Floor Statements

Mr. President, I join the majority leader in congratulating the Washington Nats in winning the Eastern Division of the National League. It is a pretty exciting development and has a lot of Nevada connections.

Mr. President, it is no secret that the Obama administration policies have been extraordinarily harmful to job creation and retention. From the perspective of my home State of Kentucky, there is no greater example of the ill-effects of these policies than the President's war on coal.

Given the unhealthy economy, the Senate should be regularly debating and voting on measures to overturn antijobs policies and pass bipartisan reforms to help grow our economy. But under the current majority, that, sadly, is not the case. The majority leader instead has refused to permit any amendments on preserving coal and coal-fired power all year long--none whatsoever; no votes at all--even though the Obama administration's anticoal rules not only adversely affect States with Republican Senators, such as Kentucky, but States represented by Democratic Members as well.

The Senate's failure to address coal is reflective of the Chamber's dysfunction. While the House is passing bipartisan jobs bills, Senate Democrats' priorities are show votes.

Let's review where we are and how we got here.

In 2008 Candidate Obama said:

If somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can--

it's just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going

to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's

being emitted.

I have to say he has been true to his word. Americans have seen a barrage of regulations and redtape from the President's Environmental Protection Agency, strangling the coal industry--one of my home State's most important sources of jobs and economic development. Kentucky miners and thousands more from the Commonwealth whose jobs rely on mining are feeling the pain from the President's efforts.

The regulations and lack of certainty in the coal industry that this administration has caused have contributed to a loss of 7,000 Kentucky jobs in that industry since President Obama took office--7,000 lost jobs. That tells me the overregulation this administration's EPA keeps piling on is contributing in a major way to the job decline in my home State.

Those of us who represent coal States have made numerous attempts to rein in EPA, but the majority leader and fellow Democrats here in Washington have blocked us at every turn.

Last September I introduced the Saving Coal Jobs Act. The bill would have ended the abuse of the permitting process by the EPA by requiring the Agency to approve or veto mining permit applications within 270 days of their submission. It was simply a time limit to make a decision. This legislation is necessary because the EPA's tactic of choice is to sit on permits, effectively killing them. My bill also included language prohibiting any new carbon emission standards on new or existing powerplants as mandated by Federal agencies without the approval of Congress. After all, Congress, not the executive branch, is supposed to write our Nation's laws.

Unfortunately, what happened when I introduced this legislation is something that has become all-too familiar. When I made a motion to proceed to the bill, it was blocked by the majority leader.

In April I offered my Saving Coal Jobs Act as an amendment to the then-pending unemployment insurance bill before the Senate. This motion was blocked by the majority leader as well.

In May I again offered the Saving Coal Jobs Act as an amendment to the then-pending energy efficiency bill. Once again it was blocked by the Senate majority leader.

A few days later in May I offered legislation to stop the EPA from moving forward with its anti-coal jobs carbon regulations. My amendment, introduced along with Senators Vitter and Hoeven, would have halted the administration from moving forward with new regulations on coal-fired powerplants until the technology required to comply with the regulations is commercially viable, which currently it is not. Once again this commonsense measure on behalf of Kentucky coal miners and their families and jobs was blocked by the majority leader, and that bill was originally sponsored by a colleague on the other side of the aisle, on the Democratic side. It fared no better under the majority leader than do Republican procoal bills.

Moreover, the majority leader is not just blocking procoal legislation on the Senate floor, he is also willing to shut down the committee process for fear of procoal amendments having the votes to pass. In June, he had the Senate Democrats prevent the Energy and Water Appropriations bill from being marked up when they learned I had the votes for my amendment reining in government regulations on coal-fired powerplants. So once it was clear the votes might be there in committee, they shut down the committee process.

Earlier this year, the President's EPA announced new regulations it wanted to enact on existing powerplants that would be a dagger to the heart of my State's middle class and constitute the single worst blow to Kentucky's economy in modern times. The proposed EPA regulations on existing powerplants would kill jobs and raise utility rates across the State while making the transmission of electricity less reliable. The regulations would adversely affect Kentucky powerplants that account for literally thousands of Kentucky jobs.

These regulations are why this June I introduced the Coal Country Protection Act--legislation to block the President's proposed regulations on carbon emissions from existing powerplants if those regulations eliminate jobs, cost our economy dollars, increase electricity prices or jeopardize electricity reliability.

Those requirements are just common sense. Yet once again the majority leader refused to allow a vote on my legislation.

The importance of my Coal Country Protection Act is reflected in the findings of a recent Government Accountability Office, or GAO, study. My colleague Senator Murkowski from Alaska requested this study which found that as a result of EPA's existing and proposed regulations, the number of coal-fired powerplants closing across the country is even higher--even higher--than what was originally estimated by the GAO in 2012.

These coal plant retirements are largely due to EPA redtape. Current

proposed regulations, from carbon regulations to proposed lower ozone standards, will only make this number increase if they move forward.

These shutdowns mean higher electricity prices. Sadly, EPA bureaucrats don't understand or don't care about how the abundance of coal in Kentucky permits the State to benefit from relatively low energy rates which make our businesses more competitive and make it easier to attract jobs. As we saw during last winter's cold snap, our country needs coal and ready access to it. Coal allows us to generate affordable power when there is an uptick in electricity use combined with spikes in natural gas prices. But as the EPA uses the administrative fiat to terminate existing and future coal-fired powerplants, there will be less coal when we need it the most--when we need a source of affordable power. Families throughout the country who rely on coal for electricity could find themselves in a tough spot in the near future with the current administration in office.

Those are the facts about this administration's war on coal, but let me provide a more vivid picture about Kentucky coal itself.

Kentuckians have been mining coal for generations. Kentucky coal helped power the Industrial Revolution that transformed our economy into the largest and most prosperous in the world. Kentucky coal has even contributed to the struggle to defend our Nation in times of war. Kentucky's coal miners have done so much for our Nation. The Senate should not be turning its back on them now.

