Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is widely recognized that relationship violence and campus sexual assault are major issues facing our Nation. According to the Department of Justice more than 290,000 Americans are victims of rape and sexual assault each year with young women between the ages of 16 and 24 consistently experiencing the highest rate of intimate partner violence. Secondary schools can play an important role in educating young people about relationship behavior and dating violence, but comprehensive health education courses are not required to include these topics, even though similar requirements for including age appropriate content and abstinence-only education already exist.

Safe relationship behavior education is age-appropriate education that promotes safe relationships and teaches students to recognize and prevent physical and emotional relationship abuse, including teen and adolescent dating violence, domestic abuse, sexual violence and sexual harassment. This includes education regarding consent as well as emotional health and well-being in relationships. Currently there is no federal requirement that sex education courses cover topics like sexual assault prevention and discussions about communication in safe relationships.

This is why I am proud to introduce with my colleagues, Senator McCaskill and Senator Blumenthal, the Teach Safe Relationships Act of 2015, which would build upon the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act to develop and implement prevention and intervention policies in middle and high schools, including appropriate procedures for students who are experiencing or perpetrating domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, or sex trafficking.

The idea for this legislation developed as a result of a meeting at the University of Virginia with members of One Less, a sexual assault education group that advocates for survivors of rape and sexual assault. With the alarming statistics on the prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses and in communities across the country, secondary schools should play a role in promoting safe relationship behavior and teaching students about sexual assault and dating violence.

Currently, it is not mandatory for schools to offer health education. But if they do, this proposal is consistent with existing requirements in current law. This bill will amend the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act, ESEA, to include safe relationship behavior education in comprehensive health education and assists State and local educational agencies and institutions to meet the Title IX requirements of the Educational Amendments of 1972. Additionally, this legislation authorizes grant programs to enable secondary schools to educate staff and administration, and provide age appropriate educational curricula for students regarding safe relationship behavior. In addition to being age-appropriate the training and education programs must also be culturally and linguistically appropriate, reflecting the diverse circumstances and realities of young people.

I am hopeful the Teach Safe Relationships Act will be one part of the solution as lawmakers, parents, colleges and universities, and law enforcement continue working together to embrace comprehensive reforms to make our country safer. I strongly encourage my colleagues in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee to consider this legislation in any ESEA reauthorization.

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

Mr. President, I rise today because I wish to speak about the importance of this DHS funding bill that is going to be before the body in the coming days. In particular, I wish to emphasize what I think is the important imperative that we pass what we are calling a clean bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of fiscal year 2015 through the end of September. That clean bill would be a bill that would fund homeland security without attaching additional items to it concerning immigration.

The support of this legislation was an initiative we were together on. We negotiated in December as part of a budget process by leaders of both parties in both Chambers, and the funding for DHS would have been an increase to help protect our borders and help protect our security by about $1.2 billion above the enacted level for fiscal year 2014. But at the end of the year the decision was made by the House to not fund that piece and leave it separately and that is why we are now talking about whether we will fund the Nation's homeland security efforts and under what circumstances.

All 45 Members on the Democratic side, save only Senator Reid, have written a letter saying let's make sure we fund DHS at the level we have already agreed to between the Houses. Then, let's not play politics over immigration issues; let's take up immigration separately. But the House bill that has been sent to us includes measures to begin to block or unwind actions taken by the President on immigration, and those complicate what all should agree is a national imperative, which is the need to fund homeland security. If we don't pass such a bill, that funding will expire on February 28.

I don't need to explain too much why homeland security funding is important, but let me make a few points. This Department was created after the attacks of 9/11, and its stated mission--while it employs an awful lot of people and does many complicated things, the mission is quite simple--let's keep our country safe, secure, and resilient against terrorism and other hazards. We see every day the kinds of terrorism hazards we are dealing with. The horrible shooting in Paris a few weeks ago and the shooting in Quebec a few months ago remind us of the dangers of terrorism, and now that we are in a war against ISIL--a jihadist terrorist enemy that has promised to carry out attacks on the United States--we should be very concerned about the mission the DHS performs and the need to provide funding.

The men and women who work for the DHS are quite a wide swath of our Federal employees. They are the TSA personnel who protect our transportation system, the Border Patrol agents who serve on our Nation's front lines, Customs officials who oversee the entrance of nearly 1 million visitors per day who come to the United States, and we need Customs agents to help process those visitors. Our DHS folks include disaster specialists--people who respond to hurricanes and other emergencies. Our Coast Guard, our Secret Service, and many of our cyber security professionals all work for the DHS and they work hard every day to carry out that mission of keeping our Nation safe.

Funding DHS is not just critical to the Nation's security, it is also critical to the economy because DHS is the third largest agency in the Federal Government by the number of employees. The impact of any shutdown or cessation of funding would reverberate through the country, from our Southwest border to our Nation's ports to every international airport that brings in either foreign commerce or foreign visitors who want to come and be tourists in our country.

Many DHS employees, as the Presiding Officer knows, call Virginia home, and a shutdown would impact their lives and would make it difficult for them to plan not only for their immediate needs but for an unknown period of time.

So as we are facing threats--and I think we all would agree--while we sometimes have differences of opinion about how to deal with threats, I think everybody in this body would acknowledge that the threats we are dealing with as a nation are not shrinking, they are growing. The challenges we are facing are not getting fewer in number, they are getting greater in number. To respond to threats, the DHS not only needs a good funding bill at an appropriate level, which we have already agreed to, but they need financial certainty and the flexibility to direct its resources as they can.

