle class is looking for washington to function and again hard-working americans want us to focus on their needs instead of the demands of the powerful special interests. that's just what they told us in november when they sent this new republican congress here on their behalf. now hoping for something similar for president obama. not identical of course we don't agree on all the issues. that's clear enough that there are enough areas of common ground where we should be able to work together.

would have been most constructive if he puts the focus of his address on those areas of potential agreement. the moment of high purpose calls for the leader of the free world to show america what could be accomplished through constructive bipartisan engagement. the state of the union can be about more than veto or strident partnership. this kind of partisanship is what we have become accustomed to from the president. we know the president may not be wild about the people's choice of congress but he owes it to the american people to find a serious way to work for the representatives that they elected. on some issues like cybersecurity he sent a positive sign. he also began with an effort to

move his own party forward to encourage them to work with us to help create more jobs by breaking down foreign trade barriers and allowing america to sell more -- those were the good signs. but that was only part of the speech. there was not a lot of serious lawmakers that can deal with talking points designed specifically about the past. members of both parties would have welcomed serious ideas about how to strengthen medicare and how to protect social security forces future generations and how to balance the budget without tax hikes. we listen closely for specific details on how he would work with both parties to achieve comprehensive tax simplification of focus is not a man growing the government but creating jobs. the president has expressed some support for ideas like this previously.

he should've expanded on it last night. there still time for him to do it but whatever he chooses the new congress will continue working to send good ideas to his desk. one of those good ideas is a bipartisan infrastructure project the senate will resume working on today. the keystone jobs bill. it's heartening to see real debate on an amendment process on the floor of the senate again. it's the result of a new spirit of reform that is being brought to congress. it gives members of both parties a stake in positive solution so we can get washington functioning again on behalf of our people. we are looking to the president to join us in a middle-class. that's what the american people voted for last summer. it's what senator arce articulated so well and if the

president is willing to put the veto threats away and that designed to fail talking points aside we can still cooperate to get some smart things done for the people we represent. >> mr. president. last night the president talked about the economy and the progress that we have made. the united states grew 2.6% last year and in the third quarter our economy grew by 5%. nearly 3 million jobs were created. best year for the u.s. labor market since the height of the economic boom under president bill clinton. lower gasoline prices provided a lead to many families consumer confidence is up. the deficit has been cut in half. yes we know that while the economy is growing and unemployment is declining sadly

much of the benefits going to those at the very top of the ladder. the top 1% of american wage earners saw 49% decline in incomes during a recession but they have seen 95% of the income since the recovery started they let me repeat that. the top 1% of wage earners have seen 95% of the dash since our economy has recovered. the gap between wages for low and middle-income families and those at the top is staggering. 47 people in america on more than 160 million americans combined. that has to change. it isn't just democratic -- even republicans have publicly agreed with us that working families are falling behind by former florida governor jeb bush

potential candidate for president is this is what he said. he is the reality. if you are fortunate enough to count yourself among the privileged much of the rest of the nation is drowning said jeb bush. former republican candidate for president perhaps the republican candidate for president again. here's what he said last week. as he has rekindled his dream for the presidency and i quote the rich have gotten richer said said. income inequality has gotten worse and they are more people poverty than ever before end of quote. even speaker john boehner said in an interview the top% of americans are doing pretty well. the bottom two-thirds are really being squeezed." so how do we address these changes? are parties look at it differently. the republican majority in this

chamber had to pick the first bill that they would bring to the floor of the senate once they reach the majority. there were a lot of things they could've considered. do you know what they chose? the keystone xl pipeline. a pipeline owned by a canadian company the number one priority of the republicans in the united states senate bar none. when they wanted to respond to the president's state of the union address was senator ernst of iowa they focused on the keystone xl pipeline. what a limited vision of the future. one pipeline and then we took two votes yesterday on this pipeline and started to become clear what this pipeline is all about. it's moving canadian tar stand -- tar sands from canada to the united states to a refinery in texas and we learned

yesterday the republicans will not even support the proposition that the refined oil products come out of these refineries will help america. we had a simple amendment. senator markey of massachusetts offered it and said at the end of a pipeline to the refineries oil products would be sold in america. the republicans defeated that so while this argument that how this oil out of this pipeline is going to help our economy in the future no, don't expect it to happen. in yesterday's vote overwhelming republican votes made it clear. there was a second part that was considered yesterday. this bill the number one priority of the senate republican majority is going to build a pipeline and we said good if it's going to be built using american steel in building the pipeline. not an outrageous suggestion.

