Marco Rubio

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motions for the Cella, Jorjani, and Black nominations ripen at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 24; I further ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, following the cloture vote on the Black nomination, that the Senate resume consideration of the McGuire nomination, and that at 3:30 p.m., all postcloture time on the McGuire, Cella, Jorjani, and Black nominations be considered expired; finally, I ask unanimous consent that if any of the nominations are confirmed, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. RUBIO

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 323, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. RUBIO. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. I further ask unanimous consent that the Menendez-Lee amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the committee-reported substitute, as amended, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the order of August 1, 2019, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 102, S. 1340.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I highlight a small business that displays the unique entrepreneurial spirit found throughout our country. It is my privilege to recognize a Florida small business that demonstrates consistent hard work, a commitment to excellent customer service, and a desire to give back to the Florida community. Today, it is my honor to name Melao Bakery as the Senate Small Business of the Week. Founded in 2009, Melao Bakery is a family-owned and operated restaurant run by Eduardo Colon and Denisse Torres. Originally from Puerto Rico, Eduardo and Denisse have created a place where families can enjoy traditional Puerto Rican cuisine in Kissimmee, FL, a city many Puerto Ricans call home. Melao has grown from a small bakery in central Florida with seven employees into a full-menu restaurant employing more than 150 people at its two locations in Kissimmee and Orlando. Melao Bakery is known for its commitment to exemplary customer service and for providing an authentic, traditional experience for its customers. Eduardo and Denisse arrived in Florida 17 years ago from Vega Baja, PR. In Vega Baja, the couple owned a bakery but made the decision to move to Florida, with their 1-year-old son, in search of new opportunities. When Eduardo and Denisse settled in Kissimmee, they did not move to open the bakery immediately; Eduardo studied to pass truck driving exams, and through hard work, he was able to establish his own heavy transport company. Melao Bakery not only provides delicious pastries and cuisine, but it also serves as a meeting place for local Hispanics. They have since expanded their vision through the acquisition of the shopping center where Melao Bakery is located. Eduardo and Denisse's business has been honored for maintaining a strong sense of Hispanic heritage by the grassroots organization, the Libre Initiative. In 2012, Melao Bakery was also recognized by the Kissimmee Chamber of Commerce as the first Hispanic business to win its annual Small Business of the Year award. In 2014, Melao Bakery was presented with the Governor's Business Ambassador Award for its leadership in creating employment opportunities in central Florida. Additionally, Melao Bakery has won awards for the quality of its food, such as Best Latin Restaurant in the Osceola community. Eduardo and Denisse have made significant efforts to better the lives of those in their community, both in Florida and in Puerto Rico. After Hurricane Irma hit Puerto Rico in 2017, Eduardo and Denisse donated dozens of generators to help survivors get their businesses back up and running. Their dedication to preserving the culture and heritage of Puerto Rico in central Florida has created a loyal customer base and has made Melao Bakery a community staple. Melao Bakery is a shining example of how dignified work can lead to grassroots engagement and successful business expansion. As we celebrate Hispanic Heritage month, I am proud to highlight Melao Bakery for their dedication to Florida's Hispanic community.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, each week I recognize a small business that exemplifies the American entrepreneurial spirit at the heart of our economy. It is my privilege to honor a Florida small business that not only produces outstanding products but also assists survivors of human trafficking by providing dignified work and a second chance at life. This week, it is my pleasure to recognize Rethreaded of Jacksonville, FL as the Senate Small Business of the Week. Rethreaded was established in 2011 following founder Kristin Keen's return from India where she worked with victims of human trafficking. Realizing that there was a need in her own community to provide opportunities to survivors, Kristin sought to create a safe haven where women could learn skills while also earning a living. Many Rethreaded employees are survivors of human trafficking, and since its launch, Rethreaded has employed 40 women. The company has raised awareness about the horrific realities of human trafficking in the immediate community and beyond as well. Rethreaded sells conscious gifts and handcrafted accessories such as purses, scarves, and jewelry at its storefront in Jacksonville, as well as online. Their website not only provides nationwide customers access to their products, but it also serves as a platform from which they promote human rights issues that are foundational to Rethreaded's purpose. Over the years, Rethreaded has partnered with more than 300 companies, including Southwest Airlines, which provides airline seat leather for various ``upcycled'' products such as keychains and earrings. Since the beginning of this partnership, Southwest has provided more than 5,400 pounds of leather to Rethreaded, saving 2.8 tons of waste from entering our Nation's landfills. This partnership provided national exposure, but it was not the first time Rethreaded has received acclaim. The company appeared on ``Project Runway All