Floor Statements

Mr. President. the U.S. infrastructure system is in critical need of an upgrade. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently graded the U.S. system a D+ given its capacity, condition, funding, future need, operation and maintenance, public safety, resilience and innovation. Any investment to improve our country's infrastructure system would create millions of new jobs, requiring millions of skilled workers to fill them.

A recent study by the Center of Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University estimated that a $1 trillion infrastructure investment would create 11 million new jobs. Nearly half of these would require training past the high school level. Even without a significant investment, though, infrastructure industries are already struggling to meet workforce demands. Workers in infrastructure industries are expected to retire at a 50% higher rate than the general workforce. To ensure infrastructure investments benefit businesses, workers and the economy, the U.S. must invest in the creation of a diverse pipeline of workers with skills necessary to access in-demand opportunities.

Industry and sector partnerships are a proven strategy for helping workers prepare for middle-skill jobs and helping businesses find skilled workers. Congress requires States and local areas to support the development of these partnerships under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), but no dedicated funding has been provided for these activities. According to a recent national poll, 77% of business leaders say it would help their business to create closer links between education providers and businesses to train people for the jobs for which businesses are hiring.

For workers, especially those underrepresented in infrastructure industries, support services like career counseling, child care, and transportation can often be the key to succeed in work-based learning programs. Providing these services may be outside the capacity of a business. Industry partnerships bring business together with community and human service organizations that can make these connections for workers and drastically improve their ability to succeed in training and meet business demand for skilled workers.

This is why I am pleased to introduce with my colleague, Senator Portman, the Building U.S. Infrastructure by Leveraging Demands for Skills Act or BUILDS Act. The BUILDS Act creates a grant program that would support industry and sector partnerships working with local businesses, industry associations and organizations, labor organizations, State and local workforce boards, economic development agencies and other partners engaged in their communities to encourage industry growth, competitiveness and collaboration to improve worker training, retention and advancement in targeted infrastructure clusters. Additionally, businesses and education providers would be connected to develop classroom curriculum to complement on-the-job learning and workers would receive support services such as mentoring and career counseling to ensure that they are successful from the pre- employment to placement in a full-time position.

Our Nation desperately needs improvements to critical infrastructure like our roads and bridges, however to do that work we must have a trained workforce that's ready to fill these good-paying jobs. Virginia businesses in the transportation, maritime, and information technology industries continue to tell me they have trouble finding job applicants with the necessary skills. This bill will help workers get the job training they need to be hired. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle consider the BUILDS Act as a necessary component to any investment in our Nation's infrastructure.

Madam President, I rise with my colleagues to just tell stories I am hearing from Virginians. Having completed a campaign last November, I was out doing a lot of listening and have continued to do a lot of listening since then. In your own mind, you kind of categorize the stories, and, first, above all else, are stories about healthcare. I hear stories about a lot of things, but I hear stories about healthcare probably as much as all other areas combined. In the area of healthcare, the issue of the price of prescription drugs is No. 1.

Hundreds of Virginians have reached out to me to let me know about the high cost of prescription drugs and how that affects not only their health but even their ability to put food on their table or a roof over their heads. Today I want to share some stories from Virginians and then talk about some commonsense legislation and a present opportunity to bring drug prices down.

Andrew from Great Falls shared this story with me. His father was being treated for CML, which is a leukemia that is effectively curable, and he was prescribed the drug Gleevec. Now, this story goes back a little bit, and here is what Andrew said:

In the United States, Gleevec costs approximately $159 to

manufacture for a year's dose.

That is the manufactured cost.

In India, a generic version of this drug costs about $400 a

year to purchase for use. In Canada, the price is around

$8,800 a year for a generic of the drug, and $38,000 a year

for the branded drug. In the United States, there is no

available generic, and the brand name drug's marketing cost

is $146,000 a year. This is not a drug that consumers can

simply choose to take or not take--to be blunt, they will . .

. literally die of cancer if they don't take it.

Now, since Andrew wrote me the letter, a generic has been approved in the United States that has provided him and other families relief, but for a long period of time, $146,000 in the United States for a drug that costs $159 to manufacture, and the price to patients in other countries is dramatically less.

Daniel from Martinsville in Southern Virginia wrote to me about the high price of insulin, which is a common theme, I know, for all of us here with constituents.

He writes:

I paid $505.00 for 3 bottles of Humalog Insulin . . . at

Walgreens. This is a three month supply, but another Eli

Lilly insulin is required by my wife in order for her to

avoid death [and that is hundreds of dollars more].

Laurie from Norfolk wrote to me to share her story. Laurie has rheumatoid arthritis, and she lives on Social Security. She writes:

The drug company wants $65,000 for the drug. With my

Medicare part D, they only want $8,000--[that is good, but

that is] over 1/3 of my annual income [as a senior on Social

Security for one drug]. I have applied for the drug companies

patient assistance program [because] the pain is too great. I

can't use my hand without the drug. The drug companies are

getting away with robbery. We need Medicare to have the

authority to negotiate drug prices.

Ron from Arlington, just across the Potomac, wrote me after he went to renew a prescription he had been taking for more than a year.

That is an outrageous increase of 100 percent or $100 more

out of my pocket for exactly the same thing [every time I buy

it]. I am a retired federal employee on a limited income and

I am locked into this insurance plan for the rest of the

year. So I have to take $100 more out of my pocket to obtain

the exact same thing.

Every time he buys it, 100 percent increase in the price.

Marie from Virginia Beach wrote me about a drug that costs $375,000 a year. She writes:

Without the drug I most likely will be bedridden. I cannot

afford the exorbitant price. . . . I recognize the recovery

cost of research is the main expense, since manufacturing

cost is extremely cheap, but when the sufferers cannot afford

your drug, then what have you gained?

Medicare is prohibited from negotiating the price of prescription drugs. Medicare Part D enrolls over 43 million seniors nationwide, giving the program incredible bargaining power if it could only be used for their benefit.