if this is such a priority for the republicans wouldn't they want to put americans to work to make this deal to build the pipeline? that was an amendment yesterday. senator franken offered it. republicans rejected it. the republicans rejected the premise that the steel for the most important pipeline in the history of america from their point of view should actually come from america. that's the 2nd amendment we considered. but this special-interest project, the keystone xl canadian owned pipeline is going to continue to be the number one dominant issue in the united states senate for days to come. republicans planned to do everything they can to help build the pipeline but they denied want to deny millions of americans access to health care. that's what the house republicans came up with. they want to come up with a plan

that will literally take away the coverage of health care from americans. is there anyone in this country that thinks that's the right thing for future? we are trying to reduce the number of uninsured. the republicans say the affordable care act would increase the number of uninsured and increase the number of americans dependent on government sponsored health care. it doesn't sound like a republican idea to me but it is. that's what's coming from the house of representatives. to clear difference in how to help working families. for the senate republicans build the canadian pipeline. don't use american steel. don't keep the oil in america but built this pipeline number one party. the house republicans take away health insurance coverage for hundreds of thousands of americans at a time when we know it leaves you with a curious position. here's what the president said last night. we want to make certain we focus on projects and programs and new

ideas which leave our children a better world and their grandchildren as well. do we want an economy where everyone has an opportunity to climb the economic ladder or where folks born into the lives of lecture he set the rules and eyes cannot have? we want an economy for those who work hard and play by the rules or an economy where -- rick became so it's tails you lose heads i win. it's becoming harder and harder for families to reach the middle class. working families are looking for handouts a handout in my state. they just want a chance for a better life for their kids. now there's a way can do this. it's called in -- or earned income tax credit. this is an idea supported by republican presidents of the past. historically both parties have supported it.

the earned income tax credit provides a tax cut to working family. senator sherrod brown and i have introduced would expand the credit to help the only group our tax group pushes them to poverty childless workers. what the differences would make for millions of working families. the difference between paying a heating deal -- bill and getting a prescription filled. a small refundable tax credit for these workers can make a bigger difference than every united states senator whatever relates to the present also propose making two years at trinity college froeba responsible students in getting motivated students a path to a solid educational foundation without debt. this is not a democratic idea. the president acknowledged last night that this idea came from a

republican governor in tennessee. i might add the democratic mayor of chicago had a similar program but the president went to tennessee to acknowledge that the republican legislature and the republican governor had come up with a good idea. so to argue this is somehow a partisan idea it sure isn't in tennessee. if it is it's a republican partisan idea. in the 20th century may be k-12 was just enough to make it in the 21st century it's not enough. k. through 14 most of us understand is the ticket to a good paying job. i called in a meeting from illinois and they said this community college free tuition idea that another federal mandate. let me disabuse you of this idea. this is voluntary. it's optional. states decided they want to be part of it but i think the states the want to be part of free community college tuition

for good achieving hard-working students are on the right track. those who ignore me fall behind. the jobs of this century will require more training and education than ever. i think this notion is a good one. have you ever gone wrong in the history of united states by investing in education, investing in our students and investing in our future? that is what the president's proposal does. it's been dismissed by republicans even though it had republican origin. that's a mistake. we should count on our community college is the affordable alternative for higher education for 40% of american college students and thank goodness it steers these kids away from these godforsaken for-profit colleges and universities which too often exploit these young people, these young men and women who think them in debt and if they are lucky hand them a

diploma at the end of the day. community college is an affordable ticketing kentucky illinois and across america. the president acknowledged last night that we live in a great country and our economies were covering that while the wealthiest americans -- more american families are spending hours in the kitchen table trying to figure out how to make ends meet. let's help those families. let's agree to help those families. one canadian owned pipeline is not the answer. we need to think about education education. went to think about federal transportation bill's family to think about investing in america's future. mr. present i would like to ask the next part of my statement be placed in a separate part of the record. >> without objection. >> in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks in france is difficult to understand what the house of representatives is thinking. last week the u.s. house of representatives threatened to shut down the department of homeland security.