Let me give one interesting recent example of how DHS employees have

been very important in Virginia, and how those serving in Virginia have performed a critical role for the Nation.

We saw a crisis spring up in 2014 that many of us hadn't paid too much attention to before, and that is the spread of the Ebola virus in Africa. That epidemic that began in 2014 is the largest in history for this kind of virus and it had a significant impact on many West African countries. There were more than 22,000 cases as of January 30, 2015.

One of the great things is whenever there is a challenge such as this, the nations of the world turn to the United States and they ask for our help. Many parts of our government responded. We deployed military and health professionals to Africa to try to battle the disease there, but we have also deployed our DHS personnel right here at home to keep us safe. As part of this strategy to stop the spread of Ebola, DHS announced in October that five U.S. airports would begin an advanced screening process for Ebola, and one of those airports is in Virginia, and that is Dulles airport. Shortly after, DHS announced that all travelers from Ebola-affected countries would have to enter the United States from one of these five airports.

So using existing resources--using existing resources because we didn't have an Ebola line item in the 2014 budget; this is an emergency that came up--but with existing resources, the DHS employees at Dulles were charged with supervising the entire Ebola screening process, including administering questionnaires, taking travelers' temperatures, and referring potentially infected people to the Centers for Disease Control, while also doing all of their regular duties. These officers in Virginia have gone above and beyond their mission for the sake of keeping every American safe.

Since this advanced screening began in October, CBP officers at Dulles have interviewed more than 2,000 visitors to the United States from African countries and they have referred more than 140 people to the CDC. As a result of their work and the work of their colleagues and their ability to react to this emerging threat, the United States has only seen two diagnosed cases of Ebola since advanced screening began at our airports, and both patients recovered.

This should be viewed as a huge success. Remember how worried we all were--how worried I was--when this was happening in September and October. Our DHS employees have gone the extra mile to keep us safe.

This is the kind of mission that we call upon our DHS employees to carry out for our security. It has nothing to do with congressional debates about immigration policy, but it has everything to do with doing the stated mission of keeping us safe. To limit DHS's access to resources by shutting down the agency or passing another continuing resolution that would keep them running on auto pilot--sort of driving by looking in the rearview mirror rather than looking through the windshield of the challenges to come--would damage the ability of DHS to deal with growing threats.

I understand the message from the House. We have agreed on the right funding level for DHS. They are saying, however, that we will only fund DHS, we will only fund the guys who are protecting us from ISIL, or protecting us from Ebola, or protecting our ports from nuclear material being shipped--we will only fund it if we can get an agreement to change policies enacted by the President with immigration. They are threatening to stop funding DHS actions unless we reverse the President's actions on immigration--actions that, in my view, are already helping the economy by bringing families out of the shadows to become productive, taxpaying members of our communities.

While I strongly support the President's immigration actions--and most of them I voted for as part of the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill that we passed in June of 2013--I can understand there might be Members of the House who may not like those actions. They may want to do something different. And the great thing is they have an ability to do something different. The House, with a significant Republican majority, can pass their own immigration reform bill. They can retract the President's actions. They can express what they want to do about immigration reform. They can pass that bill just as they passed the DHS funding bill, and send it over to the Senate, and we can have a debate about immigration reform. But we can have that debate without holding hostage the funding of the third largest agency in government, without holding hostage the work that agency does every day to keep us safe.

I think the good news in all of this is in both the House and Senate there are people who think the immigration system is broken, the immigration system needs to be fixed, and we ought to have a dialogue to do it. Certainly, when the Senate passed an immigration reform bill in June of 2013--nearly 2 years ago--and we sent it to the House, we knew the House was not going to adopt what the Senate passed without changing anything. We were trying to start a dialogue where the House could pass their own bill and then we could sit down in conference and work out a solution to an immigration system that we all think is broken. That is what we should be doing as responsible legislators-- fixing an immigration system, and even those of us who have different views, getting those views on the table and finding a compromise. It is the wrong thing to do to try to hold up funding for the third largest agency in government--this agency that is keeping us safe in so many ways all over this country every day--to try to reverse actions the President took that are well within his legal authority.

So I am going to continue to support the President's Executive actions. I am going to continue to encourage the House and others, if they have different ideas about immigration reform, to pass a bill, put their ideas on the table and we will talk about them. But it is wrong to try to hold up protecting our Nation's security as a punishment to the President for using Executive action that was within his legal power to make. Since we have the complete ability to have a discussion about immigration, let's do it.

I will conclude and say this, although I wish I didn't have to--and particularly looking at these young pages who are sitting in front of me--it is a dangerous world out there. For the sake of these youngsters and my own kids, I wish it was getting less dangerous. I have a son in the military. I wish it was getting less dangerous, but it is not. It is getting more dangerous. The kinds of threats we have to face abroad and at home are tough, challenging, difficult threats. We have professionals on the front line every day, many of whom are risking their lives for us, to try to stop these threats. Let's not starve their work. Let's not hamper their work. Let's not make them face the threat of a shutdown or losing their salary or losing their livelihood while we wait for Congress to have a meaningful debate about immigration.

I appreciate the opportunity to offer those thoughts and to urge funding for a clean DHS bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today the United States ranks 12th in the world in the percentage of 25-34 year olds achieving post-high school degrees. We need to make changes that help keep students engaged in their futures while also ensuring our educational programs are adequately preparing students for the jobs of the 21st century.