Many seniors are on fixed incomes. The average senior gets Social Security. Their median income is $28,000, so an $8,000 drug cost is one-third to a quarter of their income. In the wealthiest Nation in the world, seniors should not have to choose between paying for their medication and putting food on the table or heating their home. So many of these seniors tell me about getting medication and then thinking: If I cut the pill in half and just take half a dose, maybe I can save some money--but that then comes at an incredible reduction in the efficacy of the prescription you are taking to control your healthcare condition.

This is why I joined with Senator Klobuchar, and I appreciate her organizing this group of us on the floor today, to introduce the Empowering Medicare Seniors to Negotiate Drug Prices Act, which allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices. This is simple, basic, best business practice. Everybody will negotiate prices. Why should we bar the Medicare Part D Program that provides a prescription drug benefit to 43 million people--why should we bar them from negotiating for drug prices?

According to a recent analysis, Medicare would have saved $14.4 billion. That is billion with a ``b.'' Medicare would have saved $14.4 billion on just 50 drugs in 2016 if the program had paid the same prices as the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate. That is a whole separate level of absurdity. Why would we, as Congress, allow the Department of Veterans Affairs, as they buy these same drugs from the same manufacturers, to negotiate and get a volume discount but tell the Medicare Program they

can't? We actually know how much money we would save because of allowing the Veterans Affairs Department to negotiate, which they should be able to, but why would we then handcuff Medicare Part D and not allow them?

If Medicare would have saved $14.4 billion just in those 50 drugs in 1 year, that is $14.4 billion that could be used for better healthcare, the deficit reduction, tax relief, Pell grants, education expenses. There is also a savings not just to Medicare but to patients that would also be in the billions.

Every corner pharmacy negotiates the price of prescription drugs. Every Walmart does. When they are buying prescription drugs to sell in their pharmacy, they negotiate based on volume. It makes no sense that the Federal Government is not allowed to do the same thing.

Another area is biologic medicines. They represent a new and very promising area of treatment. I do want to stop here and say I am not one of these people who use a big broad brush and say pharmaceutical companies are bad. Why are we living longer? Why is the average age going up and up and up? It is going up and up and up because of better medical care, and much of that medical care and improvement is innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, so I am not on a campaign to say pharmaceutical companies are bad. They are producing lifesaving prescriptions that are easing suffering and prolonging life. It is just that the price Americans pay for those drugs is so far out of whack with what other nations do, and one of the things that is innovative, that is great is biologic medicines.

When competing products--they are called biosimilars--attempt to enter the market, they often find it impossible to navigate the thicket of patent laws that protect the branded product because they lack access to readily accessible information. So when biosimilar manufacturers are able to uncover the web of patents, expensive litigation too often results in patents being found to be invalid or unenforceable.

That is why I joined with Senator Collins from Maine on a second bill to introduce the Biologic Patent Transparency Act. Our bill promotes patent transparency by requiring manufacturers of approved products to disclose and list patents covering their products with the FDA in what we call the FDA Purple Book. The legislation encourages manufacturers to apply for patents sooner, allow prospective biosimilar manufacturers to challenge weaker or invalid patents earlier in the product development process to eliminate waste, and the legislation will help us bring needed biosimilar treatments to patients faster and ultimately help lower drug prices.

Finally, a word about insulin. Over 30 million people--that is like the combined population of about 19 or 20 States--live with diabetics in the United States, and insulin is a critical and life-sustaining daily treatment for 7\1/2\ million of those people. Yet, between 2012 and 2016, spending on insulin nearly doubled, even while there was little change in the actual use of insulin. So what explains that?

The price hikes we have experienced have caused Virginians who need these drugs, whose stories I have indicated, to endure severe financial hardship, ration their supplies, or even skip the needed medication.

In February, I joined all my Democratic colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, where I sit with Senator Smith, who preceded me, and we sent a letter to three insulin manufacturers requesting information about recent price increases, how the revenue contributes to research and development, and what companies are doing to help patients access affordable insulin.

In closing, I said there are not only good ideas in Senator Klobuchar's bill and in others, but there is also a good time. In the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, our Chair, Senator Alexander, and our ranking member, Senator Murray, have indicated that one of the bills we want to work on this year is a bill of single-shot strategies to reduce medical costs. It is not going to be the rewrite of the healthcare system. Senator Alexander and Senator Murray were heard to describe that if we can do a bill with a series of singles, that would be a very good thing. So we will work together as colleagues to come up with a series of strategies that could bring healthcare costs down, and we have an opportunity in this bill to have some of those provisions deal with provisions just like those I have described that can reduce the cost of prescription drugs.

I am proud to join my colleagues to share stories of Virginians. It is probably the single-most frequent complaint I hear, and it is a complaint we can do something about.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President. Sexual assault is a major issue on our Nation's college campuses. In 2016, the Department of Justice found that one in four college women are sexually assaulted while in school. Alarmingly, the majority of these crimes will go unreported. The consequences of these crimes are often damaging to a student's mental, physical, and emotional well-being and the aftermath can drive many survivors to drop out of school.

Sexual assault survivors deserve access to a safe and supportive educational environment. I have met with students in Virginia, most recently at the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech, who have expressed the need for someone on campus to turn to for unbiased advice, guidance, and support following an assault. Given the prevalence of this issue, it is clear that our federal higher education policy must do more to prevent sexual assaults and ensure that survivors have access to and can navigate through a plethora of resources.

This is why I am pleased to reintroduce today the Survivor Outreach and Support Campus Act of 2019 or SOS Campus Act. The SOS Campus Act requires every institution of higher education that receives federal funding to designate an independent advocate for campus sexual assault prevention and response. The advocate will help students access all of the resources available to them, both on and off campus, in the wake of a sexual assault and will guide them through the process of reporting their assault if they choose to do so, acting always in the interests of the victim, not the university.

The SOS Campus Act requires that the confidential advocate is responsible for ensuring that survivors, regardless of whether they decide to report the crime, have access to emergency and follow-up medical care, guidance on reporting assaults to law enforcement, medical forensic or evidentiary exams, crisis intervention, and information on their legal rights. The advocate will also conduct a public information campaign on campus to inform students of their services, and train other university staff to provide information to students about the advocate.

