Floor Statements

Mr. President, the key to America's continued success lies in improving our Nation's educational system to meet the demands of the 21st century job market. Today, many students enter high school and college with little knowledge of the careers available to them outside of traditional pathways. With college costs continuing to rise, it is critical that students have exposure to the wide range of available work and career choices early in their academic careers so that, by the time they enter high school, they are more informed about future paths and what they need to do to pursue them.

Career and technical education, CTE, are a proven way to help students explore their own strengths and preferences, as well as how they match up with potential future careers. However, limited funding for middle school CTE programming often means students have to wait until high school for this exposure.

Studies have found that middle school students greatly benefit from career and technical education development programs that promote career exploration skills, as well as increase knowledge of career options and career pathways. Middle school is an important time for students to explore their own strengths, likes, and dislikes, and career and technical education exploration programs are great tools to educate them about the type of course or training that goes into a career field that matches their interests.

This is why I am pleased to introduce the Middle School Technical Education Program Act, which establishes a pilot program for middle schools to partner with postsecondary institutions and local businesses to develop and implement career and technical exploration programs. This legislation will provide support for middle schools to create career and technical education programs that will provide students with introductory courses, hands-on learning, or afterschool programs. Career guidance and academic counseling is vital to ensuring that our students understand the educational requirements for high-growth, in- demand career fields. Many times students receive this information too late in their academic careers.

We need to make middle school more career-relevant and expose students to the career pathways they may choose. This legislation also requires that programs helps students draft a high school graduation plan that demonstrates what courses would prepare them for a given career field. If we give students at a younger age applied career and technical opportunities, they will be more informed about future paths and what they need to do to pursue them. I hope this bill spurs discussion on how vital middle school is for exposing students to career choices.

Mr. President, the key to America's continued success lies in improving our Nation's educational system to meet the demands of the 21st century job market. Today, many students enter high school and college with little knowledge of the careers available to them outside of traditional pathways. With college costs continuing to rise, it is critical that students have exposure to the wide range of available work and career choices early in their academic careers so that, by the time they enter high school, they are more informed about future paths and what they need to do to pursue them.

Career and technical education, CTE, are a proven way to help students explore their own strengths and preferences, as well as how they match up with potential future careers. However, limited funding for middle school CTE programming often means students have to wait until high school for this exposure.

Studies have found that middle school students greatly benefit from career and technical education development programs that promote career exploration skills, as well as increase knowledge of career options and career pathways. Middle school is an important time for students to explore their own strengths, likes, and dislikes, and career and technical education exploration programs are great tools to educate them about the type of course or training that goes into a career field that matches their interests.

This is why I am pleased to introduce the Middle School Technical Education Program Act, which establishes a pilot program for middle schools to partner with postsecondary institutions and local businesses to develop and implement career and technical exploration programs. This legislation will provide support for middle schools to create career and technical education programs that will provide students with introductory courses, hands-on learning, or afterschool programs. Career guidance and academic counseling is vital to ensuring that our students understand the educational requirements for high-growth, in- demand career fields. Many times students receive this information too late in their academic careers.

We need to make middle school more career-relevant and expose students to the career pathways they may choose. This legislation also requires that programs helps students draft a high school graduation plan that demonstrates what courses would prepare them for a given career field. If we give students at a younger age applied career and technical opportunities, they will be more informed about future paths and what they need to do to pursue them. I hope this bill spurs discussion on how vital middle school is for exposing students to career choices.

Mr. President, 1 month ago the President initiated an air campaign against ISIL in Iraq. ISIL is a dangerous terrorist organization committing atrocities against thousands of people, including American hostages, and a strong American response, to include military action, is certainly warranted.

In the first month of this air campaign, two explanations for the mission were given by the President. We began with a mission for humanitarian purpose and also the need to protect American embassy personnel. Since that time, the White House has stated that the air strikes may go on for some open-ended period of time. Despite a pledge not to place American boots on the ground, more American military personnel have been deployed to Iraq as advisers and are on the ground there now.

In order to clarify what is at stake and set out a path forward, many of my colleagues and I have called for the President to bring before Congress and the Nation a clear plan for defeating ISIL. I am gratified that the President will address the Nation on this topic tomorrow night.

I am supportive generally of the limited and prudent steps taken thus far, while Congress was in recess, to slow ISIL's momentum. I expect to hear a comprehensive strategy tomorrow.

I support the strong U.S. diplomatic push that has forced Iraqi government formation, and I am pleased with Iraqi political developments to form a unity government. Now Iraqi leaders must govern inclusively.

I am especially heartened by reports that the administration has worked to find a number of nations willing to partner with America to deal with the ISIL threat, including nations in the region. The United States cannot be a police force for a region unwilling to police itself. The United States should not bear the sole burden of defeating a terrorist organization that poses a more imminent threat to many other nations than the threat it does to America.

I look forward to the President's address, and I am confident that a well-thought-out plan against ISIL will compel the support of the Nation and of Congress.

We are a nation of laws but also of values. I rise today particularly to urge the President to not just inform us of what he plans to do but to follow the Constitution and to seek congressional approval to defeat ISIL. I do so for two reasons.

First, I don't believe the President has the authority to go on the offense and wage an open-ended war on ISIL without congressional approval; and, second, in making the momentous decision to authorize military action, we owe it to our troops who risk their lives to do our collective jobs and reach a consensus supporting the military mission they are ordered to complete.

Let me first deal with the legal issue. The Constitution is clear. It is the job of Congress, not the President, to declare war. Some parts of the Constitution frankly are vague and open to interpretation: What is due process? What is cruel and unusual punishment? Some parts of the Constitution are clear and specific: You have to be 35 years old to be President of the United States. The power to declare war is a clear and specific power. It is an enumerated power of Congress in article I.

The clear wording of the Constitution is additionally illuminated by writings of the principal drafter, the Virginian James Madison. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson after the Constitution was ratified, Madison explained the war powers clause in article I:

Our Constitution supposes what the history of all

governments demonstrates--that the Executive is the branch of

power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has

accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in

the Legislature.

So a President must seek congressional approval for significant military action. As Commander in Chief, a President can always take steps to defend America from imminent threats. The Framers understood this. But even in those instances, they intended that the President return to Congress to seek ratification of such actions.

If we take the Constitution seriously, as we pledge to do when we take our oaths of office, we must follow the command that the President must come to Congress to initiate major military action.

During a congressional recess, President Obama began a new military action against ISIL. He has indicated that the military action may continue for an extended period of time. He has stated that the action is evolving from a narrow effort to protect Americans from imminent threat to a campaign to go on offense in order to degrade the ability of ISIL to cause harm. This is precisely the kind of situation that calls for congressional action and approval.

Some have asserted that the administration need not seek congressional approval for an extended campaign of air strikes. Humbly and respectfully, I deeply disagree with that assertion. The President's article II power allows him to defend America from imminent threat, but it does not allow him the ability to wage an offensive war without Congress. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, crafted by President Bush and Congress in the days after the 9/11 attacks, limits the President's power to actions against the perpetrators of those attacks. ISIL was not a 9/11 perpetrator. It didn't form until 2003.

President Bush sought a broader AUMF at that time to allow action against terrorist groups posing a threat to the United States. Had Congress granted such a power, the war against ISIL would have been covered by that AUMF. But Congress explicitly rejected giving the President power to wage preemptive war against unnamed terrorist organizations without additional congressional approval. Any attempt to justify action against ISIL by reference to the 2001 AUMF would fly directly in the face of the clear congressional action rejecting the preemptive war doctrine.

Congress passed a second AUMF in 2002 to allow military action to topple the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. That task was completed long ago. American troops left Iraq in 2011, and the administration has testified recently before the Senate that the Iraq AUMF is now obsolete and should be repealed. It provides no support for military action against ISIL. There is no treaty of collective defense ratified by Congress that would justify the President commencing military action against ISIL. The Iraqi Government has asked for our help, which solves international law sovereignty questions, but that request does not create its own domestic legal justification.

Finally, the 1973 War Powers Resolution creates a set of timing rules for Presidential action and congressional response in matters of war. The resolution has been widely viewed as unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. But even accepting its validity--and the President, like most, almost certainly does not accept its 60-day limitation on his article II powers--it does not change the basic constitutional framework vesting the declaration of war in the legislative branch.

I believe a reluctance to engage Congress on this mission against ISIL is less due to any legal analysis supporting broad executive power than to a general attitude, held by all Presidents, that coming to Congress on a

question such as this is too cumbersome and unpredictable. That attitude is shared on the Hill by some who view questions of military action, especially in a difficult circumstance such as this, as politically explosive and best avoided, if at all possible

I urge the President and my colleagues to resist the understandable temptation to cut corners on this process. There is no more important business done in the Halls of Congress than weighing whether to take military action and send servicemembers into harm's way. If we have learned nothing else in the last 13 years, we should have certainly learned that. Coming to Congress is challenging, but the Framers designed it to be so, and we all pledged to serve in a government known for particular checks and balances between the branches of government.

Remember in the days after 9/11, whose anniversary we commemorate this week, the President brought to Congress a request for military action. The ruins of the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were still smoking and the search for the lost was still ongoing. Certainly the American public would have supported the President's strong and immediate Executive action in that circumstance, but President Bush knew that the Nation would be stronger if he came to Congress to seek authority. Similarly President Bush came to Congress prior to initiating military action in Iraq. So many painful lessons were learned in the aftermath of that authorization, but it is important to remember that it was not a unilateral Executive decision but Congress was included and voted to support the mission.