Jimmy Rose of Pineville, KY, is well known to many as the voice of coal country. Jimmy is a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps who served in Iraq, a former coal miner, and a finalist from the television show ``America's Got Talent.'' He is famous for his song ``Coal Keeps the Lights On.'' I think Jimmy put it best when he said, ``Coal keeps the bills paid, the clothes on the backs, and shoes on the feet.''

I am not going to stand idly by while this administration and this EPA try to wipe out the lifeblood of my home State. The Senate was created to be a deliberative body, one that would debate and legislate on the great issues of the day. Instead, the Senate, as it is currently run, does all it can to avoid important subjects such as the war on coal.

It doesn't have to be that way. The Senate can still reclaim its mantle as a body of vigorous debate and legislative achievement, and the Kentucky coal miner can still do an honest day's hard work for good pay, because after this administration is out of office, the coal will still be in the ground. After this administration leaves office, the coal will still be in the ground.

So I am going to fight for that Kentucky coal miner to hold on to our State's birthright. This war on coal is not over, not by a long shot.

On another matter, I just explained why the war on coal has been so damaging to the people of my State. It is clear to me at least that we need to work together toward sensible, all-of-the- above energy policy. The good news is that the Republican-run House is set to present us with another perfect opportunity to work across the aisle and do just that this very week. The House plans to pass and send over a bipartisan legislative package that would create jobs while helping to make energy more affordable and more abundant.

Among other things, this energy package would finally approve the Keystone Pipeline. This is a project that is safe, shovel-ready, and could create tens of thousands of jobs right away. It is just unacceptable that the administration has now spent 6 years--6 years-- dragging its feet on the Keystone Pipeline. I commend my colleague from North Dakota Senator Hoeven for bringing attention to that fact and for his strong vocal leadership on this issue. While some on the other side of the aisle claim to be supportive of Keystone jobs, they have failed to stand up to the majority leader who has blocked this effort time and time and time again on behalf of the Obama administration. We need to approve the House legislative package and finally get this pipeline built and these Keystone jobs created.

But the House's energy package would do a lot more than just that. It would also modernize the permitting process, allow for more energy exploration, increase exports of American energy, and it would help us fight back against the Obama administration's war on Kentucky coal jobs in several different ways.

One bill would prevent the administration from developing more job- killing coal regulations and another from Representative Whitfield would push back on the coal regulations that have already been issued.

This package is common sense. I applaud our colleagues in the House for their efforts on this issue. It presents a perfect opportunity for our Democratic friends, if they are willing to support it, to prove they are serious about real solutions for middle-class families--that they have a real agenda beyond just designed-to-fail bills.

This morning I wish to share with my colleagues the story of a brave Kentucky airman who loved his country so much he defended it at the cost of his life.

U.S. Air Force SSgt Daniel N. Fannin, of Morehead, KY, was killed in the crash of his reconnaissance plane near Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan on April 27, 2013. It was just a few weeks after his 30th birthday.

For his service in uniform, Staff Sergeant Fannin received several medals, awards, and declarations, including the National Defense Service Ribbon, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Air Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the Air Force Commendation Medal with one oak leaf cluster, the Air Force Achievement Medal with one oak leaf cluster, and the Bronze Star.

Daniel's mother Sharri Jones recalls this of her son:

Daniel flew on this Earth as an airman. His faith has

earned him angel wings now. He died serving others, serving

his country, and serving God. This mother is blessed.

Daniel grew up in Morehead and attended Rowan County Senior High School, from which he graduated in 2001. He enlisted in the Air Force shortly after graduation and at the time of his death was a 12-year veteran.

Daniel's mother Sharri remembers:

I frequently told Daniel he was my hero. Benjamin Disraeli

said, ``The legacy of heroes is the memory of a great name

and the inheritance of a great example.''

These words epitomize my son. His name will be remembered,

and his works are indeed great examples. He was then, and

will forever be, my hero.

Daniel's mother Sharri continues:

I used to tell Daniel that it didn't matter what he did as

a career in life, but I expected him to be the best that he

could be, no matter if he was a ditch digger or a CEO. He did

me proud by doing just that. He was the best man that he

could possibly be.

As Daniel grew up, he had to learn how to do chores such as laundry, cleaning, and cooking. Sharri's mother said:

Like all kids do, he complained constantly, and sometimes

it was a battle getting him to do those things. I was

fortunate enough to get to attend his Air Force basic

training graduation ceremony in San Antonio. During liberty,

he took me aside and said: ``Mom, I want to thank you.'' I

said: ``What for, son?'' He said: ``For making me do all of

those things you made me do, like laundry. It sure made

things a lot easier for me here. Some of these guys didn't

even know how to turn a washer on!''

Daniel was an avid reader from his early childhood. ``The hardest form of punishment for him was not to allow him to read,'' says his mother Sharri. Daniel's wife Sonya Fannin certainly agreed. ``He could read a 400-page book in a day or less,'' she says.

Daniel met Sonya while stationed in Oklahoma City. Sonya says:

One of my favorite stories to tell was that on our first

date he went to the flower shop to pick a bouquet. He spent

hours in the shop, he said, before finally picking two dozen

white roses. When he presented them at the door, Danny didn't

know that those were my favorite flowers, but that was the

moment I knew.

Daniel loved to go camping, hiking, biking, and fishing. He loved the outdoors. On his and Sonya's 5-year anniversary trip to Maui, Danny's favorite activity was a submarine ride 170 feet below sea level. He liked to say he had been to the depths of the ocean and flown to the highest heights after that trip.

Daniel was assigned to the Air Force's 552nd Operations Support Squadron at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City. He was an airborne sensor operator and a qualified Air Force air surveillance instructor who served with distinction at Tinker Air Force Base.