I am proud to reintroduce this legislation with Senators Baldwin, Hirono and Feinstein, which would ensure all college students across our country have access to a supportive advocate for sexual assault survivors. It is our responsibility as public servants to advocate relentlessly for reforms to prevent sexual assault and protections for survivors. I strongly encourage my colleagues in the Senate to consider this legislation when we consider reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

Mr. President. Sexual assault is a major issue on our Nation's college campuses. In 2016, the Department of Justice found that one in four college women are sexually assaulted while in school. Alarmingly, the majority of these crimes will go unreported. The consequences of these crimes are often damaging to a student's mental, physical, and emotional well-being and the aftermath can drive many survivors to drop out of school.

Sexual assault survivors deserve access to a safe and supportive educational environment. I have met with students in Virginia, most recently at the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech, who have expressed the need for someone on campus to turn to for unbiased advice, guidance, and support following an assault. Given the prevalence of this issue, it is clear that our federal higher education policy must do more to prevent sexual assaults and ensure that survivors have access to and can navigate through a plethora of resources.

This is why I am pleased to reintroduce today the Survivor Outreach and Support Campus Act of 2019 or SOS Campus Act. The SOS Campus Act requires every institution of higher education that receives federal funding to designate an independent advocate for campus sexual assault prevention and response. The advocate will help students access all of the resources available to them, both on and off campus, in the wake of a sexual assault and will guide them through the process of reporting their assault if they choose to do so, acting always in the interests of the victim, not the university.

The SOS Campus Act requires that the confidential advocate is responsible for ensuring that survivors, regardless of whether they decide to report the crime, have access to emergency and follow-up medical care, guidance on reporting assaults to law enforcement, medical forensic or evidentiary exams, crisis intervention, and information on their legal rights. The advocate will also conduct a public information campaign on campus to inform students of their services, and train other university staff to provide information to students about the advocate.

I am proud to reintroduce this legislation with Senators Baldwin, Hirono and Feinstein, which would ensure all college students across our country have access to a supportive advocate for sexual assault survivors. It is our responsibility as public servants to advocate relentlessly for reforms to prevent sexual assault and protections for survivors. I strongly encourage my colleagues in the Senate to consider this legislation when we consider reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the Fair and Equal Housing Act of 2019, legislation to ensure equal housing opportunities for all Americans. This bipartisan bill would protect Americans from housing discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. No American should be turned away from a home they love because of who they love.

I began my career as a civil rights attorney. My initial focus was on fair housing, and I learned early on that a home is more than just structure or a shelter. A home plays an integral role in one's identity, and it is central to the life of every American.

Housing discrimination nevertheless continues to plague many Americans. And it is a reality for LGBT Americans because of incomplete protections in the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the landmark Federal housing law.

The FHA prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability. It does not, however, protect against discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender. More than 20 states and over 200 localities safeguard sexual orientation and gender identify in their housing discrimination laws. That's telling. It's time for the federal government to do the same.

A study released this month analyzed national mortgage data from 1990 to 2015. It found that same-sex applicants were 73 percent more likely to be denied approval for a mortgage than opposite-sex couples.

The study also found that same-sex couples often pay more for their loans in interest and fees. This despite the fact that the study found no evidence that same-sex couples carried a higher default risk. In fact, the study's findings suggest that same-sex borrowers may perform better. The analysis indicated that, on average, same-sex couples paid 0.2 percent more in interest and fees, which adds up to as much as $86 million per year.

These findings confirm the need to include gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes under federal housing laws. Loan decisions should be based on fundamental economic considerations, not race, religion, sexual orientation or gender.

The job of perfecting our Union is an ongoing quest requiring continued stewardship. Our history is replete with examples of manifest action from the Bill of Rights, to the 14th Amendment, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Fair and Equal Housing Act of 2019 is one more step in our longer journey to perfect our Union and to extinguish discrimination in places which call for our leadership. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the Fair and Equal Housing Act of 2019, legislation to ensure equal housing opportunities for all Americans. This bipartisan bill would protect Americans from housing discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. No American should be turned away from a home they love because of who they love.

I began my career as a civil rights attorney. My initial focus was on fair housing, and I learned early on that a home is more than just structure or a shelter. A home plays an integral role in one's identity, and it is central to the life of every American.

Housing discrimination nevertheless continues to plague many Americans. And it is a reality for LGBT Americans because of incomplete protections in the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the landmark Federal housing law.

The FHA prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability. It does not, however, protect against discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender. More than 20 states and over 200 localities safeguard sexual orientation and gender identify in their housing discrimination laws. That's telling. It's time for the federal government to do the same.

A study released this month analyzed national mortgage data from 1990 to 2015. It found that same-sex applicants were 73 percent more likely to be denied approval for a mortgage than opposite-sex couples.

The study also found that same-sex couples often pay more for their loans in interest and fees. This despite the fact that the study found no evidence that same-sex couples carried a higher default risk. In fact, the study's findings suggest that same-sex borrowers may perform better. The analysis indicated that, on average, same-sex couples paid 0.2 percent more in interest and fees, which adds up to as much as $86 million per year.

These findings confirm the need to include gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes under federal housing laws. Loan decisions should be based on fundamental economic considerations, not race, religion, sexual orientation or gender.

The job of perfecting our Union is an ongoing quest requiring continued stewardship. Our history is replete with examples of manifest action from the Bill of Rights, to the 14th Amendment, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Fair and Equal Housing Act of 2019 is one more step in our longer journey to perfect our Union and to extinguish discrimination in places which call for our leadership. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Madam President, I rise to speak today about the vote we cast earlier confirming GEN John Abizaid, Retired, to be U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

I was proud to vote for him. I think he is very well qualified for that position. The position has been vacant since 2017. Other critical countries in this most important region are without Ambassadors--Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan.

General Abizaid has his work cut out for him, and I want to speak specifically about some of the challenges in Saudi Arabia now.

I believe there is a great day of reckoning that is now pending in the U.S.-Saudi relationship.