I believe it would be a grievous mistake after 13 years of war to evolve toward a new strategy of taking prolonged military action without bothering to seek congressional approval, and I particularly worry about the precedent it would create for future Presidents to assert that they have the unilateral right to engage in long-term military action without the full participation of the people's legislative branch. As President Obama said last year when announcing that he would come to Congress to seek military authorization to combat the use of chemical weapons in Syria:

This is not about who occupies the office at any given

time, it is about who we are as a country. I believe the

people's representatives must be invested in what America

does abroad . . .

Mr. President, I focus my remarks on the legal reasons for the President to engage Congress on any plan to defeat ISIL.

Let me conclude by offering an additional reason--even a more important reason--about why the President and Congress should work together to craft a suitable mission for this important effort. When we engage in military action, even only an air campaign, we ask our troops to risk their lives and their health--physical and mental. Of course we pray for their complete safety and success, but let's be realistic enough to acknowledge that some may die or be injured or be captured or see these things happen to their comrades in arms. Even those who come home physically safe may see or do things in war that will affect them for the rest of their lives. The long lines of people waiting for VA appointments today or hoping to have their VA disability benefit claims adjudicated are proof of this.

In short, during a time of war we ask our troops to give their best, even to the point of sacrificing their own lives. When compared against that, how much of a sacrifice is it for a President to engage in a possibly contentious debate with Congress about whether military action is a good idea? How much of a sacrifice is it for a Member of Congress to debate and vote about whether military action is a good idea? While Congressional Members face the political costs of debate on military action, our servicemembers bear the human cost of those decisions. If we choose to avoid debate, avoid accountability, avoid a hard decision, how can we demand that our military willingly sacrifice their very lives?

So I await the President's address on the real and significant threat posed by ISIL with a firm willingness to offer support to a well- crafted military mission. I believe the American public and this Congress will support such a mission. It is my deepest hope that we have the opportunity to debate and vote on the mission in the halls of Congress as our Framers intended and as our troops deserve.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in honor of a birthday.

Forty-nine years ago, Medicare was signed into law. Every year, the trustees prepare a report about the fiscal health of Medicare and Social Security, and that report was issued earlier this week. On this 49th birthday of Medicare, I wish to talk about Medicare's health because there is some good news.

The 2014 trustees' report released earlier this week looks at the trust fund financing for Medicare hospital coverage and indicates that trust fund, under current projections, will remain solvent until 2030. Last year the 2013 report indicated that solvency period would go to 2026. So in 1 year the fiscal projections for Medicare and Medicaid improved by 4 years--solvency until 2030.

In addition, the projected Part B premiums, the Part B portion of Medicare, which is the prescription drug premium program for seniors, for the second year in a row the premiums will not increase one penny.

This improved health of Medicare is significant. The health of it has improved dramatically, even in the last year. But where the improvement truly looks significant is if we compare the 2014 report with the 2009 report, the report that was done on Medicare's 44th birthday 5 years ago. The 2009 report said the hospital insurance trust fund was not adequately financed for the next 10 years, and it would be exhausted in 2017.

Again, just to compare, 2009 Medicare trustees' report, the trust fund will be exhausted by 2017; 2014 Medicare trustees' report, the trust fund will be solvent all the way through 2030. There is a difference of 13 years of additional solvency in Medicare, according to the projections and the change just from 2009 to 2014.

I think we know where I am going with this subject. What explains the improving solvency of the Medicare trust fund? Why would it have changed so dramatically from the 2009 to the 2014 projection and added 13 years of solvency to the trust fund?

The Congressional Budget Office and others have indicated it was not the 2009 recession that was the primary driver for Medicare spending reduction. Instead, the CBO and others are indicating that a large part of the improved solvency of Medicare is because of the reforms that were included by Congress when Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010. When it comes to reducing costs, bending the cost curve, the Affordable Care Act is working.

That is not the only reason Congress passed the Affordable Care Act. Coverage is expanding. Certain health care indicators are improving. More people have access because they are not denied insurance because of preexisting conditions. Kids can stay on family policies. Businesses can get tax credits if they are small.

But one of the areas--and that was why the first day the ACA was affordable. It was to try to do things that would control health care costs.

This Medicare trustees' report on Medicare's 49th birthday shows on cost reforms the ACA is working. The innovative systems of changing the payment model from pay-for-procedure to pay for quality, paying for value over volume, for reducing costs and improving health care delivery systems are extending the solvency of Medicare.

Not only is this cost containment good for the Federal Government, for the Federal Treasury, it is also good for Medicare recipients: 8.2 million Medicare recipients saved more than $11.5 billion on prescription drugs thanks to closing the Medicare Part D doughnut hole.

In Virginia, people with Medicare saved $254 million on prescription drugs because the Medicare Part D doughnut hole was closed just since the ACA was enacted--$254 million since the 2010 enactment. In 2013 alone, 37.2 million Medicare recipients received free preventive benefits, including more than 900,000 in Virginia, because of the Affordable Care Act.

The work obviously needs to continue to bend the cost curve the right way, but the trustees' report from Monday is not the only evidence of the improving health of our fiscal expenditures.

Just this month CBO again revised downward its 10-year estimate for spending on Medicare and our Nation's major health care programs. Since 2010 CBO has lowered its estimates for Medicare and Medicaid and other health care programs by $1.23 trillion--lowered projections of health care spending since the Affordable Care Act was passed.

The CBO said in a recently issued long-term budget outlook that the government will spend 1.6 percent of GDP less on health care programs than estimated in 2010 before the ACA was passed. A report released this week by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at HHS reported essentially no growth in Medicare expenditures on a per capita basis last year.

That report also said Medicare spending between 2009 and 2012--for beneficiaries in the traditional program--was approximately $116 billion lower than it would have been if the average growth rates from years 2004 to 2008 had been projected forward.

So there are many reasons we should be thankful the Affordable Care Act passed, that we should be absolutely committed to maintaining it, and that we should also be committed to maintaining it wherever we can. But as we celebrate the 49th anniversary of Medicare today, one of the reasons we should be thankful is it is clear that the ACA is helping us make health care more affordable.

To conclude, the report that was issued this week was not all good news because it also had challenges with respect to Social Security. The Social Security trust fund will be exhausted in 2033, and that represents no change from last year. The solvency of the trust fund was not changed at all in the interim year.

But in the area of Social Security disability income, that insurance program--at current projections--will be completed by 2016.

Secretary Lew indicated this week that measures need to be taken to make sure that program--which is of critical importance to millions of Americans who are on disabilities--requires that we take action to fix that program so they can count on it.

So what we see is when Congress in the Affordable Care Act acted in a smart way to deal with Medicare, we have improved the area of Medicare costs and we are saving money. Congress has not acted with respect to Social Security and the Social Security disability insurance program, which is critical to folks with disabilities. It is going to need some quick fix.

I conclude and just say it is good for Congress to act. We can filibuster. We can debate. We can consider nominations. We can do a bill in one House and send it over and wait--as with immigration reform for 1-year-plus--for the other House to do something about it. None of that is action. None of that will fix any of the challenges that face us.

But when we do act and we are willing to tackle tough problems such as Medicare cost growth, we do it in both Houses and take the risk, we will find we will be better off than if we don't act. Social Security needs to have the same kind of focused and careful attention to it, especially the disability insurance program, as we paid to Medicare in 2010.

Medicare is one of the best programs this Nation has ever embraced. I wish it a happy 49th birthday today and congratulate those who were in the Senate in 2010 for being willing to risk action and thereby found a way to save costs and make Medicare work better.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have got a deal for you: Let's create American jobs, let's help American businesses find customers abroad, and let's do it at no cost to the American taxpayer. I rise to speak about exactly the point Chairwoman Cantwell just spoke about, the chairwoman of our Small Business Committee, the importance of the Export-Import Bank, which expires on September 30 of this year.

The Senate and House need to act to continue the job so we can continue the bank, so we can create hundreds of thousands of jobs, so we can help American businesses find customers abroad, and do it at no cost to the American taxpayer. Chairwoman Cantwell did a good job of explaining the bank and what it does. I will just spend a few minutes on that.

It is an independent, self-sustaining Federal governmental agency. It is one of the most important tools that U.S. companies have to boost exports to all the countries and all the customers abroad who want high-quality products produced in the United States. The bank assumes country and credit risks that other private sector lenders are unwilling or unable to do, at a reasonable cost. It helps level the playing field for U.S. businesses because so many of our global competitors have banks just like this that loan even more or support even more loans than we do. So this is about leveling the playing field for American businesses.

In fiscal year 2013, the Ex-Im Bank approved an all-time high 3,842 loan authorizations, with a total estimated export value of $37.4 billion. That is estimated to have created or sustained over 200,0000 export-related jobs right here in the United States. Countries such as China, France, Germany, Korea, and India are extending multiple times as much financing as our Export-Import Bank. This is not the time to let international competitors eat our lunch. We have to be aggressive and we have to compete. That is why this bank needs to be reauthorized.

I am here today to talk about why it matters in Virginia, using Virginia as an example. I know the Presiding Officer will forgive me for being partial to the Commonwealth. But anyone can get up here and do exactly what I am going to do, talk about businesses in their States, to whom the Export-Import Bank is incredibly important.