In his dozen years of service, Daniel deployed on three tours as an E-3 AWACS, or airborne warning and control system, aircraft surveillance technician. He was also an MC-12 sensor operator. While in Afghanistan, Daniel was assigned to the 361st Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron as a member of the 451st Air Expeditionary Wing at Kandahar Air Base.

His mother said:

After his death, multiple superior officers have told me

how respected he was, how well Daniel performed his duties,

and that he was exceptional at mentoring young airmen

personally as he was professionally. Daniel was a very devout

man. Many have said that he led them to Christ or reconnected

them with the Lord.

His wife Sonya agrees:

He was a Christian man of Christian values and morals. He

served God in all that he did.

Daniel also liked to laugh and joke with his family and friends. Sonya says:

He went by many nicknames; ``Dan the man,'' ``Fan Dannin,''

and my dad's favorite, ``Lieutenant Dan.'' My dad would

always ask, ``Lieutenant Dan, have you flown much lately?''

Danny would stick his arms out to each side and say he had

been flying as much as he could.

After Daniel's death, at a park located near Tinker Area Force Base, where he had been stationed, Daniel's legacy was honored with a replica E-3 AWACS aircraft dedicated in his honor in a ceremony in April of this year. Inscribed on the tail of the E-3 replica honoring Daniel are the words ``Service Before Self,'' one of the Air Force's core values those who knew Daniel knew he lived by.

Sonya Fannin was present for the dedication to her husband, and she spoke to the crowd of about 300. She said:

This memorializes Daniel's very essence, his giving spirit

in a way which those in the public can see. Memorializing

Danny here in the public park, a place in which our civilian

friends and family can visit and heal on their own time, is

truly special.

Daniel's family members and friends are foremost in our thoughts as I recount this story for my Senate colleagues today. They include his wife Sonya Fannin, his mother Sharri Jones, his grandparents Henry and Fern Hamm, and many other beloved family members and friends.

I would like to close with some words from Daniel's mother Sharri about her son. Here is what she said:

I know that there are many who continue to grieve deeply

over Daniel's passing. To them I would say, take the things

that Daniel shared with you, learn from them, and pass them

forward. Give others what he gave you. In that way, he will

live forever.

I couldn't agree more with such a heartfelt sentiment.

I would like the family of SSgt Daniel Fannin to know that Members of the Senate do indeed recognize the things Daniel gave to his country-- namely, his service, his life, and his sacred honor. We will be forever grateful.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Christian Appalachian Project, CAP, an organization that is celebrating 50 years of dedicated service to the people of Appalachia.

CAP was started by the Reverend Ralph Beiting in Eastern Kentucky. Reverend Beiting was a Catholic priest assigned to an area of Kentucky that had no Catholic church, and the organization grew out of his ability to help those in need without the organizational structure of an established church. In 1964, he started a summer camp for boys on Herrington Lake in Garrard County, thus launching the Christian Appalachian Project's now 50-year legacy.

Since that summer of 1964, CAP has grown into the Nation's 16th- largest human services charity. Among the services CAP provides are home repair and reconstruction, disaster relief, clothing drives, food relief, and--a sure sign that some things never change--summer camps.

CAP employs 160 people and has around 50 long-term volunteers. This is in addition to the host of volunteers that are drawn to community service projects like Grateful Bread, Grateful Threadz, and WorkFest.

CAP has touched the lives of thousands in Appalachia and is a model for how organizations can serve their communities. I therefore I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in honoring the Christian Appalachian Project.

Kentucky Living published an article in their September 2014 issue profiling the Christian Appalachian Project. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, 1 year ago today, just a few blocks from here, a lone gunman slipped into the Navy Yard and tragically took 12 lives. It was one of the deadliest such attacks on a U.S. military base in American history. We have not forgotten those who fell that day in Building 197, and all of us in the Senate send our condolences to their families and everyone who loved them. They are not forgotten.

The Economy

Mr. President, the Democrats who run Washington have had almost 6 years to fix the economy. They have already tried just about everything their ideology will allow to fix it. They raised taxes on everything from lifesaving medical devices to personal medical expenses. They have piled up record debt and shoveled billions in subsidies to the well connected, and they have empowered bureaucrats to cancel health care plans for the middle class, declared war on the jobs of vulnerable Kentucky families and--through EPA's Waters of the United States proposed rule--they are trying to regulate every last pond and ditch in our country. None of this has worked.

According to a recent Gallup survey, a solid majority of Americans believes the economy is actually getting worse, not better. Let's not forget that for several years the Democrats had supermajority control of Washington, could have passed anything they wanted, and all too often they did.

Since then, a Republican-led House of Representatives has tried to advance solutions on its own by passing dozens of jobs bills--many with strong bipartisan support over in the House. But the Democratic majority in the Senate simply refuses to take them up, and it is hard to understand why. It is hard to know if today's Washington Democratic Party is blinded by ideology or if they are so obsessed with the never- ending campaign that they cannot be bothered to govern.

Whatever the reason, the simple truth is this: Washington Democrats had a choice between helping the middle class and bowing to campaign pollsters and the left. It is obvious whom they chose.

The American people are worried about ISIL and the continuing threat of terrorism. They see a humanitarian crisis at the border. Many struggle every month to pay the bills. Millions still can't find work.

How do Democrats respond? They bring up a bill that would take an eraser to the First Amendment. So the hard left is clearly in the driver's seat on the other side. That is clear every time the Democratic majority ignores the concerns of our constituents to turn to yet another one of their so-called messaging bills, such as the recent one on eroding free speech, and it is truly a shame. That is not why the American people sent us.