Last week, the House of Representatives passed a Senate resolution ordering the President to stop U.S. military action in support of Saudi Arabia's intervention in Yemen's civil war. The Senate had earlier acted on that bill in 2018. It went to the House and died. The Senate took up the bill again recently, and the House passed it. The bill is now on its way to the President's desk.

The President has indicated that he is likely to veto the bill, to continue U.S. support for Saudi military activity in Yemen. If that happens, the bill will come back to the Senate, and the Senate will then have the opportunity to vote on whether that veto should be overridden.

The House vote to withdraw U.S. support for this military activity was 247 to 175. The Senate vote was 54 to 46.

The Yemen civil war has been a humanitarian disaster. Many of my colleagues have spoken at length about this, so I will not speak at length. Just to underline key points, it has been a humanitarian disaster, and the United States should not be involved. Saudi intervention has made it worse.

As of November 2018, nearly 7,000 civilians have been killed, nearly 11,000 had been wounded--the majority by Saudi Arabia-led coalition airstrikes, many of which are targeted and prosecuted in amateurish ways. Those statistics are according to the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for

Human Rights. The actual human casualties are actually much higher because the war has led to famine and disease outbreaks that have killed many more. Thousands have been displaced by fighting, and millions are suffering from shortages of food and medical care, with the country on the brink of famine. There are 12 to 13 million civilians at risk of starvation largely because of the effects of this civil war.

In addition to the poor prosecution of this military activity by Saudi Arabia, there are other issues we have to grapple with.

A Virginia resident who is a Saudi citizen, Jamal Khashoggi, who was a journalist for the Washington Post, criticized the Saudi policy in Yemen. For his advocacy against the war, the Government of Saudi Arabia lured him into their consulate in Istanbul and then tortured and assassinated him, dismembering his body with a bone saw. Then the Saudi Government engaged in a massive misinformation and disinformation campaign, lying to the United States and to the world about what had happened, saying that he had left the Embassy on his own, saying that it had been an accident, coming up with all manner of excuses before the even cursory investigation demonstrated that he had been assassinated.

The U.S. intelligence community is unified in their assessment of what happened to this Virginia resident--a gross violation of human rights to assassinate a journalist, especially in a safe haven, which is what a consulate is supposed to be.

In addition to the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi Arabia has been arresting civil rights activists for years, including, recently, two Virginia residents--Aziza al-Youssef, who is a Saudi citizen who studied at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond and then went to back to Saudi Arabia to teach women computer science. Her son, Salah al-Haidar, also has been arrested for advocating for women's rights. What rights are they advocating for? The right of women to drive. The right of women to make some of their own decisions under Saudi law. Decisions by women cannot be made independently but must generally be agreed to by a father or a husband. Simply for advocating that women be treated as equal, with equal rights, these Virginia residents and many others have been jailed and tortured.

One would think that the United States would be up in arms about the assassination of a U.S. resident journalist, about the arrest of U.S. residents, including U.S. citizens advocating for women's rights, but that is not the case. The President refuses to submit a report determining whether Jamal Khashoggi's murder was a human rights violation.

The Magnitsky Act was designed to promote cooperation between the legislative and the executive branches. When Congress has information that suggests there is a significant human rights violation by a foreign government, we write a letter to the President. The President has 120 days to investigate and then offer a determination as to whether there was a human rights violation. It is a cooperative dialogue. We wrote the letter, 120 days passed, and President Trump and the administration will not answer it. They will not say there was a human rights violation. They will not say there wasn't a human rights violation.

I am not aware of their doing this for any other nation. For Saudi Arabia, they are ignoring the clear requirements of the Magnitsky Act. President Trump said: ``It could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this event--maybe he did and maybe he didn't.'' That comment is at odds with the assessment of the U.S. intelligence community that this assassination was an official act of the Saudi Arabian Government that would not have happened without the knowledge of the Crown Prince, M.B.S.

The relationship following these arrests and this assassination has not been downgraded or suffered repercussions within this administration--in fact, to the contrary. Two weeks ago, right before an Armed Services Committee hearing where Secretary of Energy Rick Perry was testifying, we learned that the Trump administration has approved secret transfers of nuclear technical information from American companies to Saudi Arabia on seven occasions since 2017. These transfers are called Part 810 authorizations. They require an approval of the Department of Energy. Under my cross-examination, Secretary Perry was forced to confirm that, yes, the administration has authorized on seven occasions transfers of this nuclear know-how to Saudi Arabia.

In the past, when these transfers were approved, they were made public so that the American public and Congress could exercise oversight on which nations in the world are being given nuclear technology, but in this instance and possibly others in this administration, the approvals were kept secret.

Why are they secret now? We know that Saudi Arabia is intent on building a nuclear program. That is well covered. But they haven't agreed to the nonproliferation rules that would prevent the development of nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty is a bedrock principle of international law that the United States has supported for a very long time.

The principle is simple. We would not want countries to get nuclear technology unless they give us guarantees that technology is only for peaceful use, medical research, power production but not to produce nuclear weapons.

We are transferring this technical know-how to the Saudi Arabian Government secretly, without yet requiring that they sign on to the important safety protections in the NPT. It is only logical that Congress would want to know more about these approvals to make sure they don't spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

In the recent hearing, I asked Secretary Perry about whether the secret approvals of nuclear information transfer occurred before or after the October 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi. He claimed not to know. He has indicated he would provide that information in response to written questions. I submitted the written questions. He has still not provided the information. It is wrong to do these transfers without letting Congress know; it is wrong to do these transfers when Saudi Arabia has not yet agreed to the principles that would disallow nuclear proliferation; and it would certainly be wrong to agree to transfers of this kind of information after the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, but as of yet the administration hasn't given us the data.

Beyond just the timing, who is getting these secret approvals? Secretary Perry said the approvals were secret because there is proprietary information. Companies might not want to have information that they have developed through their own research available to all, but that doesn't explain it. You don't have to give the proprietary information to indicate what company has gotten an approval on what day to do the transfer.