Stars,'' an opportunity which gave their brand yet another chance to promote their mission. Additionally, Rethreaded has established relationships with numerous strategic partners, named Freedom Partners, which supply ready-made products from around the world. Selling these ready-made products in the Rethreaded storefront and online supports like-minded enterprises that also strive to end human trafficking. Rethreaded not only creates sustainable products for a good cause but also provides a supportive community for women who are in need of hope and healing. In addition to providing employment, Rethreaded has established programs to assist employees in the recovery process. Programs such as its warm-line telephone crisis support service, mental health group services, care management services, and individual counseling services target the unique challenges facing trauma victims. Congratulations to Kristin and the entire team at Rethreaded on their 8 years of service. I commend their efforts to provide dignified employment and skills training to women in our community who have been impacted by human trafficking. Rethreaded is a great example of the positive impact social entrepreneurship ventures can have in our communities. I look forward to watching their continued growth and success.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, it is my honor to recognize a small business that exemplifies innovation, entrepreneurship, and hard work. This week, it is my privilege to name Levatas of Palm Beach Gardens, FL, as the Senate Small Business of the Week. Levatas is a strategic marketing and consulting firm that uses artificial intelligence--AI--and machine learning technologies to develop solutions for their clients. They utilize AI technology to help the manufacturing industry and other companies better understand their customers. Levatas was started 13 years ago by Chris Nielsen in his Jupiter, FL, garage. Nielsen and his team have since expanded to become one of south Florida's leader in AI solutions. Moving from Jupiter, FL, Levatas expanded to their current office in Palm Beach Gardens and recently announced a second expansion, headquartered in Rosemary Square, where an additional 50 new jobs will be created. A large part of their success lies in Levatas's excellent company culture. In fact, Levatas was recently honored by Entrepreneur magazine in the ``2018 Top Company Cultures'' for the ``Small Companies'' category. They have also been recognized by the Florida community as well. In 2018, Palm Beach Tech Association awarded Chris Nielsen, Ryan Gay, CEO of Levatas, and Levatas Golden Palm awards for excellence. In addition to numerous accolades, Levatas has made significant contributions to their community. Through Levatas's GenerosiTeam initiative, employees have supported local philanthropic organizations including the Big Heart Brigade, Sheridan House, One Blood Organization Blood Drive, Children's Miracle Network donation drive, and other nonprofits. Levatas has cemented themselves as a local hub for innovation in the Palm Beach community. Levatas's extensive clientele spans many industries and includes companies such as Royal Caribbean Cruise Line, Orangetheory Fitness, SunTrust Bank, HSBC, Dell, IBM, Discover the Palm Beaches, Duffy's Sports Grill, and more. Renowned for their phenomenal quality of service, Levatas's innovative solutions for digital transformation showcase their significant experience in building technology and bringing products to market. Levatas has remained true to their core values by focusing on quality service with an expert ability to provide innovative, creative, and experienced solutions to shape brands and build technology. Furthermore, Levatas is a phenomenal example of how hard work can lead to success. It is with great pleasure that I extend my congratulations to Chris Nielsen and all of the members of the Levatas community. Levatas has an exciting future ahead, and I look forward to watching your continued success.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, it is my honor to recognize a small business that exemplifies a rigorous work ethic, attention to detail, and dedication to tradition. This week, it is my privilege to name Capital Shoe Fixery of Tallahassee, FL, as the Senate Small Business of the Week. Known for their expertise in shoe maintenance, Capital Shoe Fixery has become a local staple, servicing the members of their community since 1938. Having celebrated their 81st anniversary, the small business has become a landmark in the State's capitol and remains a true Main Street favorite. Originally owned by Elton and June Henley, Nick Camechis's father, John, bought the business in 1966. After school, Nick spent his days helping his father around the store and learning the trade. Following the precedent of hard work and tradition, Nick took over the business in 1995. To this day, Nick expands on his father's longstanding tradition of fairly priced, high-quality craftsmanship. Recently turning 65, this shoe cobbler has no current plans to retire, working 70 hour workweeks with no sick days. Today, Capital Shoe Fixery remains family-oriented and affordable, providing only the highest quality of work to their customers. When customers arrive, they are greeted by Nick's dog Tuck, who also never misses a day of work. Capital Shoe's clientele ranges from politicians, college students, dancers, and customers from all walks of life. Capital Shoe Fixery will take in approximately 60 to 70 shoes a day during a typical legislative session. Furthermore, Nick is known for his honesty with customers and will decline new business if he feels that the damaged shoes are irreparable. This outstanding quality of service and honesty by Capital Shoe Fixery has not gone unnoticed. In addition to their excellent reviews, in 2016, Capital Shoe Fixery was featured in Tallahassee Family Magazine, where the family-owned business was commended for their work ethic and attention to detail. The article truly cemented Capital Shoe Fixery as a Main Street staple, highlighting its unique traits that allow for remarkable customer experiences. Capital Shoe Fixery has remained true to their original values by focusing on quality service with an expert investment of time, care, and honesty to prioritize the customer. In addition, it is a reminder of the extensive amount of time and care required to achieve success and longevity in business. Nick's dedication is a quintessential example of how hard work can lead to exceptional success. It is with great pleasure that I extend my congratulations to Nick and Capital Shoe Fixery. I wish you well as you continue serving the people of Tallahassee, and I look forward to watching your continued success.