It is long past time for Democrats to drop all the designed-to-fail bills and turn to serious job-creation ideas instead. There are literally dozens of House-passed jobs bills on the majority leader's desk. Why not pick up some of them and pass them. Let's get them to the President. Let's work together on a serious energy policy. Let's join hands to erase the strain on working moms and dads. Let's work toward sensible health care reform that doesn't hurt the middle class as ObamaCare does. Let's help college graduates find full-time work and start marching toward the careers they have always dreamed of. That is just a start.

If the Democratic Party is truly interested in getting serious, they should look at the many commonsense policy ideas advocated by Senators on my side of the aisle.

NLRB Reform

Mr. President, my friend the senior Senator from Tennessee has always been a strong advocate for smart reform policies. He will discuss another one of those in just a moment. It is a bill that would go a long way toward remedying a serious problem that has been caused by the politics-at-all-cost mentality I have just described.

Here is the issue: Everybody is familiar with the President's unconstitutional effort to pack the National Labor Relations Board with liberal partisans back in early 2012. Some people are also familiar with the NLRB's more recent effort to undermine secret ballots for union elections, allow labor bosses access to sensitive employee information without their consent, and prevent companies from building factories in States with laws the President's picks don't like.

The NLRB is trying to destroy the franchisee model that has allowed so many Americans to own and operate their own businesses. They want to take away independence from small business men and women--such as decisions on whom to hire, how much to pay them, and how to run their business--and put it in the hands of corporate bosses. The so-called joint employer standard is all about politics and appeasing the left.

Big Labor bosses want it because it helps them expand and acquire more dues at the cost of small business owners who employ so many Americans. This is simply not right. For many in the middle class franchising represents a ticket to the dream of opening their own business. For many it may be their only chance to live that dream.

This is how one single mom and second-generation franchisee put it:

To have my franchiser take over greater control of my daily

operations would not only change my relationship with them,

but it would ruin the dream of small business ownership for

many hardworking Americans.

This is what a hotel franchise in Lexington had to say:

My family came to the United States in search of the

American dream and we found it as hoteliers and franchisees.

The current franchise model has been instrumental in

providing my family and me with opportunities for

entrepreneurship and the ability to employ over 300

hardworking Kentuckians.

But this Kentuckian warned that this action by the NLRB could end his independence as a small business owner by ceding decisions to a far-off corporate headquarters. The NLRB action could have ``devastating impacts on my ability to create jobs, grow my businesses and support my community,'' he said.

Extreme, politically motivated proposals such as these hurt our constituents.

It is time to restore the balance to the National Labor Relations Board. Let's take the politics out of it. That is just what the legislation of my friend from Tennessee seeks to do. I will let him explain it, but here is the key: It would restore the NLRB to its proper role as an umpire instead of an advocate for the right or the left. It is the kind of thing our constituents want to see us doing-- standing up for reform and against entrenched political interests.

I am asking our Democratic friends to please shelve the designed-to- fail playbook and work with Republicans on a designed-to-succeed agenda instead. Six years of failure is quite enough.

Ebola Epidemic

Today President Obama will visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to announce new efforts to contain the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. The U.S. Africa Command will stand up a Joint Force Command in Monrovia, Liberia, to provide command and control of U.S. military activities and help coordinate international relief efforts. Current estimates are that 3,000 military personnel will establish an intermediate staging base for supplies and equipment, set up a training site to prepare 500 health care workers per week to provide medical care to patients, and stand up a

field Defense Department hospital to care for any of our health care workers who become ill. Also contributing to our national reaction to this epidemic is the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The CDC has deployed personnel to Africa, and the National Institute of Health is developing an investigational Ebola vaccine. CDC is also working with Customs and Border Patrol to identify travelers showing any signs of infectious disease.

I support these efforts to contain the Ebola epidemic and know we will monitor this humanitarian crisis in the weeks ahead.

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

Mr. President, yesterday I joined Congressional leaders in awarding three Congressional Gold Medals to the memory of thousands of men and women who perished so tragically on this very day 13 years ago. Every American that morning bore witness to the terrible tragedy and suffering. But that was not all we witnessed. We also saw incredible acts of bravery and compassion and heroism. We saw it in a great city. We saw it on the edge of the Capitol. We heard about it high above the clouds. The sacrifices of those heroes of 9/11 inspired us then and they inspire us now. The memory of every man and woman who perished so tragically that day continues to serve as a unifying force for our Nation. We will never stop honoring them.

Last month I got to spend a lot of time with the people of Kentucky, and since there has been no shortage of issues to keep people up at night over the past few months, I got a lot of straight talk on a lot of topics. I heard a lot about the crisis at the border, about lost health care plans, the chronic shortage of good jobs, stagnant wages, even Ebola, the spread of which is a threat that must be taken seriously.

Yet one issue that kept coming up is America's role in the world and the growing sense that some in Washington are more or less content to let others shape our destiny for us. For many that concern was crystallized when they witnessed the barbaric execution of an American citizen by an ISIL terrorist and the halting reaction to it by a President who has yet to find his footing when it comes to dealing with this group that clearly has the will, the means, and the sanctuary it needs to do more.

Last week the White House announced that the President plans to explain the nature of the threat ISIL poses in a speech to the American people tonight. Well, after spending a month talking with folks in Kentucky, it is pretty clear--to me, at least--that the American people fully appreciate the nature of this threat. After the beheadings of two American citizens, they don't want an explanation of what is happening, they want a plan. They want some Presidential leadership.

I hope the President lays out a credible plan to defeat ISIL. I hope he outlines the steps he intends to take beyond simply the defense of Baghdad, Erbil, Sinjar, and Amerli, and what legal authorities and resources he thinks are required to execute a successful campaign against ISIL. But the fact is the rise of ISIL is not an isolated failure. The spread of ISIL occurred in a particular context, and if we hope to defeat this threat, we need to come to terms with that now.