Who is getting these secret approvals? One major nuclear firm, Westinghouse, has been reported as a frontrunner in the competitive effort to do nuclear reactor construction in Saudi Arabia. Westinghouse is owned by the same investors who bailed White House adviser Jared Kushner out of a bad real estate deal. Remember, Jared Kushner was originally denied a security clearance in the White House due to concerns about foreign influence and personal financial conflicts. Additional reporting connects disgraced National Security Advisor Michael Flynn--who has been convicted for lying about his ties to and communication with foreign governments--to the push for the Saudi nuclear deal.

Finally, earlier today, I asked Secretary Pompeo in a Foreign Relations Committee hearing about public reports in The National Interest, in September of 2018, that say the Saudis have a robust anti- ballistic missile program that has been largely built on Chinese missiles--missiles from China that were constructed originally to carry nuclear warheads--but that the Saudis have apparently used with nonnuclear payloads or outfitted with nonnuclear payloads.

The National Interest article that I entered into the Record, dated September 21, 2018, indicated that, in Saudi Arabia, these missiles have been arranged so some of them would be directed toward Tehran and others would be directed toward Israel. All of these

issues are on the table: poor prosecution of a civil war leading to humanitarian disaster, the murder of a U.S. resident journalist, the arrest of U.S. residents for women's rights activism, secret transfers of nuclear technology without letting Congress know, and then the story I asked Secretary Pompeo about today. The buildup of an anti-ballistic missile program based significantly on Chinese missiles leads me to ask: Why would we help Saudi Arabia in a disastrous war in Yemen? Why would we turn a blind eye to Saudi human rights abuses? Why would we transfer nuclear know-how and plan for a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia when they haven't agreed to nonproliferation rules that we expect other Nations to agree to in a way that would possibly spark an arms race in the Middle East? My final question is, who in the United States is benefiting from this?

When I asked the Secretary of State this morning, again, on the dates of the nuclear approvals and did they occur before or after the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, I am sure he knew I was going to ask him that question. I asked Secretary Perry the question 2 weeks ago. I submitted that question for the record. He knew I was going to ask him that question, and he said he couldn't give me any information about the approvals; he would have to get back to me about them.

Congress is not a student government. Congress is supposed to, as the article I branch, exercise oversight over important matters. There is hardly anything more important than the spread of nuclear technologies that could be used to proliferate weapons of mass destruction anywhere in the world, especially in a region as dangerous as the Middle East.

These are the items that Ambassador Abizaid will need to deal with in his new role, but we need to exercise proper congressional oversight of this relationship because there are so many problems with it right now that are not being addressed by this administration. I think only Congress can address them. I hope my colleagues will join me with that oversight.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Texas.

Continuing:

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though

peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate

violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like

condemning a robbed man because his possession of money

precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like

condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to

truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by

the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock?

Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God

consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will

precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see

that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is

wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his

basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate

violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the

robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject

the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for

freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother

in Texas. He writes: ``All Christians know that the colored

people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is

possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has

taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish

what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to

earth.'' Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception

of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is

something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure

all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used

either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel

that the people of ill will have used time much more

effectively than have the people of good will. We will have

to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words

and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence

of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels

of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of

men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard

work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social

stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge

that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to

make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending

national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is

the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of

racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At

first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would

see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began

thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two

opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of

complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of

long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect in

the sense of ``somebodiness'' that they have adjusted to

segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who,

because of a degree of academic and economic security and

because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become

insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is

one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close

to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black

nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation,

the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim

movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the

continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement

is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have

absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded

that the white man is an incorrigible ``devil.''

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that

we need emulate neither the ``do nothingism'' of the

complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black

nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and

nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the

influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became

an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not

emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am

convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced

that if our white brothers dismiss as ``rabble rousers'' and

``outside agitators'' those of us who employ nonviolent

direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent

efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and

despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist

ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a

frightening racial nightmare.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The

yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is

what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has

reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something

without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously

or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and

with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow

brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United

States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward

the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this

vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should

readily understand why public demonstrations are taking

place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent

frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let

him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on

freedom rides--and try to understand why he must do so. If

his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways,

they will seek expression through violence; this is not a

threat but a fact of history.

So I have not said to my people, ``Get rid of your

discontent.'' Rather, I have tried to say that this normal

and healthy discontent can be channeled through into the

creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this

approach is being termed extremist. But though I was

initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist,

as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a

measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an

extremist for love: ``Love your enemies, bless them that

curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them

which despitefully use you, and persecute you.'' Was not Amos

an extremist for justice: ``Let justice roll down like waters

and righteousness like an ever flowing stream.'' Was not Paul

an extremist for the Christian gospel: ``I bear in my body

the marks of the Lord Jesus.'' Was not Martin Luther an

extremist: ``Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me

God.'' And John Bunyan: ``I will stay in jail to the end of

my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.'' And

Abraham Lincoln: ``This nation cannot survive half slave and

half free.'' And Thomas Jefferson: ``We hold these truths to

be self evident, that all men are created equal . . .'' So

the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what

kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate

or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of

injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic

scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must

never forget that all three were crucified for the same

crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for

immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other,

Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness,

and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South,

the nation and the world are in dire need of creative

extremists.

I yield to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. President, investing in the development of a robust, well-trained, and stable child welfare workforce is central to improving outcomes for children and families across the United States. The existence of such a workforce is essential to a child welfare agency's ability to carry out the responsibilities with which they have been entrusted. Child welfare work has been shown to be physically and emotionally challenging, as demonstrated by recent studies into the impact of secondary traumatic stress (STS) on child welfare professionals. The multitude of challenges inherent in child welfare work, combined with relatively low compensation and work benefits, make these careers difficult to sustain, resulting in high rates of turnover.

Studies conducted over the last 15 years estimate the national rate of turnover of child welfare workers to be 20-40 percent annually. In 2017, Virginia reported a turnover rate of 30%, while Washington State reported a turnover rate of 20% and Georgia reported a turnover rate of 32%. These high rates of turnover detract from the quality of services delivered to children and families and result in an estimated cost of $54,000 per worker leaving an agency.