Career and technical education, CTE, programs are proven to help keep students more engaged in the classroom and less likely to drop out of high school, and to help meet the needs of high-growth, skill-intensive industries looking for the next generation of workers. The U.S. Department of Education announced that the average U.S. high school graduation rate is 80 percent, while the graduation rate for students in CTE concentrations is higher than 90 percent. 81 percent of high school dropouts say real-world learning opportunities would have kept them in school.

The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act is a major source of Federal support for the development

of career and technical skills among secondary and postsecondary students. Last reauthorized in 2006, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act needs to be modernized to meet the demands of the 21st century workforce and ensure that students have access to the highest-quality CTE programs.

This is why I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues, Senator Portman and Senator Baldwin, the Educating Tomorrow's Workforce Act, which would amend the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act to raise the quality of CTE programs. This legislation defines what constitutes a rigorous CTE curriculum and requires Perkins grant recipients to incorporate key high-quality elements in their programs including credit-transfer opportunities; academic and technical skills assessments; training tools that align with today's industries; CTE- focused professional development for teachers, administrators, and counselors; and CTE curriculum alignment with local, regional, and State workforce demands. Additionally, the bill improves links between high school and postsecondary education to help ease attainment of an industry recognized credential, license, apprenticeship, or postsecondary certificate to obtain a job in a high-demand career field and promotes partnerships between local businesses, and other community stakeholders to create pathways for students through work-based learning opportunities.

When I was Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I worked on a number of educational issues, but one that I was most proud of was starting the Governor's Career and Technical Academies. At the start of my term as Governor we had nine academies. The Republican Governor who followed me continued the academies, and at the end of his term there were 23. The Educating Tomorrow's Workforce Act encourages these models and allows states and localities to use Perkins grant funding to establish CTE-focused academies.

I am proud to introduce this commonsense, bipartisan legislation to raise the quality of CTE programs and ensure that high-quality career and technical education helps students develop skills that meet the needs of 21st century employers.

Madam President, I am happy I was here for the comments of my colleague from Indiana on the Keystone Pipeline and, similar to the Senator from Indiana, I am also happy to finally have this debate. The comments he made are very sincere and passionately believed. I accept that. I only challenge one aspect of the comments, which is the suggestion that opposition of Keystone is feeble or only for political reasons.

I am a pro-energy Senator. The first bill I introduced in the 114th Congress was a bill I am cosponsoring with Senator Barrasso of Wyoming to expedite American exports of liquid natural gas, but I am an opponent of Keystone on environmental and economic grounds, and I wish to spend a few minutes describing why.

To begin with, it can probably be summed up in a question: Why embrace dirty energy when America is in the midst of a clean energy revolution? That is a primary reason I oppose Keystone. The United States, thank goodness, is on a clean energy roll. Not only are we on a clean energy roll, we are on an energy production roll that is helping our economy, helping our trade deficit, and hurting some of our most significant global adversaries, notably Russia and Iran.

We have embraced over the last few years a set of conservation and efficiency investments, probably most notably the increased CAFE standards that have saved energy use in the vehicle sector as well as helped the American auto industry significantly rebound. Our natural gas revolution, of which I am a strong supporter, has enabled American industry and consumers to get lower priced energy, and it has enabled us to lessen our dependence on dirtier fuels in the production of electric power and other aspects of our power usage. Wind and solar and other noncarbon energy developments have rocketed ahead. Nearly one- third of the energy that has been added to the American electricity grid since 2005 has been in the wind and solar area. We are one of the few nations in the world that in the period from 2005 to 2012 actually saw a reduction in our carbon emissions.

We are on a clean energy roll. We are innovating for the world and we are selling technologies to the rest of the world and that is good for our economy as well as good for the environment.

We are also asserting American energy leadership not just in the advances in clean energy but also in the significant advances in American energy production. I think we should feel

good about the fact that we are a country that has gone from being one of the greatest net importers of energy in the world to now a country that is going to be one of the greatest energy producers in the world, and in many energy areas we are now a net exporter. So emissions are going down. Production and exports are going up.

The other thing that is great for Americans is that prices are going down. A barrel of oil right now is in the $50-a-barrel range, which is putting about $1,000 a year back into the pockets of an American family. It is helping American businesses, and it is imposing, as I mentioned earlier, some significant harm upon two of our most persistent global adversaries--Iran and Russia--that rely on energy exports to drive their economy.

This energy revolution--higher production, greater economic efficiency, greater cleanliness--has all been happening without the Keystone Pipeline. It has all been happening without the United States embracing tar sands oil. We are going in the right direction now. I oppose the Keystone Pipeline because accelerating the use of tar sands oil turns us around. Instead of going in the right direction to more production, more national security and greater emissions control, the Keystone Pipeline accelerates tar sands oil and takes us in the wrong direction. Simply put, tar sands oil and the exploitation of that resource is a bad bet for the environment and, I believe, a bad bet for the economy.

Last month, December 2014, a magazine I really like that normally has a lot of articles about the outdoors, Outside magazine, ran a lengthy article on the area of Canada in Alberta where tar sands are mined. The article is called ``The High Cost of Oil.''

To anyone who is interested in this debate--pro, con or undecided--go online to Outside magazine, December 2014, ``The High Cost of Oil,'' and read what the mining of tar sands oil does to this part of Canada and to this planet.

Tar sands oil is not like conventional gas or petroleum. Tar sands oil, the mining and refining and production of it, produces about 15 to 20 percent more greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy than conventional petroleum. Natural gas produces dramatically less CO2 than conventional petroleum, but tar sands oil produces dramatically more. If you care about the emissions of CO2-- and I think we should all care about the emissions of CO2 because I accept the science that says CO2 emissions cause significant climate effects--if you care about CO2 emissions, then tar sands oil is absolutely the worst thing that can be done.