In Virginia generally since 2007, the Ex-Im Bank has supported 98 companies in every congressional district. Fifty-nine are small businesses, ten are minority-owned, three are women-owned, more than $1 billion in exports supported in Virginia since 2007. I have heard from everybody in Virginia, from Governor McAuliffe to the Virginia Chamber of Commerce, to both the National and Virginia Association of Manufacturers saying: Whatever you do, find an agreement to authorize the continuation of this very important bank.

Let me tell you about four companies. They are very different companies: rockets, apples, compressors, and paper. It sounds like a rock-paper-scissors thing, right?

Orbital Sciences Corporation in Dulles, VA, right here close. Orbital manufactures small and medium-class space systems, mostly satellites and rockets. Their headquarters is in Dulles, 3,600 employees, high- paying jobs. They launch rockets from all over the country, including Wallops Island near Chincoteague on the eastern shore of Virginia. They build satellites for the U.S. Government but also sell commercial communications satellites to many international buyers.

This commercial business that Orbital has is faced with significant competition from European satellite manufacturers, EADS/Astrium and Thales/Alenia. So Orbital relies on the Export-Import Bank to level the playing field. These European manufacturers get assistance from their governments to go out and compete for this commercial business and Orbital does the same. This neutralizes the advantage that European governments try to give to their satellite industry. In the last few years, since 2012, Orbital has produced 38 satellites. Six of them relied on Export-Import Bank financing and would not have been done without the backstop the Ex-Im Bank provides.

For every commercial satellite that Orbital builds, 300 jobs are supported, direct and indirect, within the company, and then there is a supply chain, with suppliers all over the country. There are an additional 300 jobs in the supply chain. So the story of Orbital, manufacturing rockets and satellites, is illustrative of the contribution the Ex-Im Bank makes to U.S. small and medium-sized aerospace companies.

Let's switch from rockets and talk about apples for a minute. Turkey Knob Orchard in Timberville, VA. They grow apples on 3,500 acres in rural Virginia. It is a longstanding family-owned business that has produced apples in the Commonwealth since 1918. This family-owned business in Timberville uses the Export-Import Bank to protect deals made with companies in rapidly expanding markets such as West Africa and India, where the risks are high, and conventional lenders may be a little skittish.

Then it gives their partners peace of mind and a credible system for evaluating buyers abroad. The credit insurance is one of the most competitive and user-friendly products in the market for small growers such as Turkey Knob, who do not have a large international office or large international export offices around the globe. Without Ex-Im credit insurance, Turkey Knob would export less and their exports would be exposed to more risk, more potential liability.

Additionally, with the credit insurance program, small exporters are able to build these deals so they can build long-term relationships and expand business that otherwise would not be possible.

We want importers abroad to buy Virginia apples. We think our apples are every bit as good as Washington State's or any other State's apples. We are proud to market them, and other products from Virginia as well, especially at a time when the economy needs to be stronger. But we would not be able to find those clients for growers such as Turkey Knob without the Ex-Im Bank.

Compressors. Bristol Compressors in Bristol, VA, right on the border with Tennessee in the State's far southwestern corner. This is a manufacturing company, very cutting edge. They design and manufacture compressors for residential and commercial applications--air conditioning, heat pump, refrigeration. It is one of the largest compressor manufacturers in the world. They also serve manufacturers and distributors across six continents. I think Antarctica may be the exception. They have enough air conditioning there.

But Bristol has worked directly and indirectly with the Ex-Im Bank through their credit lenders for many years. Bristol would not be able to service the majority of its international business without the support of the Ex-Im Bank. I have been to this company. It is in a part of the State that needs more jobs, not less. Without the Ex-Im Bank, they would not be able to service their customers on six continents.

Bristol has told us that without the support, jobs at Bristol would be at risk, which would have a negative impact on the local economy. We want to promote American manufacturing, not shrink it.

Finally, paper. Eagle Paper International in Virginia Beach. This is an international paper manufacturer and distributor, been around since 1988.

Virginia Beach is an important place, because we have an active port in Virginia Beach, one of the busiest ports on the east coast of the United States. So it is a great place to find exports and ship exports from.

Eagle Paper has succeeded in its 25 years in business in exporting paper worldwide. Eagle has told us very plainly:

Ex-Im is a crucial part of our business. Without the export

credit insurance we would not be able to support the customer

base that we currently have. Without this customer base our

sales would decrease and in turn we would have to eliminate

employees in order to keep our business up and running.

Not often do we have such no-brainers present themselves on the floor. I will end where I started: Let's create American jobs. Let's help businesses find customers around the world. Let's do it at no cost to the American taxpayer. We do not make general fund applications to the Ex-Im Bank because they charge their customers for the services they provide. Not only do they break even, they actually raised $2 billion above the loans they put out in the last few years, which they then used to make more loans to more American businesses to create more jobs.

I have been heartened to see 50-plus months of private sector job growth. I know the Presiding Officer has as well. But we also know we are not where we need to be yet. GDP needs to be higher. More jobs need to be created. We need to create more skilled workers to fill those jobs. The Ex-Im Bank is one of the best tools we have to help move the economy forward. If it did not exist, we would have to create it. The good news is, it does exist. All we have to do is vote to reauthorize it before September 30.

It is my hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses will join in this very important and completely logical mission.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I also rise on the floor together with my colleagues from New Mexico and Florida to talk about the refugee crisis at our Nation's border. I appreciate Senator Heinrich's leadership on this issue and his comments, and I am looking forward to hearing from Senator Nelson as well.

I would like to share a little bit of a personal story and amplify a few comments I made on the floor last Thursday about this challenge. I feel very personally connected to this issue and to the children who are coming to the border, children such as Alejandro, whose picture was such a stark reminder that we are dealing with little kids.

In 1980 and 1981, I was a student in law school, and I decided that I didn't know what I wanted to do with my life and I needed to figure it out. So what I did was I took a year off from law school and went to work with Jesuit missionaries in the town of El Progreso, Honduras. El Progreso, Honduras, was at that point a small community at the edge of banana plantations in a large agricultural valley in that country. I worked there as the principal of a school that taught kids to be plumbers and carpenters. I was dealing with youngsters in that neighborhood. Well, today El Progreso is in the epicenter of this problem. There have been many hundreds of kids from El Progreso who have come to the border this year.

San Pedro Sula--a nearby large city--is thought to be the murder capital of Honduras, which is now the murder capital of the world.

When I was in Honduras in 1980 and 1981, it was not an overly violent place. It was under military dictatorship. There were problems and challenges, and there was poverty, but refugees were coming into Honduras back then from El Salvador and Guatemala. They weren't leaving because there wasn't the everyday violence we see today. Honduras was a great ally of the United States, a great partner. Honduras was one of the original countries to which we sent Peace Corps volunteers, and I could see their influence all around the country.

But Honduras is a very different nation today. Honduras is now the murder capital of the world, has the highest homicide rate, which is about 40 times the homicide rate of the United States. This area, El Progreso and San Pedro Sula, is the epicenter of that. The United States had to pull Peace Corps volunteers out of the country a few years ago because it got too violent. The friends I have stayed in touch with over the years have informed me about what has been happening in their neighborhoods as the violence has increased.

We had a hearing last week where we had witnesses before us in the Foreign Relations Committee. We asked: Why are the kids leaving Honduras? Is it because their parents don't love them?

I mean, you think about family members. What would it take for a family to let a child take a trip of the kind Alejandro took? I can tell you from living in Honduras that parents love their kids just as much as people love their kids here in the United States. They are no different. To send your child thousands of miles--you would only do it for the most extreme reasons, and living in the murder capital of the world is that extreme reason. These kids are fleeing to the border because they are not safe.

What is the cause of the violence? I talked about this a little bit last week. The violence in Honduras, which is the murder capital of the world; El Salvador, which has the fourth highest homicide rate in the world; and Guatemala, which has the fifth highest homicide rate in the world--the violence is overwhelmingly driven by the drug trade. That was the evidence from our hearing last week as well.

Drug cartels have moved into Honduras and into these Central American countries. They get drugs from South America. They are shipping them to the United States because of the U.S. demand for illegal drugs, especially cocaine. The drug rate in Honduras is not about Hondurans using drugs. Hondurans don't use drugs to any significant degree at all. It is the illegal demand for drugs by people in the United States, largely, and the dollars we are sending down to buy drugs that have turned Honduras--that have turned San Pedro Sula and El Progreso into a massive drug cartel area where the combination of dollars and violence and fights between drug cartels puts little kids in harm's way. And then the gangs want them to join--we want to be the most powerful gangs because we want the money, and the way we do that is we recruit more kids.

So the root of this problem--the root of these refugees--is violence in their neighborhoods that is created by a drug trade that is driven by, sadly, U.S. demand for illegal drugs. That is what is happening. That is what is happening.

It has been heartbreaking to see a country that I care about and love and people whom I care about and love live in what is now the murder capital of the world largely because of the demand for illegal drugs coming from this Nation. So we are going to blame these kids? We are going to call them names or stand out in protest against them? Why? Because they live in a violent neighborhood? Because they want a better future? Because they look at the United States and think we may be a better and safer place for them? We shouldn't be blaming them. We shouldn't be blaming them because they are doing what any of us would do if we lived in a neighborhood where the violence was this extreme. If you have no other way to protect yourself, you are going to leave. We leave neighborhoods and we leave situations that are this bad.