that's the agency responsible for protecting america from the threat of terrorism. why are we debating full funding for the department of homeland security. every other government agency i might add has been properly funded through the omnibus bill that the republicans have insisted on not funding the department of homeland security which fights terrorism and the orderly appropriations process. they are insisting this department be funded only through the end of february. does that mean that america is safe from terrorism? i wish it were true. we know that we are only one terrorist away from a terrible incident in america. the department, one of the department with a major responsibility of protecting us is the, security so why did the republicans decide that they wanted to make the funding of this department uncertain and

contingent? well the reason was they were so angry with president obama's executive order on immigration that they are putting america at risk by failing to properly fund the department of homeland security. then last week the bill that the house passed made the appropriations for this department contingent on five writers. a writer is an addition. his language that doesn't relate to the budget appropriation and relates to the executive orders that were established by the president. the house bill passed last week would be fun person obama's immigration policy including a the deferred action for childhood arrivals program known as daca which has been in place for over two years. what does daca do? by the presence executive order

presence executive order puts put some hold the deportation of immigrant students who grew up in america. it allows the send people to continue to live and work in this country on a temporary basis. they are known in shorthand as the dreamers. i know you have heard about this because introduced the first traymack 14 years ago in united states senate. it has become a very -- term but when i first started no one had ever heard of it. there were young people brought to the united states by their parents at a young age who had obviously no voice in the decision raised in america undocumented winter our schools and were successful had no criminal problems and wanted a future. they couldn't get a future under american law. the d.r.e.a.m. act would give them that opportunity for legal status. we have word invest in these young people in education so why would we want to give up on

their talents by deporting them after they are educated? well that's exactly what the u.s. house of representatives has proposed. in 2010 i joined with republican senator richard lugar. we wrote a letter to president obama. said why would we deport these young dreamers like they offer so much potential for america. a year later 22 senators join me in sending a follow-up letter to the president and he issued his executive order called daca. mr. president 600,000, 600,000 eligible dreamers have signed up for daca which means for the 600,000 they can work in america without fear deportation. it makes a big difference. 30,000 -- we estimate there's another 1.5 million eligible. the center for american process process -- progress is these young people are just taking up space. it led to the big economy

because of their talents. they estimate these dreamers will add $329 billion to our economy and create 1.4 billion new jobs by 2030. that's a pretty tall production production -- prediction. let me tell you the story of one of the dreamers whom the house republicans would deport and you may understand why this estimate of a profound import and impact of these dreamers on our economy is realistic. as i mentioned i introduced the traymack 14 years ago. i came to the floor were 50 times to tell the stories of these dreamers who frankly take the case for passing the traymack and for defeating this hate filled provision was passed by the u.s. house. they continue to update the stories about these dreamers so you can understand why giving up

on these dreamers is giving up on the future of this country didn't want to tell you the story of carlos martinez. here's a picture of him. carlos is holding his daca card under the presence executive order. carlos and his brother brought united states in 1991. carlos was nine years old. he came to this country and didn't speak one word of english and his father told him. [speaking spanish] what it means in english, study so you don't have to struggle in life like i have. carlos took his father's advice to heart. in high school in tucson arizona carlos graduated ninth in his glass. then he enrolled at the university of arizona. he was on document at the time. he never owned a computer but he loved math and am developing a computer engineer.

four years later in 2003 carlos martinez graduated with a bachelors of science degree in computer engineering and a minor in computer science or electrical engineering and math. he was one of the top is denigrated since class. mr. present rhetoric or carlos martinez didn't rely on 1 penny of federal system to go to college and you can imagine in arizona but he made it through graduating as the top hispanic in his glass at the university of arizona. but as he graduated reality set in. he received job offers from ibm and a host of companies but then they found out he was undocumented. he couldn't be hired. he didn't give up. he enrolled in the masters program for software systems engineering at the university of arizona. he completed a 2.5 year program in a year and a half. carlos martinez was nominated