Over the 2 years now that I have been in the Senate, I have had a lot of folks come to me and talk to me about Keystone. They never say a word about greenhouse gas or CO2 emissions--not a word. Senator Coats didn't say a word in his comments about CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions. I ask individuals, when they come and talk to me about Keystone: What do you think about CO2 emissions? What do you think about the fact that tar sands oil is significantly more carbon dense than normal petroleum? The response I find myself getting is: I don't know; I am not a scientist. In fact, I heard that from an energy CEO who employs tons of scientists in his organizations: I don't know; I am not a scientist.

The scientific consensus I believe is very clear. We have to do what we can--not drastically and dramatically but in an incremental way-- every day to bring down our CO2 emissions. I believe we need to do that in smart ways. Yet, from an emissions standpoint, tar sands oil goes exactly in the wrong direction. It is not just CO2 emissions. Tar sands oil also involves the mining of it. I would encourage you to read this article. It involves scraping up vast acreages of an arboreal forest in Alberta to get to the tar sands underneath. So far, an area about the size of the State of Rhode Island has been completely despoiled to look like a moonscape to get to tar sands, and this will significantly accelerate the more tar sands are built.

In the area of Alberta where the mining and refining is taking place, there has been a dramatic increase in respiratory illness and other illnesses associated either with airborne emissions or with the contamination of the area's water supply.

Probably one of the most powerful things about the article is not the lengthy analysis, not the words, it is the pictures. The pictures in that article are staggering. When you see what has to be done to these arboreal forests to mine tar sands oil, you come back to this question: Why would we embrace a dirtier technology when America is on a clean- energy revolution that is driving down prices, driving up production, and also driving down emissions.

Tar sands oil takes us in the wrong direction. It is not so much about the pipeline. We rely on pipelines in this country, but it is about the acceleration of the development of a resource that, frankly, just doesn't need to be developed.

I will conclude and say this. Some say--and I made this argument-- well, look, it is going to be mined anyway and refined anyway. If the pipeline doesn't go through the United States, it will go westward or eastward through Canada or another direction. I am not completely sure that is correct. The article in Outside discusses the fact that Canadians, who know this better than anybody because they live in the neighborhood, are fighting against pipelines being built in Canada. There is also the matter with oil now at a significantly lower price than it has been. Even the economics of this tar sands oil, which is pretty expensive because of what you have to do to refine it, may not make any sense. But even if we set those arguments aside and somebody says to me, why shouldn't the United States just give the big green light to tar sands oil because somebody is going to get it, the reason I think we shouldn't is the United States is showing the world right now what it means to be an energy leader.

With increased production, lower emissions, lower prices through innovation--through American innovation--we are showing the world what it means to be an energy leader. We are a leader because we have embraced a simple effort.

I am not an engineer, but as I look at what happened in innovation in the last decade, the ethic we have embraced is: Let's do it cleaner tomorrow than today. That is pretty simple. Let's do it cleaner tomorrow than today--not dramatically cleaner. It doesn't have to turn day and night from today to tomorrow. Let's just get a little bit cleaner tomorrow than today.

That is what we have been doing as a Nation. It has been increasing supply. It has been driving down demand. It has been driving down prices. It has been helping us control emissions. That is what we should keep doing. I am a pro-energy Senator, but I am a deep skeptic about the use of tar sands oil. For that reason, I am glad we are going to have the debate. I think we should finally be at it. But I am going to oppose the Keystone Pipeline because tar sands oil is going backwards and not forwards. We are showing the world what it means to go forward, and that is the direction we should continue to go.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss the work that Congress still must do regarding America's ongoing war against ISIL, and I am glad to follow my colleague, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who has played such a critical role in initiating the first major step that Congress has taken. I want to talk about that step and the steps in which we would continue to engage.

It was my strong hope as of December 2014 that Congress would have spoken by now with a clear voice regarding ISIL and authorizing the military action commenced by President Obama on August 8. While that has not occurred, action taken by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week finally moves the body into the sort of good-faith legislative process regarding this ongoing military action, and it is my hope the process will be completed early in 2015.

I first began speaking about this issue in the spring of 2013. I had grown deeply concerned that the administration, as did the previous administration, was using the 2001 Al Qaeda authorization and the 2002 Iraq authorization to justify military actions significantly beyond what Congress had intended when those authorizations passed. So during an Armed Services hearing in May 2013, I told administration witnesses that any decision to introduce U.S. forces into Syria would require, in my view, a new authorization.

I was pleased when President Obama sought congressional approval for military action in Syria in August 2013, and

I believe the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote at that time helped lead to the ultimate destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile--one of the largest stockpiles in the world.

There is an important lesson. The President's determination that U.S. military action is necessary is made more powerful when Congress joins in that decision.

In June of this year, when it became apparent that the advances of ISIL in Iraq and Syria posed a threat to humanitarian values, to regional allies, to U.S. citizens and embassies and to our broader national interests, I publicly argued and encouraged the administration to address the threat--but only using military force after consultation and approval by Congress.

Make no mistake. ISIL is a major threat. But Presidents cannot constitutionally start military action without Congress unless there is a direct and imminent threat to the United States.

In this instance, with ISIL's activities occurring halfway across the globe and with the administration admitting that the organization poses no imminent threat of attacking the United States, a new congressional authorization is necessary.