The good news is--and Senator Heinrich has laid this out--we don't have to stand by and say there is nothing we can do. There are solutions. We had a meeting with the three Ambassadors today, and the Foreign Relations Committee is going to have a meeting with the three Presidents of these Nations tomorrow, and we are going to talk about solutions. Let me run through six things we can do, and I will talk briefly about some of them. My colleagues have already dealt with some of them, and Senator Nelson will, but first let's start off with, how about not blaming the kids, No. 1. Let's not blame the kids. Let's not pretend they are crooks or criminals. Might there be some who are coming across the border who have criminal records? Sure. We can do a criminal record check and we can figure that out, and if that is the case, then we can deal with that. But these kids are leaving to stay alive.

My wife is a juvenile court judge. She used to say: I sometimes put a kid in jail to keep him alive.

The need to remain alive sometimes leads you to do extreme things, even to travel thousands of miles to come to a country where you think you might be more safe.

Let's begin by not blaming these kids. That is No. 1.

No. 2, we do need to implement the law. Senator Heinrich talked about this law which was passed by a unanimous Congress, which was signed by President Bush, which was named after William Wilberforce. Do you know who William Wilberforce was? William Wilberforce was a great abolitionist English preacher who had interaction with the slave trade when he was in England and then came to realize that the slave trade was wrong and that religions had promoted the slave trade. He turned his life around and became a crusader against human trafficking, a crusader against the slave trade. That is what this law is that was put in place.

Let's not willy-nilly change the law. Let's implement the law. The law was a good law. In order to implement the law, we do need funding. Senator Heinrich talked about the supplemental request that would be before the Senate. We have had some good discussions about it. I think we have put it in a place where it is now solid. We do need to support that supplemental request so that there will be ample services where these children can be evaluated. If they qualify for asylum, they should be able to stay, just as other refugees stay. If they have committed criminal activities, they can be sent back in order to enforce the law. It seems that is what folks are always saying around here--we should enforce the immigration laws. Let's enforce the William Wilberforce law and make sure there are funds in place to do it.

The third thing we should do is get our priorities right about how we spend money. We are spending the money the wrong way in Central America. It is kind of amazing what we are doing. You would think we ought to be investing a little bit in the security of Central America just as we invest in rebuilding infrastructure in Afghanistan, just as we invest in things all around the world, and we should especially be doing it in Central America because it is the U.S. demand for illegal drugs that is creating the conditions of violence there. Doesn't that create some obligation to take a little bit of responsibility for helping Central American nations with security?

Well, we do spend money on the security in Central American nations, but the money has been dwindling every year--dropping, dropping, dropping. For 2015 the President's budget submission for the Central American Regional Security Initiative was $130 million, which is about $40 million each for the three countries. Compare that to what we will spend on border security in 2015, which is $17 billion. So $130 million for regional security in the nations these refugees are coming from and we are spending $17 billion on the border.

Instead of having to catch all these kids as they are coming across the border and spend time and expense on the legal processes, wouldn't it be a little better to try to take some of that money and spend more in Central America to help these three nations have stronger police forces, stronger judiciary systems? If we could deal with and reduce violence in the neighborhoods--and we have to do it in partnership with these nations. They have responsibilities as well. If we could do that, we could dramatically reduce the number of kids who are coming to the border. We are spending money the wrong way.

I am happy this supplemental has some significant funding to increase our security efforts in Central America. That is very critical. We have to work with the Central American governments to prosecute the coyotes. The coyotes are the smugglers who bring these kids to the border, and they often perpetrate violence and tell these kids: Hey, look, we can get you to the border, and you can stay forever. They will spin false messages about American law, and they do it because they are making money off these poor families.

Honduras is one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere. For a parent to pay $4,000 or $5,000 to one of these smugglers for their kids to come here--that is usually more than their combined assets. They have to gather up money from all kinds of places to be able to do it. We need to prosecute the coyotes and these smugglers in Central America, and our effort is going to help these countries do that.

We need to make sure these countries spread the message that once the kids get here, they are not going to come and stay automatically. That work is being done, but more can be done.

I think probably the most important thing we can do here is to spend more money helping to solve the cause of the violence and the drug cartels in Central America. If we do that, we will see the number of kids who are fleeing neighborhoods such as the ones I lived in dramatically reduced.

The fourth thing we can do--and Senator Nelson is going to talk about this, so I will not get into it--is interdict more drugs. If you want to do something tough, why send the National Guard to the border? These kids are not sneaking across the border. They are turning themselves in to the first person they see. They know if they see someone with a U.S. uniform on, they won't be killed. They feel safe. We don't need more National Guard at the border because the kids are already turning themselves in. But if you want to be tough, how about more funds for the American military so they can interdict more drugs before they get to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador? Senator Nelson will go over that.

Fifth, we need to do immigration reform, and Senator Heinrich mentioned that. We passed immigration reform in this Chamber 13 months ago. There were all kinds of stories about it. There has been no action in the House--not even bills out of committee, much less from the House floor--on immigration reform.

This morning the ambassadors told us the uncertain status of whether there is going to be immigration reform is an issue. What is going to happen? Something passed, but maybe it won't pass in the other House. When there is uncertainty, it enables these coyotes to go in and kind of market and say something is going to happen. They will say: We can get you to the United States, and you can stay.

The faster we pass immigration reform and create certainty, the easier it will be to deliver a message that everybody in Central America will understand about what our rules are and what they are not and who is allowed to come in and who is not.

Finally--and this is the hardest one of all--we have to figure out better strategies to reduce the illegal use of drugs, especially cocaine, in the United States. As long as there is this massive demand for illegal drugs such as cocaine in countries such as Honduras that have poor budgets, there will be powerful drug cartels that will use them as staging grounds to try to supply the United States drug demand.

We sometimes hear people talk about drug and cocaine use as a victimless crime. They say: It is a victimless crime; I am not hurting anybody. I may use drugs, but I am not hurting anybody.

This is not a victimless crime. The ones who are using recreational, illegal drugs transited through the Americas are the ones who are creating victims. They are creating the murder capital of the world, and they are the reason kids are fleeing their homes and trying to find safety in the arms of a Border Patrol agent on the border of the United States.

We need new strategies to tackle a huge and overwhelming demand for illegal drugs in the United States. Two weeks ago the President's drug control policy key administrator, Michael Botticelli, went to Roanoke, VA, to roll out the national drug control strategy. He chose Roanoke because Virginia, like a lot of States, has had significant problems-- whether it is heroin or prescription drugs. He also chose Roanoke because it has been a place where there have been strong efforts to come together to tackle illegal drug use.

Last Friday I went to Roanoke and spoke at a drug court graduation-- people who were addicted to drugs but worked with social workers and folks from local courts to break the bonds of that addiction, the bonds that, just as they are addicted to them, also put people in chains in countries such as Honduras by turning their neighborhoods into violent drug-controlled shooting galleries.

We have to be creative and strategic in dealing with the demands for illegal drugs. It is sad that these kids are fleeing their country because of the violence that in some ways has its roots here. The drug demand in this country

is at the origin of the violence that is chasing these kids out of their neighborhoods, and that gives us a moral responsibility to try and tackle this problem and solve it.

I thank my colleagues for their strong support for the supplemental appropriation we will take up. I look forward to working with them. We can solve this problem. We can solve it if we do the right things.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as if in morning business.

Madam President, in the last year I have been to Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon to visit Syrian refugees and the organizations that work with them. I have seen the effects of refugees fleeing violence on these nations. Lebanon has 4 million people. They are having to care for 1 million refugees from Syria--one in four members of their population.

These countries, especially Jordan and Lebanon, are small--much smaller than the United States. They are much poorer than the United States. Jordan has very little water for their own citizens, much less refugees, but they have shown a real sense of compassion and hospitality in treating these Syrian refugees who are fleeing violence and coming over their border. Lebanese citizens even run double school shifts--their own kids in the morning and Syrian refugees in the afternoon.

When I have been in the Middle East in these countries, I have wondered what would happen if refugees fleeing violence in other countries came to the United States. I wonder if we would show the same compassion to refugees that is being shown by these poorer nations.

I wish to say a few words about the crisis at the border now because we are now faced with that question--refugees fleeing violence and coming to the United States.

Who are the children coming to the United States? They are overwhelmingly refugees from three Central American countries--52,000 just this year. They are not just coming to the United States; they are also flooding into Costa Rica and Nicaragua.

Senator Menendez held a hearing this morning, and we had testimony. What is the reason they are coming? And the testimony was this: The reason they are coming is overwhelmingly the violence in the neighborhoods where they live that forces their parents to decide that to keep them safe, they should leave.

What is the source of the violence? Again, overwhelmingly, the testimony is that the source of the violence is the drug trade that has corrupted the neighborhoods and made them dangerous. The kids are fleeing violence driven by the drug trade.

Here is the sort of sad punch line: Where does the drug trade originate? The drug trade is originating because of the significant demand in the United States for illegal drugs, especially cocaine.

So these kids are fleeing to the United States because Americans are buying illegal drugs in such numbers and the dollars being shipped south are creating conditions for gang warfare and cartels, turning these nations into transit points for drugs.