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I am going to try to do this in about 12 minutes, since I am not sure how many people are left to speak tonight and I know the staff worked hard and we will be up early tomorrow voting on the pending Udall amendment. That is what I want to talk about. I have watched all week the debate on some of these topics. I think it is a really good debate, actually. In some ways, I am very pleased the amendment has been offered because it has given us an opportunity to talk about a topic I don't think we have talked enough about; that is, foreign policy, the security threats before our country, and, in particular, what the role of Congress is in all of this. There are a couple of things I want to say at the outset. Here is the first. A lot of people who cover this stuff in the news like very simplistic terms. It makes it easier to write the articles and makes it easier to describe the circumstances. The terms people like to use are ``hawk,'' or ``dove,'' or ``warlike.'' I am not in favor of war. I have actually never advocated for a military attack on Iran, in these circumstances especially. There are a lot of reasons for it, but it will take me more than 15 minutes to explain it all. Suffice it to say, it is certainly not the first or the second. The policy of the United States in Iran today is the one I support; that is, crippling economic sanctions that deny them the money to do the bad things they do but also a forced posture that we are prepared with enough people there in the military, so if they do attack us, we can defend ourselves. I want to say at the outset that I am not here today to speak in favor of war or to call for war but to speak about reality and the situation as we face it today. The second thing I want to point to is there is this notion out there that there is some clear-cut constitutional limitation on the President when it comes to the use of force in virtually every circumstance and that somehow the current President is being enabled by the Members of his party here to do whatever he wants. That is just not true. I will explain why in a moment. I want to begin with why we are even here. It is one of the topics that has been touched on this week, which I think deserves a direct response. I heard a number of Senators who came to the floor. I watched the debate last night, and there will be another one tonight within the Democratic Party. You almost get a sense that what they are arguing is that Iran was under control and wasn't doing anything wrong until Donald Trump came along and pulled us out of the Iran deal. That is just not true. That is patently false. The only thing Iran wasn't doing is enriching uranium beyond a certain threshold. That is not necessarily a bad thing that they weren't doing it, but that is the only thing that deal covered. Here is what Iran was still doing. Iran was still sponsors terrorism. You ask, why is it that they sponsor terrorism? Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and one of the ways they seek to achieve it is to find all of these groups--Hezbollah, Shia militias in Iraq and Syria, the Houthis in Yemen--and empower those groups. They have an organization called the IRGC, which is the real military and the real power in Iran. Underneath the IRGC, there is an organization called the Quds Force, which is their covert operations unit led by a guy named General Soleimani. He goes around the entire region sponsoring these groups--training them and providing weapons. Here is what they hope to do. If they ever get into a conflict, they will use these groups to attack people. Why do they use those groups? No. 1, because Iran doesn't have the ability to station troops all over the region. No. 2, it gives them deniability. They can say: We didn't attack you. It was the Houthis or Shia militia. It allows them some level of deniability while still inflicting pain. If you want to know what else Iran has done using that strategy, it has maimed or killed hundreds of American service men and women in Iraq. They didn't buy all those IEDs that were blowing up on Amazon; they didn't order them on eBay. They were built and supplied by the Iranians. That is who did it. There is no dispute about that. President Obama signed this Iran deal. Iran began to get more money into their treasury because they could now engage in certain economic activity. What did Iran do with that money? Let me tell you what they didn't do. They didn't build schools, roads, and bridges. They didn't reinvest it in their economy or their education system. Iran took the money they were making from the Iran deal. The Iran deal now allows them to engage in commerce that they weren't allowed to. They took that extra money, and they used it to sponsor terrorism--to sponsor Hezbollah in Lebanon. Today Hezbollah not only has more missiles than they had 10 or 15 years ago, but their missiles are better than they were. They could now, theoretically, overwhelm Israel's defenses with barrages of attacks. They have guidance systems on those missiles now. In fact, they have gotten so much assistance from Iran, they don't even need to ship these missiles to them anymore. They can make them themselves. What about the Houthis? The Houthis are a group that already existed, but they were only able to make the gains they made in Yemen with Iranian support. You read in the news