Now, I regret that the administration started military action--what President Obama called going on offense against ISIL--in August without congressional approval. The White House asserts that the current action is justified by the 2001 and 2002 authorizations, but most outside observers and most Members of Congress believe the current campaign against ISIL needs its own legal authorization. The White House has not proposed authorizing language, and so it is up to Congress to do the job of providing a legal framework for this war.

I introduced a proposed authorization for war against ISIL within days after President Obama addressed the Nation on television on the evening of September 10. Since then, I have been working to have the matter heard--first in the Foreign Relations Committee and then by the full Senate. I have been greatly assisted in my effort by many colleagues, none more so than the chairman, Senator Menendez, who has passionately worked to advance this item in the business of the Senate.

The pace of our efforts has been frustratingly slow. But last week, after a series of hearings and business meetings, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted on an authorization to authorize the ongoing military action.

The authorization is a sound product that does a number of things. First, it authorizes and describes the military campaign against ISIL. Second, it establishes a 3-year duration of the authorization, with the ability for reauthorization if the Congress determines it to be in the national interests. Third, the authorization repeals the 2002 Iraq authorization and sunsets the 2001 Al Qaeda authorization in 3 years as a mechanism for forcing Congress to review and revise that Al Qaeda authorization.

Finally, what we did last week places limitations on the use of U.S. ground troops in the war on ISIL in accord with President Obama's clear pledges to the American public and our considered judgment that the U.S. role should be primarily to assist ground troops from the region in battling the region's own extremist violence.

After reporting the authorization out of committee, Senator Menendez filed it as an amendment to the omnibus budget bill with numerous cosponsors, including me. That was entirely appropriate because the budget contained funding for the ongoing operation against ISIL. But the amendment was not allowed, and, thus, in all likelihood, we will adjourn our 2014 session without taking action beyond the SFRC vote.

But just as the SFRC vote in August 2013 played a significant role leading to the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile, I believe the authorization we passed last week will also have a significant effect. It becomes the first formal action by Congress in providing a legal framework for the war that, until now, has been carried out without any clear legal authority. It will be the basis for our discussions in January as we complete the necessary work of authorizing this military action.

It is my hope that the authorization passed in Senator Menendez's committee will be introduced early in 2015, with dozens of cosponsors, and ultimately enable a full congressional vote on this most important matter.

I do believe the dialogue in Congress since August--since the President initiated unilateral military action on August 8--does offer some important lessons.

First, not surprisingly--and especially as a Virginian I have to say this--the Framers of our Constitution had it right--Framers such as Mason, Madison, and Jefferson. We shouldn't go to war without congressional approval. Unilateral action by the Executive without congressional support deprives the public of the full debate necessary to educate everybody about whether military action is in the national interest.

Just as importantly--maybe more importantly--it is unfair to send American troops into harm's way without a clear political consensus supporting the mission. We have already had three Americans who have lost their lives in Operation Inherent Resolve.

Congressional debate and approval expresses a support for the mission. But the lack of clear congressional support subjects an ambivalence about whether military action is a good idea or bad, and that is not healthy when we are asking people to risk their lives.

Second, when a President decides that military action is needed, the events of the last few months demonstrate it is best for the President to propose a draft authorization to Congress. When the President spoke to the Nation on September 10, he should have sent a draft authorization of the war against ISIL to Congress immediately. A clear definition of the proposed mission by the President is the best way to encourage full congressional debate and build the national consensus in support of the proposed mission.

Now, if a President does not propose an authorization, that doesn't give the Article I branch--the legislature--a pass from our constitutional obligations. We cannot let the lack of Presidential action slow us down in doing our job. But the process works better if the President initiates military action with a clear proposed authorization of Congress.

Third, the administration's reliance on the 2001 and 2002 authorizations in prosecuting this war on ISIL without congressional action demonstrates the profound need to revisit those authorities, because using a 13-year-old authorization crafted in different times for a different circumstance under a different administration for a different bit of geography with the support of a vastly different Congress to justify a new war 13 years later is not the way the Nation should make the great decision about whether to go to war. That is why the repeal of the 2002 authorization and a significant revision of the 2001 authorization is so important.

Finally, the events of the last months revealed yet again the weaknesses of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, an act whose provisions have been ignored by Presidents and Congresses of both parties since the ink was dry on the original. This fall, as an example, the President provided Congress notice of the start of military action as provided by the 1973 act, but then he completely ignored the 60- and 90-day timeline for ceasing military action and instead continued military operations in a unilateral way. It is time to update the 1973 law so it will work, for gosh sake. Senator McCain and I have introduced a significant revision of the law to improve the consultation between Congress and the President on matters of war, to define the magnitude of conflict that should trigger a required congressional vote, and to set out mandatory timelines for congressional action.

I am fully aware that a better, more consistent process for initiating war will not make our security challenges easy ones. The world is a difficult place. We have bellicose authoritarian regimes-- North Korea and Russia--we have non-State actors such as ISIL or Boko Haram or the al-Nusra Front or Al Qaeda. It is a complicated security situation that we have right now, and if we have a better process it will not make those security challenges easy, but I maintain--and my belief has grown stronger with every day I have

been in this body--that the absence of a process for making decisions about war coupled with the twin pathologies of Executive overreach and congressional abdication make it harder for us to do the right thing with clarity and with speed.

The events of the last month show that America can make decisions about war in a better way, and it is my hope we will address this important issue promptly as we reconvene in 2015.

Thank you.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Richmond.