I know these children, and I know their neighborhoods. I lived in El Progreso, Honduras, in 1980 and 1981. Six hundred kids from El Progreso have already come to the United States as unaccompanied refugees this year.

Honduras, a beautiful country with beautiful people, a longtime ally of the United States, is now the murder capital of the world. There are more people murdered in Honduras than in any other country. El Salvador is No. 4 in the world, and Guatemala is No. 5 in the world.

I recently met with President Hernandez of Honduras to talk about what we can do. So what should we do? Let's get to the prescription. What should we do?

First, we have to stop blaming the kids or assuming they are bad people. They are not. We need to show the same compassion for refugees fleeing violence and coming to the United States as nations such as Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan show to refugees fleeing violence and coming to their nations.

Secondly, we need to work on our legal process and the resources the President asked for. I have some criticisms of exactly how those dollars will be spent and the particular protections these refugees need when they arrive. Remember, it is a 2008 law we are dealing with that was passed unanimously by Congress and signed by President Bush.

We need to do immigration reform. The fact that we haven't done it for so long creates a sense of confusion. If we can clearly elaborate what our immigration policy is, it will dispel myths.

More support for security in Central America is critical. We need to interdict more drugs. General Kelly, the head of SOUTHCOM, says we let 75 percent of the drugs that come into the United States go by us. We know where they are, but we haven't put the military resources in place to interdict them.

Finally, we have to tackle the U.S. demand for drugs because that is what is driving the violence in the neighborhoods which is causing kids to flee.

In conclusion, this year is the 75th anniversary of a very shameful event--the voyage of the St. Louis. The St. Louis was a ship that left Germany in 1939 with hundreds of Jews onboard. These Jews were fleeing violence and antisemitism to come to the new world. They were not allowed to disembark in Cuba, they were not allowed to disembark in the United States, and they were not allowed to disembark in Canada. Eventually, the ship had to be routed back to Europe, where, research shows, hundreds of those Jews who had to get back off in Europe died in the Holocaust.

The testimony this morning was that if we, without due process, send these children home, many will die as a result.

That lesson of the St. Louis should stick with us, and there are many things we can do to avert this crisis and to show our good hearts as Americans.

I rise to describe my concerns with the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling of the Hobby Lobby case and also to describe my support for the Murray-Udall legislation which I am cosponsoring and which we will act on later this week.

First, just a word about one item in the case that is not my main concern but is worthy of a passing comment; that is, whether a corporation can have religious rights.

Of course, individuals can have religious rights. Churches can have religious rights. Religiously affiliated organizations have religious rights. That has been recognized often. But do corporations have religious rights?

I would argue that the Supreme Court's decision in Hobby Lobby that they do is sort of fundamentally at odds with what notion a corporation is. Corporations exist for many reasons, but fundamentally the core of a corporation is the creation of a fictional entity that is supposed to stand apart from the individual owners. That fictional entity has rights and responsibilities that are different than the rights and responsibilities of the owners. In fact, we create the corporate forum to protect the individual owners. The individual owners, once a corporate forum is created, as you know, are generally protected against legal liability. A corporation's actions, if they are illegal, can only be held against the corporation and except in very rare instances the individuals who own the corporation are free from the liability that might flow from a corporation's acts.

So the basic question is, if individuals decide to form a corporation to distance themselves and to protect themselves from liability for a cooperation's acts, how can they also presume to exercise their religious viewpoints--their personal, intimate, religious viewpoints-- through the very form of the corporation? It is allowing the owners to have it both ways--complete protection from legal liability

but continued ability to exercise their personal and intimate religious viewpoints through the corporate forum.

I think the notion of corporate religious freedom is almost an oxymoron. The statute at question in the Supreme Court case, the RFRA statute, refers to the sincerely held religious beliefs of a person.

What are the sincerely held religious beliefs of a person of the corporation under the corporate charter that would be granted by the States? In order to determine that, should we inquire in this instance, for example, whether the families of the owners ever use contraception? If in fact they did, would that undermine a claim that they have a sincerely held religious belief against contraception?

What if it could be shown that the owners invested in stocks in companies that produced contraception, would that undermine the claim that a corporation has a sincerely held religious belief against contraception? I don't know the answers to these questions, but I think the mere raising of the questions demonstrates again that the notion of a corporation exercising religious beliefs is highly suspect.

But I don't think the Hobby Lobby case was about religious freedom. I read the opinion. I practiced law, including constitutional law for 17 years. I have read the opinion. I don't think this is a case about religious freedom.

I think the opinion in the Hobby Lobby case is, instead, part of an anticontraception movement where the political goal is not just to encourage women or families to not use contraception but instead it is geared toward the reduction of social access to contraception for all.

This isn't a case about religious freedom. It is a case that is very focused on attempts to reduce access to contraception throughout American society.

The Court does something in the opinion that is fascinating. There is a phrase--I am not a poker player, but there is a phrase that if you play a lot of poker, a poker player should watch for their tell. If they reveal by knocking on the table or something that, oh, well, they are bluffing now, you watch for the tell. I think the Hobby Lobby majority opinion has a tell that tells us this case is not about religious freedom.

In response to a notion raised in the dissent: Well, hold on a second. If you allow this corporation to deny coverage for contraception because it has a sincerely held religious belief against contraception, there are other religions and other corporations that might have a sincerely held religious belief against transfusion. That is a sincere belief of certain religions commonly practiced in America; against vaccination, that is a sincerely held religious belief in certain religions in America. There are other sincerely held religious beliefs, but the majority in this opinion says: Oh, don't worry. This is just about contraception. You don't need to worry that the rationale in this case would be used to allow an employer to exclude vaccination or to exclude transfusions.

If those are religious beliefs every bit as sincere as some who think contraception is bad, why wouldn't this ruling apply to those kinds of coverage?

The fact that the Supreme Court took such care in the majority opinion to say: Don't worry. It is not going to apply to that, tells me this is not a case about religious freedom. Because if it were a case about religious freedom, a sincerely held religious belief about transfusions or vaccinations would be equally implicated by this case. The Court instead is very clearly telling people: Don't worry. You don't need to worry about this stuff.

So it is not about religious freedom. I read this case as a very candid admission that what the case is truly about is contraception access.

There is an unfortunate legal movement in this country--that is kind of surprising--where the focus is to deny women access to contraception, even though access to contraception has been constitutionally protected in this country since 1967, nearly 50 years.

I am stunned. I am reluctant as a lawyer to criticize court opinions. Lawyers always have different points of view. You always have to give some latitude that the court might decide something in a different way than you think. But I am stunned to see in the rationale expressed by the majority that the Court is joining an ideological, anti-access movement.

Contraception access is important to women, it is important to families, and it is important to society. For women, contraception is important not only surrounding the planning of pregnancy but the hormones in contraception are often prescribed for all manner of other conditions, some related to pregnancy and reproduction and some unconnected to pregnancy and reproduction. The access to contraception is critically important, and that is why the panel that looked at implementing the Affordable Care Act found that contraception was an important active goal of prevention. Prevention is good. Contraception is part of prevention.

Contraception is also costly. So when a company strips that coverage from employees and says, ``You can just buy it yourself if you want,'' let's be clear. That is not a minor expense, especially in a time where wages have been stagnant. It is a significant expense, and the notion that coverage would be stripped away from thousands and thousands of employees is not a minor burden at all, it is a significant burden on their lives.

Contraception is not only important for women, it is important for society. Contraception and the access to contraception are achieving important social goals. From 2008 to 2011, in 3 years, the number of abortions in the United States fell by 13 percent, and teen pregnancy in this Nation has been falling steadily since 1991. Why are both of these things happening? Those who study these laudable trends conclude that access to contraception is one of the main reasons abortion is falling and that teen pregnancy is falling.

It would seem those are laudable trends that we would want to continue and that access to contraception therefore is very important, but the Court instead finds otherwise.

I want to conclude and say I don't think this is a case about religious freedom. I think the Court has strangely joined an anticontraception ideological crusade. But I want to say a word about religious freedom. It is critically important. I am a lifelong Catholic. I served as a missionary with Jesuit missionaries in 1981. I am a Virginian, and it was a Virginian, James Madison, who wrote the draft of the Constitution, including the First Amendment, the Bill of Rights that protects our rights to religious freedom.

Gary Wills, the great American historian, said, ``Every wonderful idea in the American Constitution was already part of somebody else's Constitution or laws.'' Our drafters did a great job of finding the best and putting it in. But there was only one unique provision in the American Constitution that wasn't part of any organic law before us and that was freedom of religion. Jefferson wrote it into Virginia law, the Statute of Religious Freedom, in 1780. The basic idea was no one can be punished or preferred for their choice of worship or for their choice not to worship. That has been a critical component of American life for a very long time. So religious freedom is incredibly important.

There was nothing about the bill we will take up on the floor tomorrow that impinges upon religious freedom because, as you know, if a church or a religiously affiliated institution or an individual or even a corporation has as their view that contraception is wrong, they can take to the airways. They can run a newspaper ad. They can go stand on a street corner. They can encourage anyone they want by explaining the merits of their view and hoping to persuade someone that they are right, and they are protected in doing that. They are protected in their religious liberty to try to encourage people to follow their points of view. But when these entities try to go beyond that, and in this case corporations, and use legal mechanisms not just to encourage people but whether it is lawsuits or personhood amendments or other things that we see popping up in States and here in this body, not just to discourage use of contraception but instead to reduce access to contraception for women--even women who do not share their moral point of view, who do not share their particular religion--then I view that as extremely troubling and actually contrary to the notion of religious freedom that is established in the First Amendment. Advocate your moral position, but don't force it onto people who have a different moral viewpoint.