So before speaking with a little more specificity about ISIL and the ongoing threat of global terrorism, I would like to briefly restate my concerns about the consequences of the President's foreign policy, as I warned a few months ago, because ISIL's military advance across Syria and Iraq carries a much larger lesson--a lesson that should prompt the President to reconsider and revise his overall national security policy and better prepare the country and our military to confront the threats that will survive his time in office.

First, it is important to note a few of the consistent objectives that have always characterized this President's national security policy: drawing down our conventional and nuclear forces, withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, and placing a greater reliance upon international organizations and diplomacy.

As I have noted on other occasions, I have serious differences with the President over this approach. In my view, we have a duty as a superpower without imperialistic aims to help maintain international order and balance of

power, and that international order is maintained by American military might. Indeed, American military might is its backbone. But that is not a view this President seems to share.

The defining bookends to the President's approach were the Executive orders signed his first week in office which included the declaration that Guantanamo would be closed within a year without any plan on what to do with its detainees and the Executive orders that ended the CIA's detention and interrogation programs at the same time. In May of this year the President also announced that all of our combat forces would be withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of this term whether or not the Taliban is successful in capturing parts of Afghanistan, whether or not Al Qaeda's senior leadership has found a more permissive environment in the tribal areas of Pakistan, and whether or not Al Qaeda has been driven from Afghanistan.

All of this underscores something I have been suggesting for some time--that the President is a rather reluctant Commander in Chief-- because between those two bookends much has occurred to undermine our Nation's national security. Yet, tragically, the President has not adapted accordingly.

We have seen the failure to negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq that would have allowed for a residual military force and likely prevented the assault by the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant.

We have seen how the President's inability to see Russia and China as the dissatisfied regional powers they are, intent on increasing their spheres of influence, has exposed our own allies to new risk. The failed reset with Russia and the President's commitment to a world without nuclear weapons led him to hastily sign an arms treaty with Russia that did nothing to substantially reduce its nuclear stockpile or its tactical nuclear weapons. And, of course, Russia was undeterred in its assault upon Ukraine.

The President announced a strategic pivot to the Asia-Pacific without any real plan to fund it. This failure to invest in the kinds of naval, air, and Marine Corps forces we will need to maintain our dominance in this region in the years to come could have tragic consequences down the road.

Of course, we have all seen how eager the President was to declare an end to the war on terror, but as the President was focused on unwinding or reversing past policies through Executive order, the threat from Al Qaeda and affiliated groups only metastasized. Uprisings in north Africa and the broader Middle East resulted in additional ungoverned space in Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen. There were prison breaks in Iraq, Pakistan, and Libya, and the release of hundreds of prisoners in Egypt. Terrorists also escaped from prisons in Yemen--a country that is no more ready to detain the terrorists at Guantanamo today than they were back in 2009.

The President's response to all of this has been to draw down our conventional forces and capabilities and to deploy special operations forces in economy-of-force train-and-assist missions across the globe. Speaking at West Point in May, he pointed to a network of partnerships from South Asia to the Sahel to be funded by a $5 billion counterterror partnership fund for which Congress has yet to receive a viable plan. In those cases where indigenous forces prove insufficient and a need for direct action actually arises, the President announced his intent to resort to the use of armed, unmanned aerial vehicles for strikes, as has been done in Yemen and Somalia. By deploying special operations forces, the President hoped to manage the diffuse threat posed by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Boko Haram, terrorist networks inside of Libya that now threaten Egypt, the al-Nusrah front, the Taliban, ISIL, and other terrorist groups.

But as the nature of terrorist insurgencies has evolved, the President sees no need to reverse the harmful damage of the defense cuts he insisted upon, to rebuild our conventional and nuclear forces or to accept that leaving behind residual forces in Iraq and Afghanistan is an effective means by which to preserve the strategic gains we have made over the years through tremendous sacrifice.

The truth is that the threat of some of these al Qaeda affiliates, associated groups, or independent terrorist organizations has simply outpaced the President's economy-of-force concept. In some cases the host nation's military, which we have trained and equipped, has proven to be inadequate to defeat the insurgency in question, as is the case with AQAP, the Taliban, or ISIL. In some cases the insurgency does not affiliate itself with al Qaeda or builds upon territorial gains before aspiring to attack the U.S. homeland.

The growth, advance, and evolution of ISIL presents a turning point for the President. Will the fall of Anbar Province and the threat posed by ISIL to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey lead to a reconsideration of his entire national security policy, the kind I have alluded to here and elsewhere, or will the President confine himself within the bookends of shortsighted national security policies that were originally conceived on the campaign trail back in 2008?

If prior events or arguments left the President unpersuaded, the emergence and recent actions of ISIL should convince him that the time has come to revisit his prior assumptions and rethink his approach. ISIL is large and lethal, and its rapid growth has outpaced the capacity of either the Peshmerga, the Iraqi security forces, or the moderate Syrian opposition to contain it. Ominously, ISIL has developed expertise in small-unit infantry tactics, the use of insurgent tactics, and as a terrorist organization. As a result of oil sales, ransoms, bank robberies, and donations, it is also well funded.

We need a plan, and we need it now. The President has now declared that defeating ISIL is his objective, and that is a very good start. But Americans don't want a lecture, they want a plan--a credible, comprehensive plan to deal with this menace that clearly wants to harm us here at home and is only becoming stronger by the day.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dempsey has said that defeating ISIL will require military action within Syria, and the President has now declared that defeating ISIL is his objective. Tonight the President needs to set forth the military strategy and the means required to defeat ISIL and to link those actions to any additional authorization and appropriations he would like to see from Congress. If the President develops a regional strategy, builds a combat-effective military coalition, and explains how his strategy will lead to the defeat of ISIL, I believe he will have significant congressional support. This is no small matter. If Congress is asked to support a strategy, it needs to be a strategy that is designed to succeed and not a mere restatement of current policy which we know is insufficient to the task.