Madam President, next Monday will mark 4 months since the President commenced military action in Syria and Iraq against ISIL. As of December 2, Operation Inherent Resolve, which the administration calls a war on ISIL, has involved more than 1,100 coalition airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, the vast majority carried out by American air men and women. The President has authorized currently 1,400 U.S. ground troops who are deployed in Iraq to train and advise regional forces. The President has authorized an additional 1,500 U.S. troops to serve in that train-and-advise capacity. This past Monday, 250 paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, NC, were sent to Iraq. The total cost of the operation thus far to U.S. taxpayers is in excess of $1 billion.

There have been three deaths of Americans serving in Operation Inherent Resolve. On October 1, Marine Cpl Jordan Spears of Memphis, TN, was lost at sea while conducting flight operations over the Persian Gulf. On October 23, Marine LCpl Sean Neal of Riverside, CA, died in Iraq. On December 1, Air Force Capt. William Dubois of Newcastle, CO, died in support of Operation Inherent Resolve.

Senator King and I visited Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar in October to see the Combined Air Operations Center in action, and I saw many Virginians there working with colleagues from all service branches and many other coalition nations in directing the air strike campaign.

Let's not make any mistake about this--America is at war. The number of air and ground troops deployed is steadily creeping upwards every day. Our troops are dying. And the fiscal cost to American taxpayers is growing every day.

But this is a most unusual war. While all the activities of war are occurring, there is a strange conspiracy of silence about it in the White House and in the Halls of Congress.

The President has not offered any proposed authorization for the war, despite his suggestions that one is needed. Congress has not debated on, taken committee action on, or voted on the ongoing war. The House is contemplating adjourning for the holidays on December 11, without saying anything about an ongoing war. And because neither the President nor Congress has undertaken the necessary public debate over the war, the American public has not had the chance to be fully educated about what is at stake and why it is in our international interest to ask our troops to risk their lives thousands of miles away.

We owe it to our troops serving abroad--troops who are engaged in war even as we think about recessing and leaving Washington on December 11 for the holidays--to do our job and to have a debate and vote about the war that our Constitution demands.

Let me make an earnest request to our President and to my colleagues in Congress.

To the President: I have previously taken the floor to strongly argue that the President needs new legal authority to conduct the war on

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 3, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SR- 328A of the Russell Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Farmers and Fresh Water: Voluntary Conservation to Protect our Land and Waters.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 3, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SR- 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 3, 2014, at 9 a.m. in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``NRC's Implementation of the Fukushima Near-Term Task Force Recommendations and other Actions to Enhance and Maintain Nuclear Safety.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 3, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an East Asian and Pacific Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Evaluating the Impact of the `Umbrella Movement'.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 3, 2014, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Dismantling Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program: Next Steps to Achieve a Comprehensive Deal.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 3, 2014, at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-216 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct an executive business meeting.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 3, 2014, in room S-216 immediately following the floor vote at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 3, 2014, at 11:30 a.m. in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure of the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on December 3, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Natural Gas Vehicles: Fueling American Jobs, Enhancing Energy Security, and Achieving Emissions Benefits.''

Mr. President, the key to America's continued success lies in improving our Nation's educational system. With the changing needs of our workforce, it is imperative that we utilize research in STEM fields and the humanities to improve our country's economic prosperity. Even in lean times, Virginia focused on the link between research and the creative new innovations that are leading this Nation's economic recovery; the Commonwealth's continued commitment to bridging these undertakings is commendable.

The Virginia Longitudinal System was created by a partnership between the Virginia Department of Education, the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, the Virginia Community College System, and the Virginia Employment Commission. This vital research tool, the first of its kind in the Nation, provides policymakers, researchers, and citizens with information that will prepare and connect Virginians with employment opportunities. Funded with a grant awarded under the stimulus bill--the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009--the data system allows State agencies and researchers to study the behaviors and transitions of students through the public school systems, into college, and on to the workforce so Virginia leaders can make informed decisions and create education and workforce policy based on consistent and relevant data.

Earlier this year, several education organizations, including the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, Center for Excellence in Education, Center for Innovative Technology, Virginia Chamber of Commerce, Virginia Business Higher Education Council, and the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, held the Virginia Higher Education Research Summit. The summit focused on the importance of increasing funding for academic research at Virginia's colleges and universities, showcased the strengths of private/public partnerships between Virginia's universities and the private sector, provided a forum for discussing best practices related to intellectual property issues, and strengthened the public's understanding of where Virginia's research dollars come from, including from Federal, State, and private sources.

If we are to win the race for talent, we need a long-term plan that produces the best workforce in the world. I am encouraged by these institutions' open discussion of one of our Nation's most pressing problems--investing in innovative research ideas that will drive our economy and the middle class into the future. I recognize the efforts of these stakeholders and the Commonwealth as they build on the substantial successes already achieved by Virginia's colleges and universities.

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

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the bill mandating approval of the Keystone Pipeline. I oppose the project because I believe accelerating the development of tar sands oil is contrary to our national interests, economic interests, national security interests, and environmental interests.

I believe there is no way to fully analyze this question without grappling with another question: Is carbon pollution from human activity affecting the world's climate in a negative way? Because if carbon pollution doesn't affect climate, then tar sands or this pipeline would not be a significant issue for me. But if we accept the general scientific consensus--and Virginians do--that carbon pollution does cause negative changes in climate, stopping or even slowing development of the tar sands is good for the United States and the world.

Some of the people who encourage me to support this project duck when I ask them this question: Do you think manmade carbon pollution affects our climate? One Virginia CEO, whose company is filled with scientific talent, basically told me, ``I don't know, I am not a scientist.'' And a representative of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce testified similarly before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year. But those of us who take an oath to serve here have a responsibility to consider the scientific evidence.