the centennial were given to the school's top graduate student. carlos martinez submitted his application for daca when president obama created this opportunity in august of 2012. the first day the forms were available he was in line. he was one of the first to be approved redisent as he received about vacation that he had been approved under the executive order carlos martinez went to a career fair at the university of arizona and handed out his resumes to ibm intel and other high-tech companies. today carlos martinez is working for ibm. out of more than 10,000 applicants for the job that he fills he was one of only 75 that were hired. is america a better place to have a kind of educated individual working with good

ideas, creating new products, expanding employment opportunities? of course it is. so now the u.s. house of representatives has decided the best thing for the future of america is to deport carlos martinez. deport carlos martinez and deport those other young students who hold such potential for this country. that's the house republican approach immigration. deport carlos martinez. there are so many other dreamers in this country with the same talented determination is carlos carlos. i want the american people to understand the human cost of the proposal that has been sent to us by the house of representatives under republican control. the house republicans want to and daca. hundreds of thousands of people like carlos martinez protected by daca would be deported. 1.5 million eligible to apply would never have the chance. it is shameless shameless to play politics with the lives of

these young people who grew up in america and want to be part of our future. and it's so short-sighted. will america be stronger if carlos martinez's gun? the house republicans say yes. after all of this investment k-12 a bachelor's degree at the university of arizona the top graduate student in his masters program at the same university the house republicans say deport carlos martinez. they feel so strongly about this they are willing to hold up the appropriation for the department of homeland security the agency responsible for protecting our nation. let me be clear, democrats are not going to be swayed by this blackmail. we will insist the department department of homeland security be funded properly funded to protect america and to do it now. this president has made it clear

that he is ready to sign that bill. the sooner the better. let's not assume america has somehow been immunized or inoculated and can never be threatened again by terrorists but properly from the department of homeland security and -- the shameless agenda sent us by the house republicans. there are movies riders and give carlos martinez and thousands just like him a chance to be part of america's future. >> thank you mr. prison. >> mr. present less that the president delivered his avian address. the acting minority leader talk about homeland security budgeting for homeland security. i know mr. president for your service to our nation overseas wearing the uniform and keeping us safe and keeping us free you have concerns as do i but what we have heard. it's interesting to hear the commentary after the president's speech as we talk about securing the homeland and what it means for the american public.

andrew -- andrea mitchell "msnbc" last night that i think about foreign policy his projection of success against terrorism and against isis in particular is not close to reality. the president of the united states not close to reality. mr. president i have just come back from a trip to the middle east saudi arabia qatar israel and i concur with andrea mitchell that on the specifics of the president's assessment of success against terrorism and against isis this president does not close to reality. so republicans are going to continue to bring forth the issues to the american people about reality is like and the world in spite of the way the president may address it because of the specific failures of this

president and his foreign policy. it's interesting mr. present last night in the state of the union the president started by saying the state of the union is strong and mr. president the state of our union is strong but president obama mistakenly took credit for that string. he implied it was because of his policies because it's been his actions. on that point this president could not have gotten it so wrong. the state of our union is strong because of the strength of the american people. americans are resilient. americans are hard-working and in the november elections the american people showed they can act decisively. you know it's interesting mr. president this morning's headlines "new york times" staunchly liberal wish list brushes off gop's gains. headline "new york times" bright and bold above the fold stones live liberal wish list of

brushes off gop's gains. so we are a resilient nation. people know what they believe. they know how they feel. they voted those beliefs and when the american people chose republicans to lead both houses of congress they said clearly they want a change, and a change from barack obama, a change from the direction he has been taking this country. people want democrats to start working with republicans to get things done. the american people have said in november elections they are tired of gridlock and tired of dysfunction tired of democrats running the senate to protect their own jobs and not caring about the jobs of the middle-class americans. president obama had a great opportunity last night an opportunity to show that he understands what americans have been telling him. instead he went out and he gave the same speech that he always

gives. it was a partisan attack on republicans and the americans who voted to put the republicans in charge of the house and in the senate. it's interesting listening to the commentary. wolf blitzer on "cnn" said that the member state in the union address where he heard a president issue so many veto threats to the opposite party in the united states congress. so andrea mitchell "msnbc" saying in terms of foreign policy the president's views are not close to reality as "cnn" wolf blitzer i don't member a state of union address where of heard a president issue summative veto threats to the opposite party united states congress especially at a time as "the new york times" points out gop gains in elections. the president simply is ignoring what has happened across this