The President must seize this opportunity to lead. This is not the time to shirk or put off his solemn responsibilities as Commander in Chief because passing off this threat to his successor would not only be irresponsible, it would increase the threat ISIL poses to Americans by enabling it to secure its gains within Iraq and Syria. In my view, ISIL's campaign across Syria and Iraq presents the President with an opportunity. It is an opportunity to reconsider his failed national security policy.

The President and his advisers may have convinced themselves of their standard straw man argument that anyone who disagrees with this failed approach is bent on serial occupations or bent on invasions, but that is really a false choice, and it is certainly not a plan.

It is time to put the straw man aside and to realize the fight is not with his critics here at home, it is with ISIL. That is why this morning I am calling on the President to present us with a credible plan the American people have been waiting for, explain our military objectives, and rally public support for accomplishing them. That is what the Commander in Chief should be doing at a moment such as this.

If the threat from ISIL demands the commitment of American resources and the risk of American life, the President has a duty to explain that to the Nation and Congress this evening even if it doesn't conform with the tidy vision of world affairs he outlined as a candidate 6 years ago. If his strategy is little more than a restatement of the current policies, if all he plans to do is

manage this threat and pass it off to his successor, well, we need to know that too because Americans are worried and they are anxious. They want and deserve the truth. Most of all, they want a plan, and that is what I am hoping for tonight.

Mr. President, I rise to mourn the loss of a U.S. marine and a Kentuckian from the hometown of Abraham Lincoln. LCpl Matthias N. Hanson hailed from Lincoln's birthplace of Hodgenville, KY, and was killed on February 21, 2010, of wounds suffered as a result of conducting combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. He was 20 years old.

For his service in uniform, Lance Corporal Hanson received several awards, medals, and decorations, including the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Purple Heart.

``Matt's our hero because of how he lived,'' says the Reverend Norm Brock, who spoke at Matt's memorial service. ``Matt didn't miss life. He lived life.''

Service was a proud tradition in Matt's family. His father Lowell R. Hanson, Jr., served in the Army. One of Matt's brothers is currently Active Duty Army, while the other is in the Army Reserve. Matt himself was born in Germany on a military base. As Mary Huff, Matt's mom, puts it: Matt ``had to go rogue and join the Marines.''

Matt had a strong work ethic in high school says his father Lowell:

He used to get up at 4:00 in the morning to milk cows on a

nearby farm, then go to school, then onto football practice,

and back to work on the farm. Other people noticed and were

impressed by his work ethic, and I was proud of him. He was

determined that when he got old enough, he would join the

Marines and serve his country.

Growing up, Matt was known for his blue eyes and sneaky smile, and he had a way of talking himself out of anything.

He had an easygoing manner and a lust for life. ``He was quiet, a trickster and a charmer,'' says his mother. But ultimately, he was a country boy who wanted to do right by his country. Matt was a country music fan who particularly liked the song ``Way Out Here'' by Josh Thompson. He was ``funny, energetic, really outgoing,'' says family friend Emily Johnson. ``He could make anyone laugh. He had the brightest blue eyes ever. That's what we'll remember him as.''

Matt graduated from LaRue County High School in Hodgenville, where he was a member of the football team and the Student Technology Association. Next to his picture in the school yearbook he put the following quote: ``Life moves pretty fast. If you don't look around and pay attention, you could miss it.''

Soon after graduation he enlisted in the Marine Corps in the spring of 2008. ``He was very proud of what he had done when he signed up to go to the Marines,'' remembers LaRue County High School football coach and assistant principal Rodney Armes. ``He got his hair cut short and he was a Marine from the day he signed up.''

Matt was trained as a rifleman and assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force based in Camp Lejenue, NC. He was deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in January of 2010. Matt played a key role in a crucial multiday battle in Afghanistan just days before his death in mid-February 2010. Matt's platoon came under fire from Taliban forces in the town of Marjah. Matt walked up, under air cover, to the fortified bunker where the enemy fire was coming from and fired a grenade launcher into the bunker with great poise and accuracy, killing the enemy forces. ``The battle was over,'' said Matt's father, thanks to his bravery. ``He played a critical role,'' says Capt. Gordon Emmanuel, Matt's platoon commander. ``Anytime he shot he was on impact. Marines were cheering with his shots.''

Matt's father was told by Matt's platoon sergeant and by Captain Emmanuel that Camp Hanson, once the biggest U.S. position in Marjah and well known to any Marine who has served in the area, was established at that site in Matt's honor because of his actions.

``The last time I saw [Matt] was on Christmas Eve 2009,'' said Matt's father. ``He hugged me around the neck and said: Daddy, don't worry about me. Everybody dies. Not everybody has Jesus. Not everybody gets to be a Marine.''

We are thinking of Matt's family as I recount his life for my Senate colleagues today. They include Matt's mother and stepfather Mary and Larry Huff; his father and stepmother Lowell R. Hanson, Jr., and Cynthia Hanson; his siblings Megan, Samantha, Erika, Lowell, and Brendan; his grandparents; and many other beloved family members and friends.

Matt was buried with full military honors in Hodgenville. The town that is the birthplace of one of America's greatest patriots, Abraham Lincoln, is also a fitting resting place for this brave young man and Marine. The Commonwealth of Kentucky will never forget the life and service of LCpl Matthias N. Hanson or his ultimate sacrifice given freely to his country. It is thanks to men like him that our Nation is free.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, now that the President has conducted initial consultations with our allies and stated his objective to degrade and destroy ISIL, it is time to present a strategy to Congress. I hope he will begin to do that today.

He needs to identify military objectives and explain how those ends will be accomplished. He needs to present this plan to Congress and the American people, and where the President believes he lacks authority to execute such a strategy, he needs to explain to Congress how additional authority for the use of force will protect America. The threat from ISIL is real and is growing. It is time for President Obama to exercise some leadership in launching a response.