In Virginia, the second largest region is Hampton Roads, comprised of 1.6 million people in numerous cities and counties along the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Coast. Hampton Roads is a thriving economy as well as the home of the largest concentration of naval power in the world. It is also, next to New Orleans, the region most directly affected by rising sea levels, and all agree that rising sea levels are caused in part by carbon pollution. Climate changes are not a tomorrow issue in Virginia, they are a today issue.

Throughout Hampton Roads, rising sea levels are causing significant challenges, flooding roads, homes--with neighborhoods damaged and some even unmarketable--and causing economic harm to families and businesses. At current projections, the main access road into the U.S. Navy's principal base in Hampton Roads will be flooded and impassable 3 hours a day by 2040. With an economy so dependent upon the naval presence, anything that threatens this military investment is potentially devastating.

I sponsored a symposium on sea level rise in Hampton Roads this summer attended by hundreds, with bipartisan representation from local, State, and Federal officials and Members of Congress. The concern is real and virtually all estimates of sea level rise in this

community pose staggering challenges to every aspect of life here for years to come.

It is not just Hampton Roads. Virginia's largest industry is still agriculture and forestry--very affected by climate. Tourism is a major industry which is very affected by climate. Aquaculture is an important industry and climate affects it. So to those who want to duck the question of climate change or challenge the scientific evidence, I say to them, come to Virginia with me and talk to people whose lives are being seriously affected today by climate changes caused in part by escalating climate pollution.

So what is the answer to this problem and how does it relate to the Keystone Pipeline?

We have to continue to move toward a cleaner energy economy. We can't throw the brake on the use of fossil fuels. That would be unrealistic and hurt our economy.

As Governor of Virginia, I supported building a state-of-the-art coal plant in exchange for converting a plant that predated the Clean Air Act from coal to natural gas.

I support development of offshore energy. We can use a phased approach to produce energy cleaner tomorrow than today, reducing pollution caused by our energy sources through innovation and creating jobs. Guess what. As you know, that is exactly what we are doing.

Wind power involves no carbon pollution, and it is the fastest growing energy source in America. Cleaner tomorrow than today.

Utility scale solar electricity output increased 23-fold in the last decade. Cleaner tomorrow than today.

The revolution of natural gas production in the United States has turned our country into the world's leading energy producer and helped us reduce carbon pollution. Cleaner tomorrow than today.

Innovation driven by smart regulation in the American auto industry means we are producing cars that go much farther on gas than ever before. These developments help reduce demand for oil, thus dropping prices to consumers. Cleaner tomorrow than today.

Virginia ratepayers supported nuclear investments over the years that have enabled us to generate 40 percent of our power through noncarbon technology. Cleaner tomorrow than today.

And just as new technologies helped us make coal plants cleaner in the 1980s to battle acid rain, there are ways to make our existing and future coal plants emit less carbon pollution. Cleaner tomorrow than today.

With the United States taking significant leadership steps, it is more likely that other nations will do so as well. I believe our innovative path is one of the reasons why China was willing to announce recently they will take similar steps. Cleaner tomorrow than today.

The United States is now becoming a global leader in reducing carbon pollution, and we are there because of smart regulations and, especially, American innovation. We always have to make sure regulations strike the right balance. But by becoming cleaner tomorrow than today, we are creating jobs, protecting the environment, reducing our trade deficit, and ending our overdependence on energy from foreign nations. As members of the Armed Services Committee, the Members here on the floor, this reduced energy dependence is great for American national security.

This is why I oppose the Keystone project. Tar sands oil is dirty energy, producing significantly more carbon pollution than petroleum. After all we have done to be cleaner tomorrow than today, why would we embrace the technology that is a huge backslide that produces more, not less, carbon pollution than conventional sources? Embracing a dirtier energy technology moves us in precisely the wrong direction.

Keystone as a single project is neither the environmental game over some would suggest nor the energy panacea others would promise. But whether we embrace the tar sands oil development does send a message about how we intend to meet American and global energy needs. We can either send the message of cleaner tomorrow than today or send a message anything goes. Because U.S. innovation is helping us lead the world to a ``cleaner tomorrow than today'' energy future, we should not turn back now.

There are those who say that the tar sands fields of Alberta will be developed anyway so why doesn't the United States just go along? The owners of the resource may well develop it and find alternate routes to ship it through Canada. They can make their decision on their own, although falling oil prices may make the relative cost noncompetitive. Even if the owners of those fields decide to move forward in this development, the official policy of the United States should not, in my view, be to embrace, promote, and accelerate tar sands oil. Our official policy should be ``cleaner tomorrow than today'' and not ``anything goes.''

For these reasons, I oppose the bill to force approval of the Keystone Pipeline project and make accelerated tar sands oil development the official policy of the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, school districts across the nation are facing serious shortages in high-quality career and technical education, CTE, teachers. When CTE teachers have real-world experience in a related industry before entering the classroom, students not only benefit from their hands-on knowledge, but also look to them as career role models. Through grant in the Higher Education and Opportunity Act of 2008, many teacher residency partnerships already exist between postsecondary institutions and local schools to train prospective educators, but none are CTE focused.

This is why I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues, Senator Baldwin and Senator Portman, the Creating Quality Technical Educators Act, which would create a CTE teacher-training grant partnership to give aspiring CTE teachers the preparation necessary to mirror their success in the business world with that in the classroom. The Creating Technical Education Act will foster CTE teacher training partnerships between high-needs secondary schools and postsecondary institutions to create a 1-year residency initiative for prospective teachers and includes teacher mentorship for a minimum of 2 years.