In conclusion, I support the bill we will debate tomorrow because it will protect the access to contraception. Whether people choose to use contraception or not will be up to them and to their own medical and their own moral calculation, and that is as it should be in a society that is supposed to protect the rights of all.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 15, 2014, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress.''

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 July 15, 2014, at 12 p.m. in room S-216 of the United States Capitol.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 15, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 15, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Chronic Illness: Addressing Patients' Unmet Needs.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 15, 2014, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 15, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``S. 1696, The Women's Health Protection Act: Removing Barriers to Constitutionally Protected Reproductive Rights,''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 15, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 15, 2014, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Taking Down Botnets: Public and Private Efforts to Disrupt and Dismantle Cybercriminal Networks.''

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Educating Tomorrow's Workforce Act of 2014. This is a bipartisan bill with Senator Portman, who will follow me on the floor today. Senator Portman and I are working together as cochairs of the Senate Career and Technical Education Caucus.

Let me first explain why career and technical education is important to me.

I grew up in a household in Kansas City where my dad ran a union- organized ironworking shop. He was the owner. Ironworkers and welders-- in a good year, eight employees; in a bad year, five employees. My mother and my brothers and I worked in my dad's shop, and I came to appreciate working in that ironworking shop, the tremendous craftsmanship and skill that went into being an ironworker. That lesson has stuck with me for the rest of my life, and I really credit my dad with my work ethic. In a manufacturing welding shop, you get up and you go to work early because you want to get the work done before it gets too hot in the middle of the day.

I then had the experience in 1980 to take a year off from Harvard Law School and go to Honduras, where I was the principal of the Instituto Tecnico Loyola, which was a school that taught kids to be welders and carpenters. I was able to use the trades I had learned in my dad's shop, and what I saw in Honduras was the same thing: that the acquisition of skills--whether it be welding or carpentry or other skills--is a great path to life's success.

But one thing I noticed about the education system in my country-- even

as I was working in my dad's shop, even as I was a principal of the school in Honduras--was in the United States we sort of downgrade career and technical education. When I was a kid, it was called vocational education. Often, in high schools especially, students who were thought to be kind of problems or not college material would kind of get trapped into vocational education curricula, and that would usually not be a good sign.

In fact, a friend of mine, who is a middle school teacher in southwest Virginia, told me that she would often see her students after they had gone to the high school and ask, ``Hey, tell me what you are up to.'' And when a student said ``I am in the vocational education program,'' the student would almost slump their shoulders, like ``I know you are going to be disappointed to hear this: I am in the vocational education program.''

Career and technical education is a very important pathway for life's success, and there should be no stigma surrounding career and technical education programs. But whether it is in our K-12 schools or in the higher ed world or in the mindset of parents or guidance counselors or even in the military--in the military today, our military members can get tuition assistance benefits, but they can only be used for college courses. You can get up to $4,500 a year in the military as a tuition assistance benefit, but you cannot use even $500 of it to take the certification exam from the American Welding Society to get your welding certificate. We still have a stigma against career and technical education, and we should not.

CTE integrates numerous aspects of liberal arts degrees for practical and applied purposes. CTE prepares students with industry-recognized credentials, professional certificates, occasionally college credits, and, most importantly, training for careers as varied as nursing, physician assistant, business administration, manufacturing, oil and natural gas exploration, automotive maintenance, agriculture, welding, software programming, culinary arts, and many other careers.

CTE happens in interesting places. CTE happens in K-12 school systems. It happens on community college campuses. It happens in 4-year colleges. It happens in stand-alone institutions such as the Newport News Shipbuilding apprenticeship program, where people learn to manufacturer the largest items on planet Earth: nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines in Newport News, VA. It happens online. It happens anywhere where there is somebody who wants to attain a skill and there is a qualified teacher or program that can convey and educate a student in that skill so they can get a good job.

CTE programs are proven solutions for creating jobs, for retraining workers, older workers who need to find new skills so they can be successful and fill open jobs in the market, and ensure that students of all ages and walks of life are ready for a successful career.

When I was Governor, I worked on a number of educational issues, but one I was very proud of was starting Governor's Career and Technical Academies. We had 17 in Virginia--Governor's schools--that were college prep, academic, regional, magnet public high schools. It started in the 1970s. But when I was running for Governor, I realized, wow, we do not have a single school in the State that is a career and technical education program that we have deemed fit to hang the Governor's label: This is a Governor's career and technical academy. I said this has to be just as important as college prep. So when I was Governor, we started Governor's Career and Technical Academies. By the end of my one term--and that is all you get in Virginia--we had nine. The Republican Governor who followed me liked the idea. By the end of his term, we had 22. The Democratic Governor who has followed him is continuing to expand it, and we now have academies around the Commonwealth, developed at partnerships among schools, employers, business organizations, and postsecondary institutions looking for these skills.

Last week, during our break week, I traveled in Virginia, and I heard the same message from employers and educators: Education has to be job relevant. It has to start at earlier grades. Completion rates need to be maximized. We need to make sure all of our students have the skills they will need to be able to build successful careers throughout their lives.

One entrepreneur even said to me: I am so glad I ended up going to the Valley Career and Technical Education Program in the Shenandoah Valley and went into CTE because it has enabled me to be my own boss.

I said: What do you mean by that?

He said: If I had gone to college, I would have gotten a good job offer from a good company and would have taken it, and I probably would still be there. I would have been having a good career, but somebody else would have been by boss. But by going to a career and technical program and learning a skill, it also encouraged me to be entrepreneurial. So I did not join somebody else's company; I started my own company. CTE promotes entrepreneurial activity.

It is essential for the United States to invest in creating a world- class system of education across the spectrum to ensure the technically skilled and well-trained workforce we need. That is why we are introducing this bill--Senator Portman and I--the Educating Tomorrow's Workforce Act.

Here is what the legislation does.

It takes the existing Carl D. Perkins career and technical education program, which is the major source for Federal funding for programs that connect education to real-world careers, and it amends it by doing a couple of things.

First, it ensures that students have access to high-quality CTE programs in their schools so they can prepare to be college and career ready. Second, it defines what a rigorous program of study for CTE students is that links secondary and postsecondary education, to culminate in a degree or a credit or a credential or a license or an apprenticeship or a postsecondary certificate.

It emphasizes the opportunities for secondary students to earn college or postsecondary credits while they are in high school. I was able to graduate from college in 3 years because of credits I earned in high school. That was at a time when it was critically important financially for my family that I was able to get through college in 3 years.

This dual enrollment piece of our bill is a piece that Senator Portman worked very hard to make sure was included. The legislation allows the Perkins funding to be used by States that want to establish CTE academies as we did in Virginia and ensures that the academies are of a high quality.

Finally, the bill promotes the kinds of partnerships we need between businesses, industries, postsecondary and other community stakeholders. Partnerships are important to connect people to the workforce. The Southern Regional Education Board cites that students with highly integrated CTE programs, where the CTE programs and the academic programs are integrated together, that those schools have significantly higher achievement rates in reading, mathematics, and sciences than students at schools that do not have integrated programs.

In closing, and then I defer to my colleague from Ohio, I noticed something when I was mayor of Richmond and Governor that was a change in the kind of economic development world. As mayor, I was often trying to get a business to come to Richmond. I was competing against Savannah or against the county next door. What I found was in these competitions, the closing factor was always the incentive package: Mr. Mayor, how much money can you put on the table? What kind of tax incentives can you put on the table?

Oh, you either beat the other guy or you don't. But by the time I--5, 6, 7 years later I was Governor, the last issue now was not the incentive package anymore. The deciding issue for companies that were choosing whether to come to Virginia or South Carolina or Singapore was not the tax incentives, it was the workforce.

Tell me, Governor, that we will have the kind of people we need when we open the door tomorrow. Give me confidence that we will have the kind of people we need 20 years from now. Long after the ribbon has been cut and the photos have been taken, are we still going to have the kinds of people we need to do to the kind of work that has to be done?

In today's world, talent is the most precious asset--more than oil, more

than water, more than rare Earth minerals. It is talent and human capital that is precious. Recently we did something good in this body, Democrats and Republicans together. We passed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. It was passed in the House yesterday.

This looks at the Nation's workforce programs and makes them stronger. Now we have to make the policy changes that go into our education programs and match what we did in the WIOA reauthorization to prepare our students for a 21st century workforce. I very much hope the Senate moves forward on the Carl D. Perkins Act this year. I look forward to promoting this bill as part of that reauthorization. I am honored to have Senator Portman, my cochair on the CTE caucus, as the cosponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Educating Tomorrow's Workforce Act of 2014. This is a bipartisan bill with Senator Portman, who will follow me on the floor today. Senator Portman and I are working together as cochairs of the Senate Career and Technical Education Caucus.

Let me first explain why career and technical education is important to me.

I grew up in a household in Kansas City where my dad ran a union- organized ironworking shop. He was the owner. Ironworkers and welders-- in a good year, eight employees; in a bad year, five employees. My mother and my brothers and I worked in my dad's shop, and I came to appreciate working in that ironworking shop, the tremendous craftsmanship and skill that went into being an ironworker. That lesson has stuck with me for the rest of my life, and I really credit my dad with my work ethic. In a manufacturing welding shop, you get up and you go to work early because you want to get the work done before it gets too hot in the middle of the day.