We know the administration has authorized military actions to protect American lives. Now we need to hear what additional measures will be taken to defeat ISIL.

Speech Suppression

Earlier today one Democratic Senator urged his colleagues to get serious about the real challenges facing our country--challenges such as dealing with the threat of ISIL. He implored fellow Democrats not to focus all their time instead ``doing things that are of lesser importance.''

Yet his voice seems to have been ignored by the Democrats who run the Senate, because here we stand debating their proposal on whether to take an eraser--an eraser--to the First Amendment. Here we are debating whether to grant politicians the extraordinary authority to ban speech they don't like. That is what Democratic leaders have brought to the floor this week as their top priority. It is a measure so extreme it could even open the door to government officials banning books and pamphlets that threaten or annoy them. That is not my argument. That is essentially the Obama administration's own position, one that his own lawyers advocated in the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case. As one USA Today columnist put it at the time: ``It isn't often that a government lawyer stands before the Supreme Court and acknowledges that, yes, it would be constitutional to ban a book. But that is what happened.''

Truly shocking.

These are the depths to which the Obama administration and its Democratic majority appear willing to drag our country in order to retain their hold on power. They are tired of listening to criticism of their failed policies. They are sick of having to sell the middle class on ideas that actually hurt the middle class. And with the Democrats' fragile Senate majority hanging by a thread, it seems they are done playing with the normal rules of democracy. It seems they would rather just rewrite the rules altogether to shut up their critics and shut down their opponents, even as they continue to give a path to leftwing tycoons they like--folks who preach higher taxes and more regulations for everybody else--while jealously guarding pet projects and sweetheart deals for themselves.

The aim here, just as with the IRS scandal, is to use the levers of power to shut down the voice of we the people when we the people don't see things their way. The First Amendment is the only thing standing in the way.

We all know the real reason Senate Democrats are so determined to push this measure now. They are not actually all that serious about passing it this week. In fact, they designed it to fail because they think its failure would help turn more leftwingers out to the polls. The entire spectacle is mostly about saving the jobs of Democratic Senators come November. Yet it must be admitted that it is getting harder to tell which of our Democratic friends are cynical in their support of this and which are sincere, because the number of true believers in speech suppression appears to be growing on the other side, and that is really worrying for the future of our democracy.

So look, if the Democrats who run Washington are so determined to force the Senate into debate over repealing the free speech protections of the First Amendment, then fine, let's have a full and proper debate. Let's make the country see what this is really all about. Let's expose this extremist effort to the light of public scrutiny.

I suspect our Democratic friends don't really want that, though. I suspect they hope to just drop a few talking points, have their proposal fail, shoot some indignant e-mails to their supporters and move on. I don't think they counted on Senators standing up for the American people. I don't think they counted on Senators exposing their plans to entrench the tools of government speech suppression. So they would rather not have a debate they can't win.

Then here is a better idea. We all just spent the past several weeks back in our home States talking to our constituents. They have a lot on their minds these days--important issues they expect the Democrat-run Senate to address--things such as high unemployment, rising health care costs, and an ongoing crisis at the border. I, for one, will be interested to hear how repealing part of the First Amendment creates jobs for Americans or reduces health care costs. The answer of course is it doesn't, and the Republican-controlled House has already sent over countless bills that continue to collect dust on the majority leader's desk. There are many bills on job creation alone, including legislation that passed the House, with significant bipartisan support.

So if Senate Democrats want to take up some of that serious House- passed legislation instead of endless designed-to-fail political votes, we will be happy to do it. Just say the word.

Let's end the Democrats' endless gridlock and get some bills to the President's desk for once because Americans are not demanding that Congress repeal the free speech protections of the First Amendment. That is certainly not on their minds. They are looking to us to work together to get some things done for them for a change, and we can as soon as our Democratic friends want to get serious.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Reserving the right to object----

Let me say to my friend, the majority leader, this is a good example of our being able to put aside partisan considerations and work together to help our good friend Israel.

I particularly want to salute Senator Graham and Senator McCain, who have been absolutely relentless in their efforts to make sure we send this important signal to Israel at a very tough time for them. They are being, in my view, criticized by everyone for pursuing a policy that I am absolutely certain we would pursue if somebody across our border were launching missiles at our civilian population.

I think it is important for us to send a signal that the United States stands behind one of its best friends--if not its best friend-- in the world.

I think the Prime Minister of Israel pretty well summed it up when he said: There is no moral equivalency here. Hamas launches missiles on civilians, and Israel warns civilians when it attempts to attack. And Hamas uses its own civilians to protect its missiles. There is no moral equivalency whatsoever.

So as much of the world levels its criticism at Israel, I think it is important for the United States to say: What nonsense to suggest that the Israelis are doing anything that almost any country in the world would have done had its citizens been threatened by a neighbor as Israel has experienced.

So, obviously, I do not object.

Mr. President, the ongoing humanitarian crisis at our Nation's southern border demands a solution. It really just boggles the mind that the President of the United States would rather fund raise in Hollywood than work with members of his own party to forge a legislative response to this tragic situation and to do something to prevent more young people from making the perilous and potentially life-threatening journey across the desert.

The President initially laid out reforms that, while modest, represented a step in the right direction. But evidently the politicos who increasingly have the President's ear these days couldn't go along with that, so the President stopped defending his own policy reforms. Instead, he demanded a blank check that would literally preserve the status quo, a blank check he knew wouldn't fix the problem, a blank check he knew couldn't pass Congress, and a blank check he knew members of his own party in Congress didn't even support.

Faced with a national crisis, he listened once again to his most partisan instincts instead of uniting Congress around a common solution so he could lay blame for that crisis on somebody else. Apparently no crisis is too big to be trumped by politics in the Obama White House. It is exasperating for those of us who want to work toward bipartisan solutions; it is confusing, I am sure, to the Democrats who share our desire to get something accomplished; and it is emboldening to Democrats who don't, including the Senate Democratic leadership.