This bipartisan bill amends the Higher Education Act and would give aspiring CTE teachers the experience necessary to succeed in the classroom,

where students can benefit from their work experience and credibility. The Creating Quality Technical Educators Act would take a robust proactive approach to recruit and train high-quality CTE teachers. In addition to midcareer professionals in related technical fields, CTE teacher residencies would target candidates who are recent college graduates or veterans or currently licensed teachers with a desire to transition to a CTE focus.

I am pleased we are beginning to see a renaissance of interest in career and technical education, but we have to recruit and train talented teachers to meet this rising demand for CTE. The Creating Quality Technical Educators Act will take an important step to ensure students in communities of all sizes have access to high-quality CTE teachers and career-training programs.

Mr. President, school districts across the nation are facing serious shortages in high-quality career and technical education, CTE, teachers. When CTE teachers have real-world experience in a related industry before entering the classroom, students not only benefit from their hands-on knowledge, but also look to them as career role models. Through grant in the Higher Education and Opportunity Act of 2008, many teacher residency partnerships already exist between postsecondary institutions and local schools to train prospective educators, but none are CTE focused.

This is why I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues, Senator Baldwin and Senator Portman, the Creating Quality Technical Educators Act, which would create a CTE teacher-training grant partnership to give aspiring CTE teachers the preparation necessary to mirror their success in the business world with that in the classroom. The Creating Technical Education Act will foster CTE teacher training partnerships between high-needs secondary schools and postsecondary institutions to create a 1-year residency initiative for prospective teachers and includes teacher mentorship for a minimum of 2 years.

This bipartisan bill amends the Higher Education Act and would give aspiring CTE teachers the experience necessary to succeed in the classroom,

where students can benefit from their work experience and credibility. The Creating Quality Technical Educators Act would take a robust proactive approach to recruit and train high-quality CTE teachers. In addition to midcareer professionals in related technical fields, CTE teacher residencies would target candidates who are recent college graduates or veterans or currently licensed teachers with a desire to transition to a CTE focus.

I am pleased we are beginning to see a renaissance of interest in career and technical education, but we have to recruit and train talented teachers to meet this rising demand for CTE. The Creating Quality Technical Educators Act will take an important step to ensure students in communities of all sizes have access to high-quality CTE teachers and career-training programs.

Mr. President, I am introducing a resolution to provide President Obama with authority in the multinational mission to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, which is meant to reinforce the President's strategy, as well as set key limitations that I hope will be included in final authorizing language for broader Congressional consideration.

President Obama laid out a strong case for the need to defeat ISIL, and asked for Congressional support for this effort. Now is the time for Congress to act to support the President and reestablish balance between the Executive and Legislature on whether or not to engage in significant military action.

I was heartened when Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Menendez answered the President's call by saying the committee would soon craft authorizing language for the U.S. military mission. It is my hope that the proposal I am introducing today will help move the process forward on what a specific and narrow authorization for limited military action against ISIL should look like.

This authorization is specific to ISIL and supports President Obama's key pillars: a multinational effort to degrade and destroy ISIL, the use of necessary and appropriate force in a campaign of air strikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria and the provision of military equipment to appropriately vetted forces in Iraq and Syria, including the Iraqi security forces, Kurdish fighters, and other legitimate, appropriately vetted, non-terrorist opposition groups in Syria. It also includes four key limitations: no U.S. ground troops; repeal of the 2002 Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force; sunset after 1 year; and narrow definition of associated forces. I have also included reporting requirements that require the President to update Congress on progress of the mission.

I believe this authorization is needed for two reasons. First, we need to comply with constitutional war powers provisions--Congress declares war and the President, as Commander-in-Chief, executes the mission. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Congressional buy-in represents a core value of our Nation--that the political leadership is willing to do the hard work to reach consensus in support of our servicemembers. If Congress is not willing to do the hard work to debate and vote on an authorization, we should not be asking our servicemembers to go into harm's way.

Mr. President, I am introducing a resolution to provide President Obama with authority in the multinational mission to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, which is meant to reinforce the President's strategy, as well as set key limitations that I hope will be included in final authorizing language for broader Congressional consideration.

President Obama laid out a strong case for the need to defeat ISIL, and asked for Congressional support for this effort. Now is the time for Congress to act to support the President and reestablish balance between the Executive and Legislature on whether or not to engage in significant military action.

I was heartened when Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Menendez answered the President's call by saying the committee would soon craft authorizing language for the U.S. military mission. It is my hope that the proposal I am introducing today will help move the process forward on what a specific and narrow authorization for limited military action against ISIL should look like.

This authorization is specific to ISIL and supports President Obama's key pillars: a multinational effort to degrade and destroy ISIL, the use of necessary and appropriate force in a campaign of air strikes against ISIL in Iraq and Syria and the provision of military equipment to appropriately vetted forces in Iraq and Syria, including the Iraqi security forces, Kurdish fighters, and other legitimate, appropriately vetted, non-terrorist opposition groups in Syria. It also includes four key limitations: no U.S. ground troops; repeal of the 2002 Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force; sunset after 1 year; and narrow definition of associated forces. I have also included reporting requirements that require the President to update Congress on progress of the mission.

I believe this authorization is needed for two reasons. First, we need to comply with constitutional war powers provisions--Congress declares war and the President, as Commander-in-Chief, executes the mission. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Congressional buy-in represents a core value of our Nation--that the political leadership is willing to do the hard work to reach consensus in support of our servicemembers. If Congress is not willing to do the hard work to debate and vote on an authorization, we should not be asking our servicemembers to go into harm's way.