I then had the experience in 1980 to take a year off from Harvard Law School and go to Honduras, where I was the principal of the Instituto Tecnico Loyola, which was a school that taught kids to be welders and carpenters. I was able to use the trades I had learned in my dad's shop, and what I saw in Honduras was the same thing: that the acquisition of skills--whether it be welding or carpentry or other skills--is a great path to life's success.

But one thing I noticed about the education system in my country-- even

as I was working in my dad's shop, even as I was a principal of the school in Honduras--was in the United States we sort of downgrade career and technical education. When I was a kid, it was called vocational education. Often, in high schools especially, students who were thought to be kind of problems or not college material would kind of get trapped into vocational education curricula, and that would usually not be a good sign.

In fact, a friend of mine, who is a middle school teacher in southwest Virginia, told me that she would often see her students after they had gone to the high school and ask, ``Hey, tell me what you are up to.'' And when a student said ``I am in the vocational education program,'' the student would almost slump their shoulders, like ``I know you are going to be disappointed to hear this: I am in the vocational education program.''

Career and technical education is a very important pathway for life's success, and there should be no stigma surrounding career and technical education programs. But whether it is in our K-12 schools or in the higher ed world or in the mindset of parents or guidance counselors or even in the military--in the military today, our military members can get tuition assistance benefits, but they can only be used for college courses. You can get up to $4,500 a year in the military as a tuition assistance benefit, but you cannot use even $500 of it to take the certification exam from the American Welding Society to get your welding certificate. We still have a stigma against career and technical education, and we should not.

CTE integrates numerous aspects of liberal arts degrees for practical and applied purposes. CTE prepares students with industry-recognized credentials, professional certificates, occasionally college credits, and, most importantly, training for careers as varied as nursing, physician assistant, business administration, manufacturing, oil and natural gas exploration, automotive maintenance, agriculture, welding, software programming, culinary arts, and many other careers.

CTE happens in interesting places. CTE happens in K-12 school systems. It happens on community college campuses. It happens in 4-year colleges. It happens in stand-alone institutions such as the Newport News Shipbuilding apprenticeship program, where people learn to manufacturer the largest items on planet Earth: nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines in Newport News, VA. It happens online. It happens anywhere where there is somebody who wants to attain a skill and there is a qualified teacher or program that can convey and educate a student in that skill so they can get a good job.

CTE programs are proven solutions for creating jobs, for retraining workers, older workers who need to find new skills so they can be successful and fill open jobs in the market, and ensure that students of all ages and walks of life are ready for a successful career.

When I was Governor, I worked on a number of educational issues, but one I was very proud of was starting Governor's Career and Technical Academies. We had 17 in Virginia--Governor's schools--that were college prep, academic, regional, magnet public high schools. It started in the 1970s. But when I was running for Governor, I realized, wow, we do not have a single school in the State that is a career and technical education program that we have deemed fit to hang the Governor's label: This is a Governor's career and technical academy. I said this has to be just as important as college prep. So when I was Governor, we started Governor's Career and Technical Academies. By the end of my one term--and that is all you get in Virginia--we had nine. The Republican Governor who followed me liked the idea. By the end of his term, we had 22. The Democratic Governor who has followed him is continuing to expand it, and we now have academies around the Commonwealth, developed at partnerships among schools, employers, business organizations, and postsecondary institutions looking for these skills.

Last week, during our break week, I traveled in Virginia, and I heard the same message from employers and educators: Education has to be job relevant. It has to start at earlier grades. Completion rates need to be maximized. We need to make sure all of our students have the skills they will need to be able to build successful careers throughout their lives.

One entrepreneur even said to me: I am so glad I ended up going to the Valley Career and Technical Education Program in the Shenandoah Valley and went into CTE because it has enabled me to be my own boss.

I said: What do you mean by that?

He said: If I had gone to college, I would have gotten a good job offer from a good company and would have taken it, and I probably would still be there. I would have been having a good career, but somebody else would have been by boss. But by going to a career and technical program and learning a skill, it also encouraged me to be entrepreneurial. So I did not join somebody else's company; I started my own company. CTE promotes entrepreneurial activity.

It is essential for the United States to invest in creating a world- class system of education across the spectrum to ensure the technically skilled and well-trained workforce we need. That is why we are introducing this bill--Senator Portman and I--the Educating Tomorrow's Workforce Act.

Here is what the legislation does.

It takes the existing Carl D. Perkins career and technical education program, which is the major source for Federal funding for programs that connect education to real-world careers, and it amends it by doing a couple of things.

First, it ensures that students have access to high-quality CTE programs in their schools so they can prepare to be college and career ready. Second, it defines what a rigorous program of study for CTE students is that links secondary and postsecondary education, to culminate in a degree or a credit or a credential or a license or an apprenticeship or a postsecondary certificate.

It emphasizes the opportunities for secondary students to earn college or postsecondary credits while they are in high school. I was able to graduate from college in 3 years because of credits I earned in high school. That was at a time when it was critically important financially for my family that I was able to get through college in 3 years.

This dual enrollment piece of our bill is a piece that Senator Portman worked very hard to make sure was included. The legislation allows the Perkins funding to be used by States that want to establish CTE academies as we did in Virginia and ensures that the academies are of a high quality.

Finally, the bill promotes the kinds of partnerships we need between businesses, industries, postsecondary and other community stakeholders. Partnerships are important to connect people to the workforce. The Southern Regional Education Board cites that students with highly integrated CTE programs, where the CTE programs and the academic programs are integrated together, that those schools have significantly higher achievement rates in reading, mathematics, and sciences than students at schools that do not have integrated programs.

In closing, and then I defer to my colleague from Ohio, I noticed something when I was mayor of Richmond and Governor that was a change in the kind of economic development world. As mayor, I was often trying to get a business to come to Richmond. I was competing against Savannah or against the county next door. What I found was in these competitions, the closing factor was always the incentive package: Mr. Mayor, how much money can you put on the table? What kind of tax incentives can you put on the table?

Oh, you either beat the other guy or you don't. But by the time I--5, 6, 7 years later I was Governor, the last issue now was not the incentive package anymore. The deciding issue for companies that were choosing whether to come to Virginia or South Carolina or Singapore was not the tax incentives, it was the workforce.

Tell me, Governor, that we will have the kind of people we need when we open the door tomorrow. Give me confidence that we will have the kind of people we need 20 years from now. Long after the ribbon has been cut and the photos have been taken, are we still going to have the kinds of people we need to do to the kind of work that has to be done?

In today's world, talent is the most precious asset--more than oil, more

than water, more than rare Earth minerals. It is talent and human capital that is precious. Recently we did something good in this body, Democrats and Republicans together. We passed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. It was passed in the House yesterday.

This looks at the Nation's workforce programs and makes them stronger. Now we have to make the policy changes that go into our education programs and match what we did in the WIOA reauthorization to prepare our students for a 21st century workforce. I very much hope the Senate moves forward on the Carl D. Perkins Act this year. I look forward to promoting this bill as part of that reauthorization. I am honored to have Senator Portman, my cochair on the CTE caucus, as the cosponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I support S. 2363, the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2014. I am pleased to join 45 of my colleagues--23 Republicans and 23 Democrats in total--as a cosponsor of this legislation.

This package of bills supports a variety of important conservation priorities while protecting access to public lands for hunters and anglers. It reauthorizes annual funding for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, two public-private matching grant programs that have provided wildlife habitat, flood protection, and land and water conservation benefits across Virginia. For instance, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Chesapeake Stewardship Grants leverage annual Federal support with private funds for projects that incur agricultural, stormwater, and habitation restoration benefits in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In 2013, Virginia received $2.5 million for 12 projects throughout its portion of the watershed.

I have long supported measures to conserve open space in Virginia. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 3.3 million people participate in hunting, fishing, and wildlife-watching in the Commonwealth. As Governor, one of my proudest environmental achievements was meeting an ambitious goal of preserving 400,000 acres for recreation and conservation by the end of my 4-year term.

While I am an avid hiker and outdoorsman, conservation is not just important to me for the intrinsic enjoyment of Virginia's beautiful lands and waters. Conservation is also good for business. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, outdoor recreation generates $13.6 billion in consumer spending, 138,000 jobs, $3.9 billion in wages and salaries, and $923 million in State and local tax revenue in Virginia every year.

It is no small feat to put together a bill supported by nearly half the U.S. Senate in equal partisan proportion. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise to discuss the current crisis in Iraq. In particular, I wish to discuss an important question: Would Congress need to approve any U.S. military combat action in Iraq?

Last week, the President summoned congressional leadership to the White House to discuss the deteriorating situation in Iraq and a potential U.S. response. Press reports of the meeting had Members quoting the President as saying he had all necessary authority for military action already, and some accounts had the congressional leaders also agreeing that the President had necessary authority.

I do not believe this President--or any President--has the ability without congressional approval to initiate military action in Iraq or anywhere else, except in the case of an emergency posing an imminent threat to the United States or its citizens.

I also assert that the current crisis in Iraq, while serious and posing the possibility of a long-term threat to the United States, is not the kind of conflict where the President can or should act unilaterally. If the United States is to contemplate military action in Iraq, the President must seek congressional authorization.