Greater action is needed to ensure that individuals pursuing child welfare careers receive appropriate training and support to improve the sustainability of their important, yet demanding work. Higher rates of retention for child welfare workers translates to greater stability for families and improved services for vulnerable youth. Existing research provides a number of evidenced-based and promising practices for improving recruitment and retention in the child welfare workforce.

This is why I am pleased to introduce today the Child Welfare Workforce Support Act. This bill directs the Secretary to conduct a five-year demonstration program for child welfare service providers to implement targeted interventions to recruit, select, and retain child welfare workers. This demonstration program will focus on building an evidence base of best practices for reducing barriers to the recruitment, development, and retention of individuals providing direct services to children and families. Funds will also be used to provide ongoing professional development to assist child welfare workers in meeting the diverse needs of families with infants and children with the goal of improving both the quality of services provided and the sustainability of such careers. Investing resources in determining what practices have the greatest impact on the successful recruitment and retention of child welfare workers will assist in developing an evidence-base for future federal investment in this space.

I hope that as the Senate begins to discuss reauthorizing the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act that we consider the Child Welfare Workforce Support Act and recognize the important role that child welfare workers make to improve outcomes for vulnerable infants and children.

Mr. President, according to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) youth are at an increased risk for experiencing maltreatment compared to non-LGB youth. A 2011 meta-analysis of 37 school-based studies found that LGB adolescents were 3.8 times more likely to experience childhood sexual abuse and 1.2 times more likely to experience physical abuse by a parent or guardian when compared to their heterosexual peers. Additional studies have demonstrated that gender nonconformity during childhood may increase the risk for child maltreatment. Unfortunately, there is not enough research and data available to identify the risk of child maltreatment for individuals who identify as transgender.

These risks for maltreatment often times result in LGBTQ youth entering the child welfare system. Studies have found that, ``LGBT young people are overrepresented in child welfare systems, despite the fact that they are likely to be underreported because they risk harassment and abuse if their LGBT identity is disclosed.'' This overrepresentation of LGBTQ youth in the foster care system raises concerns about issues in the child abuse and prevention space. Additional research is needed to understand the risk of maltreatment among LGBTQ youth, particularly those identifying as transgender. These studies will yield invaluable information to be used in developing targeted prevention strategies to reduce the rates of adverse childhood experiences of LGBTQ individuals.

This is why I am pleased to introduce the Protecting LGBTQ Youth Act, which calls for HHS and other federal agencies to carry out an interdisciplinary research program to protect LGBTQ youth from child abuse and neglect and improve the well-being of victims of child abuse or neglect. This legislation also expands current practices around demographic information collection and reporting on incidences and prevalence of child maltreatment to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Additionally, the bill opens existing grant funding opportunities to invest in the training of personnel in best practices to meet the unique needs of LGBTQ youth and calls for the inclusion of individuals experienced in working with LGBTQ youth and families in state task forces. Improving data collection and disaggregation will provide greater insight into the circumstances LGBTQ youth face in the home that, when left unaddressed, lead to entry into the child welfare system. This improved data-driven understanding can then be used to develop appropriate and effective primary prevention practices to decrease the risks faced by LGTBQ youth.

I hope that as the Senate begins to discuss the reauthorization of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act we consider the Protecting LGBTQ Youth Act to better inform our collective understanding of the risks faced by LGBTQ youth and the best ways to address them.

Mr. President, investing in the development of a robust, well-trained, and stable child welfare workforce is central to improving outcomes for children and families across the United States. The existence of such a workforce is essential to a child welfare agency's ability to carry out the responsibilities with which they have been entrusted. Child welfare work has been shown to be physically and emotionally challenging, as demonstrated by recent studies into the impact of secondary traumatic stress (STS) on child welfare professionals. The multitude of challenges inherent in child welfare work, combined with relatively low compensation and work benefits, make these careers difficult to sustain, resulting in high rates of turnover.

Studies conducted over the last 15 years estimate the national rate of turnover of child welfare workers to be 20-40 percent annually. In 2017, Virginia reported a turnover rate of 30%, while Washington State reported a turnover rate of 20% and Georgia reported a turnover rate of 32%. These high rates of turnover detract from the quality of services delivered to children and families and result in an estimated cost of $54,000 per worker leaving an agency.

Greater action is needed to ensure that individuals pursuing child welfare careers receive appropriate training and support to improve the sustainability of their important, yet demanding work. Higher rates of retention for child welfare workers translates to greater stability for families and improved services for vulnerable youth. Existing research provides a number of evidenced-based and promising practices for improving recruitment and retention in the child welfare workforce.

This is why I am pleased to introduce today the Child Welfare Workforce Support Act. This bill directs the Secretary to conduct a five-year demonstration program for child welfare service providers to implement targeted interventions to recruit, select, and retain child welfare workers. This demonstration program will focus on building an evidence base of best practices for reducing barriers to the recruitment, development, and retention of individuals providing direct services to children and families. Funds will also be used to provide ongoing professional development to assist child welfare workers in meeting the diverse needs of families with infants and children with the goal of improving both the quality of services provided and the sustainability of such careers. Investing resources in determining what practices have the greatest impact on the successful recruitment and retention of child welfare workers will assist in developing an evidence-base for future federal investment in this space.

I hope that as the Senate begins to discuss reauthorizing the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act that we consider the Child Welfare Workforce Support Act and recognize the important role that child welfare workers make to improve outcomes for vulnerable infants and children.

Mr. President, according to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) youth are at an increased risk for experiencing maltreatment compared to non-LGB youth. A 2011 meta-analysis of 37 school-based studies found that LGB adolescents were 3.8 times more likely to experience childhood sexual abuse and 1.2 times more likely to experience physical abuse by a parent or guardian when compared to their heterosexual peers. Additional studies have demonstrated that gender nonconformity during childhood may increase the risk for child maltreatment. Unfortunately, there is not enough research and data available to identify the risk of child maltreatment for individuals who identify as transgender.