every day about these missiles and drones used by the Houthis to attack Saudi Arabia. It doesn't get a lot of coverage, but where do you think they bought these things from? Do you think they made them? We didn't sell them to them. Those are Iranian missiles. All of it is provided by this additional money they got their hands on. They also conduct cyber attacks. Here is the most dangerous part of the Iran deal. Yes, it dealt with uranium enrichment and supervision, but it did nothing with the missile system. To have a nuclear threat, you have to do three things; No. 1, have a bomb designed, which is the easiest part, believe it or not; No. 2, have the industrial capacity to enrich uranium to weapons grade, and that is just a function of time and willingness. Once you can enrich at any level, you can keep going. That is what the deal dealt with; and the third thing you have to do is deliver it. You have to launch it on something to reach your target. The deal with Iran did nothing on the missiles. It gave them more money, and they used some of that money to build missiles that now have longer ranges. Where Iran, 5 or 10 years ago, had a more limited range of places to strike, today Iran can strike virtually every capital in the Middle East and every base in the region. That is where they were putting this money. The Trump administration came in and said: Let me get this straight. We did a deal with Iran. They get a lot more money. They use that money to build better missiles, to sponsor terrorism, to conduct cyber attacks, and the only thing is they can't enrich uranium for a period of time until the deal goes away? That is not a bad deal for Iran because what they were banking on is that in 10 years, we would be focused on something else. The world would forget, and all of a sudden they would be able to enrich. The deal was a fraud. It did nothing to make Iran less dangerous. The only thing the deal did is slow down their enrichment capability, but at no time are they less than 1\1/2\ to 2 years away to breaking out to weapons grade. At some point, they would--at least they retain that very option. This idea that somehow Iran wasn't doing anything wrong but pulling out of the deal caused all these tensions is just not true. Even with a deal in place, Iran was arming and training and equipping all these groups in the region and conducting cyber attacks and building these missiles unabated. That is what was going on. Now they are feeling it. By the way, today Iran is generating a lot less revenue than they were when the deal was in place. We are at a point now where even Hezbollah is out there openly saying they have had to cut back. They have budget cuts. They are putting out leaflets and things they posted publicly inside of Lebanon asking people to donate to Hezbollah because Iran can't donate as much as they used to. They have real fiscal constraints. That is not a bad thing. Likewise, with some of these Shia militias and others, it has constrained Iran's ability to operate. Iran has decided the only way to reverse this is to force us back to some negotiation at some point to either, A, intimidate us back into the deal or, B, force us to the negotiating table to get something like it. How can they do that? How can Iran position itself with some strength in order to get into that kind of negotiation? They can't sanction us economically. The only thing they can do is these terrorist attacks--these sort of attacks that started to connect. That is what they are in the pattern of doing. Do you realize, last week, over a period of 7 days, every single day there was a Shia militia attack against a U.S. installation? Luckily, nobody died, but that was happening. That is what they were trying and are trying to do. They were trying to position themselves and accumulate some strength so they can get into future negotiations from a position of strength. The only way they think they can do that is by threatening to attack us and, most interestingly, to attack us with some level of deniability. You have this tanker out there in the middle of the Gulf, which is a huge ocean, and suddenly some mines blow up, and you have journalists and politicians saying, how do we know it was Iran? Who was it? It wasn't the Swedes. It wasn't the Germans. It wasn't the French. It wasn't Luxembourg. There is only one organization in that part of the world with the capability to do what happened--Iran. Everybody knows it. The only reason some countries don't admit it is because then they would have to do something about it. If you are a European country and you want the Iran deal to come back in place and you want to save it, you can't say you know Iran put those mines on those ships. If you say that, you have to pull out of the deal. That is why they wouldn't acknowledge it. We have them on video. I heard people ask how we know those were Iranians. This is ridiculous stuff. By the way, the mines look identical to the ones Iran makes. So they did that. That was their plan, OK? Their plan was to attack us using other forces but to have some level of deniability. ``It was not us.'' They also know that there are divisions in American politics and that the President is unpopular in many countries. A lot of people around the world and in the United States would love nothing more than to say ``Yes, how do we know it was Iran?'' for different reasons. That is what they were banking on, but then they shot down an unmanned U.S. vehicle, and they admitted it because that would have been very difficult to deny. That is what really kicked off a lot of this argument that we are now hearing. I want everybody to remember, if you go back 3 or 4 weeks, that there were people in the building and people on television--I saw them-- commentators and others--who were basically implying that this was all not true, that there was no threat emanating from Iran, that it wasn't doing anything unusual. Now they are admitting that Iran is doing something unusual and dangerous, but 3 or 4 weeks ago, they were basically implying that this was all being made up