Let me point out that the White House has been in significant consultation with congressional leadership and Members in the past weeks, and that consultation is important and it is appreciated. But it is not the same thing as seeking congressional authority. That has yet to be done, and it must be done if the United States intends to engage in any combat activity in Iraq.

A word about the law. The Framers of the Constitution had a clear understanding regarding decisions about war. Congress must act to initiate war. A war, once initiated, is then managed by the President as Commander in Chief.

The principal drafter of the Constitution, Virginian James Madison, often explained why the allocation of power was drawn in this way.

The constitution supposes, what the History of all

Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of

power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has

accordingly with studied care vested the question of war to

the Legislature.

The Framers did understand that a President must be able to act in an emergency to protect the United States or its citizens even prior to congressional approval. That is especially the case in the day when Members of Congress, upon the recess, would ride horses back to Vermont or wherever they lived. The President had to be able to act if the United States or an

embassy or a naval ship was under attack. But even in those circumstances, the Framers understood that in an emergency a President could act but would then still need to seek formal congressional approval of any military action that had been taken.

It is important to understand that this basic allocation of power is not just about constitutional phrases. It is about underlying values.

First, the requirement for congressional approval ensures that American troops will not be sent into combat without a clear political consensus that the mission is worthwhile. It would be the height of public immorality to order servicemembers to risk their lives when the Nation's political leadership has not done the work to reach a consensus about the value of a mission.

Secondly, the requirement of congressional approval to initiate war also guarantees that there will be a public process of debate and voting by which the citizenry can also become educated about what is at stake and whether America should take the grave step of authorizing war to protect the national interest. Congress, as the decisionmaker, as the initiator, as the declarer of war, supports these important underlying values.

Applying that law to Iraq, the current situation is very troubling. Congress authorized war in Iraq in 2002. In 2008, President Bush signed an agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki to cease combat operations and withdraw U.S. troops by the end of 2011. After President Obama became President, he worked with Iraq and was willing to have U.S. troops stay past 2011 to provide continued assistance to the Iraqi security forces if they desired it, but the Iraq Government would not provide the immunities and other security assurances that were necessary for the United States to stay. They basically communicated that they did not want us to stay. So the U.S. military ceased combat operations and departed in 2011. By all accounts the U.S. combat role stopped at that moment.

In the years since 2011, Prime Minister Maliki has governed Iraq in a way that has exacerbated tensions between the country's ethnic groups. In particular, instead of building an Iraq for all Iraqis, the Maliki government has preferred the Shia population with the support of Iran and marginalized--even oppressing--the Sunni and Kurdish populations, and these regrettable actions have weakened the support for the government and have created fertile ground for Sunni extremism.

The fanatic Sunni organization ISIL has grown in its campaign to topple the current Syrian Government and now seeks to do the same in Iraq as part of its plan to establish a larger single Sunni caliphate from Lebanon to Iraq. ISIL is a well-armed and well-funded organization of jihadists. While their primary motive is the toppling of governments in the region, there is little doubt that they will seek in the future to strike western targets in Europe and in the United States. This explains the current concern and the current debate in this body about how to counter the threat ISIL poses. While ISIL terrorists pose a concern, it is important to point out that there is nothing in current law that would allow the President to take military action against them without congressional approval.

Let's look at current law.

Congress passed an authorization for the use of military force immediately after the 9/11 attacks to allow action against those who perpetrated the attacks on that day. ISIL had no connection with the 9/ 11 attacks. ISIL did not form until 2003. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have broadly interpreted that AUMF to allow attacks against Al Qaeda or associated forces, but ISIL is not Al Qaeda, nor is it an associated force. While it forged a temporary alliance with Al Qaeda in 2004, 3 years after 9/11, it is now an avowed enemy of Al Qaeda and is viciously battling Al Qaeda in Syria as we speak. It would be a wholly unprecedented stretch to suggest that the 2001 AUMF now would justify military action against ISIL in Iraq.

Congress acted in 2002 to authorize military action in Iraq to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein. All combat operations ceased in 2011 and even the administration now maintains the Iraqi AUMF is obsolete and should be repealed. Clearly the 2002 AUMF would not support unilateral action against ISIL.

In some instances a President relies upon a treaty ratified by Congress that requires the United States to come to the military defense of an ally, but there is no such treaty obligating America to defend Iraq in this instance.

Finally, there is not yet an imminent threat to the United States that would allow the President to take unilateral military action against ISIL. The administration rightly points out that the growth of ISIL could prove a threat to the United States in the medium or long term, but they pose no imminent threat to the United States today. Of course, should ISIL threaten the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the President could take emergency military action and rescue American personnel, and all of us are watching carefully and all of us will support action to protect the lives of our diplomatic personnel.

I conclude, from looking at all the authorities, that the President cannot initiate unilateral military action in Iraq with the sole exception of acting promptly if needed to secure American Embassy personnel. The dangerous situation of ISIL in Iraq is exactly the kind of situation where the President must not only consult with Congress but he also must seek congressional approval for any proposed military action.

We know seeking congressional approval for military action is very challenging and it is contentious, and it is supposed to be. While this often frustrates the Executive, it is how the system is supposed to work. When Presidents follow the rule, it generally works out for the best. Let me use the recent example of Syria. When the President did follow the basic form, it worked out in a way where something positive happened--not everything we might want but something positive. The President laid down a clear red line: The United States believes it would be wrong for Syria to use chemical weapons in violation of the 1925 Geneva Convention against their use. In August 2013 Syria crossed that red line and did use chemical weapons against men, women, and children, civilians. The President weighed what to do. He didn't act unilaterally. He came to Congress seeking authority to punish the Assad administration for using chemical weapons and to deter their use in the future.

As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, we had extensive hearings and then we voted to grant military authority to the President to take action in those circumstances. As you know, it was contentious in the body. The matter never came to a full vote on the Senate floor or the House floor; but after the Foreign Relations Committee authorized the President to use military force, Syria then stepped up for the first time, acknowledged they had a chemical weapons stockpile, essentially acknowledged they had used it, and then committed through international organizations at the U.N. to destroy one of the largest chemical weapons stockpiles in the world. That accomplished the mission the President had put on the table to deter future use of chemical weapons. There is no better deterrent of that stockpile of chemical weapons than their complete destruction, and as of now the entire declared chemical weapons stockpile of Syria has been destroyed. Work is underway to determine whether there are undeclared elements of the stockpile that still must be destroyed. The fact of the destruction of this chemical weapons stockpile, one of the largest in the world, happened because the President followed the rules, came to the Senate, we acted to support military force, and then that led to this important breakthrough.

I met 2 weeks ago with officials connected with the Israeli Government and they described what a game changer it is in the region for Syria's neighbors, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, to have that chemical weapons stockpile removed. So the President followed the rule, came to Congress, and while the Syrian civil war is not over and still is carrying on in a horrific way, that huge stockpile of weapons of mass destruction is now gone.

That teaches me and tells me: Let's learn from it.

The President should come to Congress if military action is contemplated in Iraq, and he has an excellent opportunity before him to initiate

that discussion right now. All know that the 2001 authorization passed in the days after 9/11 to enable us to go after the attack perpetrators is badly in need of an update after 13 years. Despite its facial language only allowing military action against those complicit in the 9/11 attacks, it has been broadly interpreted to authorize a global war against Al Qaeda or associated forces so long as they pose a threat to the United States or any of its dozens of ``coalition partners.'' That AUMF 13 years later has no geographic limitations. It has no expiration date. Members of the administration have testified in Senate hearings that they expect the war declared in that AUMF may go on for the next 25 or 30 years.

I wasn't here in 2001, but I have no doubt that the Members of Congress who voted for that authorization never would have contemplated war lasting into the 2030s or 2040s, and the American public has never expressed support for such a notion of perpetual war.

But the threat posed to the United States and our allies by nonstate terrorist organizations, whether it is ISIL or Al-Qaeda or Boko Haram or Al Nusra or others, is real and it has grown; and the very nature of the threat is quite different from the old notion of nation state military power that was our standard challenge even through the end of the 20th century.

In a speech in May of 2013 to the National Defense University, President Obama recognized that the administration and Congress have to work together to examine and update the 2001 AUMF in order to narrow its scope, clarify what it allows, and make it suitable for the new challenges that are before us. I have heard many of my colleagues in this body say exactly the same, but there has been no progress on this necessary update. The administration has made no proposal. There is no AUMF revision under active consideration in either House. Strangely, while all acknowledge the authorization needs an update, we drift from crisis to crisis--Syria, Iraq, POW exchanges--without grappling with the underlying document that initiated our entrance into war 13 years ago.

We cannot afford further delays in tackling this important task. So as I conclude, I encourage all of us, Congress and the administration, to embark on the work of updating the 2001 authorization to reflect the current dimensions of our security challenges. The administration should send to Congress a proposal for a revised and narrowed authorization that specifies how the United States should seek to counter threats posed by groups such as ISIL. There will be a role for the military and there will be a role for counterterrorism activities carried out by our intelligence agencies. There will be a role for diplomacy and there will also be a role for development assistance to eliminate the conditions of desperation that so often breed fanaticism. But it is time for those roles to be clearly described so they can be publicly debated and ultimately adopted by Congress.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.