These risks for maltreatment often times result in LGBTQ youth entering the child welfare system. Studies have found that, ``LGBT young people are overrepresented in child welfare systems, despite the fact that they are likely to be underreported because they risk harassment and abuse if their LGBT identity is disclosed.'' This overrepresentation of LGBTQ youth in the foster care system raises concerns about issues in the child abuse and prevention space. Additional research is needed to understand the risk of maltreatment among LGBTQ youth, particularly those identifying as transgender. These studies will yield invaluable information to be used in developing targeted prevention strategies to reduce the rates of adverse childhood experiences of LGBTQ individuals.

This is why I am pleased to introduce the Protecting LGBTQ Youth Act, which calls for HHS and other federal agencies to carry out an interdisciplinary research program to protect LGBTQ youth from child abuse and neglect and improve the well-being of victims of child abuse or neglect. This legislation also expands current practices around demographic information collection and reporting on incidences and prevalence of child maltreatment to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Additionally, the bill opens existing grant funding opportunities to invest in the training of personnel in best practices to meet the unique needs of LGBTQ youth and calls for the inclusion of individuals experienced in working with LGBTQ youth and families in state task forces. Improving data collection and disaggregation will provide greater insight into the circumstances LGBTQ youth face in the home that, when left unaddressed, lead to entry into the child welfare system. This improved data-driven understanding can then be used to develop appropriate and effective primary prevention practices to decrease the risks faced by LGTBQ youth.

I hope that as the Senate begins to discuss the reauthorization of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act we consider the Protecting LGBTQ Youth Act to better inform our collective understanding of the risks faced by LGBTQ youth and the best ways to address them.

Mr. President, today Senator Carper and I introduced the Reclaiming Congressional Trade Authority Act of 2019. Enacting this bill would restore the role on Congress in overseeing international trade matters.

I have been outspoken against the abuse of executive authorities that have been delegated to the President. Congress has a Constitutional power to oversee international trade. We have recently seen an abuse of this power, as with other executive authorities. This bill would mandate expanded Congressional involvement in international trade decisions by requiring the Trump Administration--and future Administrations--to further analyze, communicate, and justify tariff actions to Congress. Congress would then review new tariffs and if the Administration used national security to justify the tariffs' need, Congress would be required to approve them.

I am advocating for my colleagues to consider supporting this bill, especially as the damaging effects of the ongoing trade war continue. It's time for Congress to step in and act on our Constitutional duty.

Mr. President, today Senator Carper and I introduced the Reclaiming Congressional Trade Authority Act of 2019. Enacting this bill would restore the role on Congress in overseeing international trade matters.

I have been outspoken against the abuse of executive authorities that have been delegated to the President. Congress has a Constitutional power to oversee international trade. We have recently seen an abuse of this power, as with other executive authorities. This bill would mandate expanded Congressional involvement in international trade decisions by requiring the Trump Administration--and future Administrations--to further analyze, communicate, and justify tariff actions to Congress. Congress would then review new tariffs and if the Administration used national security to justify the tariffs' need, Congress would be required to approve them.

I am advocating for my colleagues to consider supporting this bill, especially as the damaging effects of the ongoing trade war continue. It's time for Congress to step in and act on our Constitutional duty.

Madam President, I rise, as colleagues of mine have earlier today, to talk about the President's emergency declaration. Before I do, I will just say that this declaration deals with budgetary matters at the end of the day, whether the President should be able to take $6.1 billion this year and possibly more in future years from the Pentagon's budget to deal with a nonbudgetary emergency.

I want to acknowledge that today is the last day of my budget staffer, my right hand on all Federal budget matters for the last 6\1/ 2\ years, Ron Storhaug. I am going to miss him. I will start there. I will miss Ron. He has done such a good job. My only good feeling is that he is staying right here in the Senate and moving to work with the senior Senator from Maryland.

I want to talk about the declaration and urge my colleagues to vote to reject what I believe is the President's unwise use of his power to raid the Pentagon's budget.

Is there an emergency at the border? There is a serious issue at the border--a whole series of serious issues, negative but also positive. Trade happens across all the borders of the country. But all the testimony before the Armed Services Committee, where I sit, says there is no military emergency at the border. We heard testimony from General O'Shaughnessy, who is the commander of what we call NORTHCOM-- everything in the Americas north of Mexico's southern border. General O'Shaughnessy said there is no military emergency at the border between the United States and Mexico. We heard the same testimony this morning from Defense Secretary Shanahan and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunford. So there is no military emergency at the border.

Compared to other significant challenges we deal with--70,000 drug overdose deaths a year, climate change, 40,000 deaths a year from gun violence, including both homicides and suicides, homelessness, lack of medical care, military housing--it is hard to see why the border issue would be an emergency that would rise to the top of any list. I can certainly assert this: There are much higher priorities for Virginians.

While we could argue about whether it is an emergency, one thing I think is pretty clear--it is inarguably a Presidential power grab. The President is unhappy with congressional appropriations for the border, so he is declaring an emergency to take $6.1 billion this year and possibly more in future years from the Pentagon's budget. This will establish a very dangerous precedent.

First, let's focus on the President's being unhappy. For all of this President's tenure up until January 3, he had two Republican Houses. There were two Republican Houses and a Republican President. Why should he be unhappy with the budget? He would have had the ability to convince Republican majorities to do what he wanted, but he could not. So he is unhappy with what Congress, the appropriating branch, has put on the table. We put billions of dollars on the table for the border, but he is unhappy with it, and so now he is going to declare an emergency.

It raises two important questions. Can a President just declare an emergency every time he is unhappy that Congress doesn't accept his budgetary proposals? Second, can the President use the declaration of a nonmilitary emergency to just tap a spigot into the Pentagon's budget? That is exactly what President Trump is trying to do in this case.

The President has declared an emergency that all agree is a nonmilitary emergency. The President said: I want to take $6.1 billion from the Pentagon's budget to deal with this emergency.

He wants to take $3.6 billion from military construction. Military construction are the funds we use to build facilities on our military bases across the United States and across the world or to rebuild facilities, like the airbase at Tyndall or the big sections of Camp Lejeune that were hit in hurricanes last year. That is what the MILCON budget is supposed to do.