When faced with a crisis, a President's job is to show Presidential leadership and to get his party on board with the reforms necessary to address it. Scuttling reform and prolonging the crisis is not part of the job description.

So what I am suggesting, Mr. President, is that you spend a little more time actually doing the job you were elected to do. Press ``pause'' on the nonstop photo-ops and start demonstrating some real leadership instead. The barbecue joints and the pool halls will still be there after we solve this problem.

Mr. President, it is a dangerous journey to the border. Children are suffering at the hands of some seriously bad actors down there. News reports suggest you even knew about this long before it started making national news. You could have intervened before this turned into a full-blown humanitarian crisis, but you didn't. You could have worked with us to get a bipartisan solution. You didn't.

Mr. President, you have a special responsibility to help us end this crisis in a humane and appropriate way. Congress cannot do it without your leadership or your engagement. It is literally impossible to do this without you. So pick up the phone you keep telling us about and call us. Call your fellow Democrats and lobby them to get on board. Work with us, and let's address this crisis.

Foreign Policy

Recently I expressed deep concern that the President pursued a foreign policy based on withdrawing from America's forward presence and alliance commitments, hollowing out our Nation's conventional military forces, placing an overreliance upon personal diplomacy and international organizations, and literally abandoning the war on terror. I believe this will leave his successor to deal with a more dangerous world and with fewer tools to meet the threats.

Later this morning several Members of Congress charged with leading national security committees and policymaking will meet with the President to discuss national security. I don't expect the President to brief us on his plan for rebuilding the military, especially in a way that would allow us to meet our commitments in Europe and the Middle East or that would allow for an effective strategic pivot to Asia, nor do I expect the President to lay out for us his plans to provide the intelligence community with all the tools it will need to deal with the threat of international terrorism from Al Qaeda and its affiliated groups over the next decade. Those are strategic threats best addressed by integrating all the tools of our Nation's power, and, candidly, it would require the President to revisit the policy stances he took as a candidate back in 2008.

I do hope that at a minimum the President will discuss two near-term issues:

First, I hope he will explain his plan or efforts to assist the Israelis in demilitarizing Gaza and ensuring that Hamas is not left with the ability to launch indirect fire attacks against the civilian populace or to infiltrate Israel through tunnels. In coordination with Israel, we can assist the Palestinian Authority with any programs to assume responsibility for monitoring those access points into Gaza.

Absent any active efforts by the administration, I would at least like assurances that the President is not working to impose a cease- fire upon Israel that is harmful to the objectives of the current military campaign.

Second, earlier this month a group of Republican Senators wrote to the President imploring him to craft a plan for containing the threat posed to Iraq and Jordan by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Specifically, we asked the President to deploy an assessment team to Jordan to develop a plan to prevent the spread of ISIL in a way that threatened our ally Jordan.

Although Ambassador Susan Rice responded to our letter, her letter did not address how the administration intends to combat ISIL. Instead, Ambassador Rice renewed the administration's request for a new counterterrorism partnership fund. To this point, the administration has failed to provide the Congress with any plan for how this new counterterrorism fund would assist our ally, further our own interests, or train and equip a moderate opposition within Syria. That would be a good starting point for today's discussion with the President.

Opiate Addiction Impacts

Prescription drug and heroin abuse have risen to epidemic levels in my home State of Kentucky. More Kentuckians now lose their lives to drug overdose--largely driven by painkillers--than to car crashes. It is a huge problem.

Earlier this year I convened a listening session in the Commonwealth to hear from those closest to the problem, from professionals across the medical, public health, and law enforcement spheres, as well as a brave young man who managed to break his heroin addiction after watching his own friends overdose. We discussed the extent of the problem, and one issue in particular that grabbed my attention was the increasing number of infants being born in Kentucky dependent on opiates. Researchers estimate that more than one baby every hour--one baby every hour--is now born dependent on drugs and suffering from withdrawal--a number that has increased in my home State by more than 3,000 percent since the year 2000. We have gone from 29 infants identified as suffering from drug withdrawal annually to more than 950. Experts believe there are even more cases that go unreported. This is heartbreaking. I say this especially as a father of three daughters. These children are the most innocent members of our society. We have to protect them.

Thankfully, the Commonwealth is taking this problem seriously. Both the Kentucky Perinatal Association and the Kentucky Perinatal Quality Initiative Collaborative have made as their primary focus reducing the number of infants born dependent on opiates and other drugs. I certainly commend their efforts, but there is more we can do at the Federal level.

Maternal addiction and infant opiate dependency are epidemics that can best be overcome by effective coordination between stakeholders at the State and Federal levels.

One bill that was recently introduced in the House, the CRIB Act, would help address the need for greater coordination between doctors, nurses, hospitals, and governments at the State and Federal level. I commend the sponsors of that legislation for their leadership.

Today in the Senate I will introduce the Protecting Our Infants Act, which seeks to address not only infants suffering from opiate withdrawal but maternal opiate addiction as well. It would help identify and disseminate recommendations for preventing and treating maternal addiction so that we can reduce the number of infants born dependent on opiates and other drugs.

My bill would also promote recommendations as to how to pinpoint those babies suffering from withdrawal and how best to treat them. Because I have heard from so many experts in Kentucky on the need for more research into infant withdrawal and its long-term effects, my bill would shine a light on those areas as well.

The Protecting Our Infants Act would also encourage the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to work with States to improve the availability and quality of data so that they can respond more effectively to this public health crisis.

My legislation is certainly no silver bullet, but it is a step in the right direction, and it would help ensure that our public health system is better equipped to treat opiate addiction in mothers and in their newborn children. Together we can overcome this tragic problem. I am going to remain focused on it until we do.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.