This morning, I toured Fort Belvoir to visit with Army families living at Fort Belvoir in Fairfax County, VA. They shared with me atrocious stories about the condition of the housing they are living in. These are atrocious stories of rodent infestation, black mold, lead, and asbestos. I drove by one military house at Fort Belvoir that had a big warning sign on the door: ``Poison.'' You could not enter it because of efforts at asbestos and lead remediation.

The families told me about the poor physical conditions of their properties. They told me about the fact that they couldn't get a response when they were trying to get help. Then they told me, tragically, about the illnesses of their children, hospitalizations, and having to move out of their homes and apartments. One mother of a 10-year-old talked about the fact that her 10-year-old daughter, because of mold in her military housing unit, missed 45 days of school in the last school year. Her daughter had to be absent for a quarter of the school year because of the poor physical conditions of military housing.

The MILCON budget is there to deal with issues like these. Yet the President wants to take $3.6 billion out of the MILCON budget. The President wants to take $2.5 billion out of the drug-interdiction budget within the Department of Defense. Press reports suggest that account only has about $85 million available, so what they would need to do is cannibalize other accounts to fill up that account to $2.5 billion to then take out. Those are the important funds--military construction and drug interdiction--the President is proposing to raid.

I think it is important to notice this: The President's emergency declaration is not just about tapping the budget this year for $6.1 billion. Earlier today, in an Armed Services hearing, I asked Secretary Shanahan: Doesn't this emergency declaration last until the President declares it is over? If we don't rebut the emergency, it will not just be fiscal year 2019; it will be fiscal year 2020 or 2021 and beyond. It will enable the President to tap a spigot into the MILCON budget and draw out moneys this year, next year, and in future years. So it is $6.1 billion that he is asking for this year, but unless Congress asserts its article I power to say, no, we are the appropriators, we will basically be allowing the President to tap into this fund in perpetuity, thereby affecting important military construction priorities that would be good for the military families and our Nation's defense.

Which military construction projects might be compromised by the President's use of this $6.1 billion?

When the President declared the emergency, I wrote a letter to Secretary Shanahan on February 15 and asked: Can you give us a list of the projects that will be compromised by this $6.1 billion raid on the Pentagon's budget? I have not received a response. That was 27 days ago.

This morning, before the committee, Secretary Shanahan was asked: Why haven't we received a list? If the President wants to take $6.1 billion out of the Pentagon's budget, give us a list of the potential projects that could be affected.

I wrote a letter on the 15th, and staffers have been reaching out to the Pentagon. If you do not know precisely the projects, give us the universe--all unobligated MILCON projects on your priority list that could possibly be affected. Today, after not responding to the requests, Secretary Shanahan said that he will send us a list at the end of the day: I will send you a list, basically, after you vote this afternoon.

The vote that we will be casting this afternoon is about whether the President should be able to raid the Pentagon's budget for $6.1 billion. For a month, we have been asking what projects might be affected, and they are now proposing to give us an answer to the question after the vote. They have had the list since the very day we asked them. They keep a list every day about unobligated MILCON projects, but the service secretaries are not allowed to share those lists with Congress until the Secretary of Defense allows them to, and he is going to allow us to see it today.

Everybody is voting to cannibalize the Pentagon's budget to the tune of $6.1 billion. All of the Senators should

be interested in what projects might be affected in their own States that are necessary to the Nation's defense before they vote to give the President this power.

In conclusion, I hope, today, we will stand up against the President's power grab. We shouldn't let the President tap a spigot into the Pentagon's budget to deal with an emergency that all have agreed is a nonmilitary emergency. We shouldn't let him tap a spigot that is not just for this budgetary year but for future fiscal years, as well, which is the effect of the vote today.

We are the article I branch, and under that section of the Constitution, we set the spending priorities. Because he is unhappy with our work product, the President should not be able to overturn the spending priorities that we have established in our appropriations bills and raid the Pentagon's budget without telling us where the moneys will come from.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President. In today's economy, approximately 80 percent of jobs require some form of postsecondary education or training beyond the high school level. The National Skills Coalition estimates that nearly half of all job openings between now and 2022 will be middle skill jobs that require post high school training, but not a four-year degree. While the number of students pursing postsecondary education is growing, the supply of skilled workers still falls short of industry demand. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics 7.3 million U.S. jobs are currently vacant in part because of a shortage of qualified workers.

Our Federal higher education policy must be modernized to meet the needs of students and employers. Under current law, Pell Grants--needs- based grants for low-income and working students--can only be awarded to students attending programs that are over 600 clock hours or at least 15 weeks in length. These grants cannot be used to offset the cost of targeted, short-term training programs offered at community and technical colleges that help students obtain employer-recognized credentials. When it comes to higher education, Federal policies need to support the demands of the changing labor market by increasing access to career pathways that align with industry demand. According to the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, shorter-term educational investments pay off--the average postsecondary certificate holder has 30 percent higher lifetime earnings than individuals with only a high school diploma.

Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleague, Senator Portman, the Jumpstart Our Businesses by Supporting Students or JOBS Act. The JOBS Act would close the skills gap by extending Pell Grant eligibility to high-quality, short-term job training programs offered at community colleges and other public institutions, so workers can afford the instruction they need to be successful in today's job market. Under the legislation, Pell-eligible job training programs are defined as those providing at least 150 clock hours of instruction time over a minimum of 8 weeks. Eligible job training programs must also provide students with licenses, certifications, or credentials that meet the hiring requirements of multiple employers in the field for which the job training is offered.

The JOBS Act also ensures that students enrolling in Pell-eligible short-term programs are earning high-quality postsecondary credentials by requiring that the credentials meet the standards of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, are recognized by industry or sector partnerships, and align with the skill needs of industries in States or local economies. Job training programs under this Act must also be evaluated by an accreditor and the State workforce board for quality and outcomes. The Virginia Community College System has identified approximately 50 programs that would benefit from the JOBS Act including in the fields of manufacturing, architecture/construction, energy, health care, information technology, transportation, and business management and administration.

The JOBS Act is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that would help workers and employers succeed in today's economy. As Congress works to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in advocating for Pell Grants to be made available to individuals enrolling in high-quality, short-term training programs that lead to industry-recognized credentials and good paying jobs.