by people who wanted a war. Think that through logically. That means there would be dozens and dozens of career service men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces and in the Pentagon who would be, basically, lying to us about this. That is absurd. So we get to the point of how this really got us here. It wasn't the deal with Iran or the pulling out of the deal that caused this. This has always been. This is what Iran has always done, and it has been doing it for two decades now and longer. To somehow act as if Iran is more belligerent today than it was 6 months ago or 6 years ago is just not true. It is just that the threats have become more imminent directly against us. When you look at this amendment, the amendment is basically designed to say that the President cannot enter into a war unless Congress approves it, which is an interesting dynamic. No. 1, when you hear people saying you need authority from Congress, what they are talking about is the War Powers Resolution. In the aftermath of Vietnam and that era, Congress said, from now on, we are not getting into any more of these undeclared wars. If a President is going to commit service men and women for an extended period of time, it has to come through Congress. No President--no administration--has ever accepted that resolution as being in the Constitution. From that point forward, every single administration--Democrat and Republican--has taken the position that this is an unconstitutional infringement on the power of the Commander in Chief. That has been the official position of every administration, Republican and Democrat, since that passed. Nonetheless, on various occasions, Presidents have come to Congress for authority, which I think is a smart thing to do, especially for an extended engagement, because we are stronger and our policies are more effective when Congress and the American people are behind you. That is why President George W. Bush sought the authorization for Afghanistan and why he sought it for Iraq. It was the right thing to do, and it made sense. Yet no President has ever admitted that it is constitutional, and I share that view. For a moment, let's assume that it were. Well, that resolution lays out three things that must happen before a President, a Commander in Chief, can commit U.S. forces to a hostility, to a war, to a fight. The first thing is that there has to be a declaration of war. That is in the Constitution too. Congress can declare war. The second is that Congress can authorize the use of force. That is when you hear all of this talk about the authorization for use of military force, the AUMF. That is what we had in Afghanistan, and that is what we had in Iraq. That is what a lot of people around here think we need if we are going to do something with Iraq. There is a third component they like to ignore, and the third component is that a President can institute U.S. military action if Congress declares war, if Congress authorizes the use of force, or, No. 3, if there is an emergency that causes us to respond to an attack against the United States, our territories, our holdings, or our Armed Forces. I want to tell you that if a Shia militia attacks a U.S. base in Iraq, this is a pretty clear attack on the Armed Forces. If it shoots down one of our unmanned, unarmed platforms over international airspace, that is an attack on our Armed Forces. If they try to kidnap or murder an ambassador or a diplomat by attacking our Embassy, that is an attack on a U.S. territory since embassies are sovereign territories. If you look at what the administration has done, the only thing the administration has done when it has come to the use of force is it has made sure that we have had enough ships and enough airplanes and enough personnel and enough assets in the Middle East so, if we are attacked, we can respond. That is the only thing it has done. I don't know how you read the plain text of the language that they are wrapping themselves around--those who criticize what the administration has done--and not realize that it is fully authorized. If we are attacked, the President doesn't just have a right to respond--he has an obligation. Think of the reverse. If the Iranians were to attack a facility in Iraq and murder 100 Americans who would be working at an embassy or diplomats or if they were to kill 200 soldiers, the first questions that every one of the President's critics would be asking on TV would be: Why didn't we have enough forces in the region to protect them? Why didn't we have a plan to save them? There would be congressional hearings, and there would be Members of Congress who would scream at the administration: Why didn't you have people there to save them? In anticipating that this could happen, our military leaders, in their looking at the threats and understanding the environment, asked the administration to send additional forces so they may be prepared-- to be in a position of having enough people and assets to respond in case of an attack. I will go further than that. Imagine the President is given verifiable information that an attack is imminent by Iran or one of its proxies and that the only way to save American lives is to wipe out the place from which it is going to launch the attack. Even if you acted first, that is self-defense. You are getting ahead of preventing an attack, not to mention the fact that the best way to respond to an attack is to prevent it from happening in the first place, and having a force posture in the region is one of the best ways to do that. That is the only thing that has been done here. This amendment is just not necessary because, in assuming they are arguing that the War Powers Resolution makes pretty clear what Congress's power and role are in all of this, in the very text of that resolution, it makes clear that a President has a right to introduce military forces and to use military force to defend Americans, to defend America, and to defend our Armed Forces. So why do we need language that says that a second time? Some would say: Well, it is redundant, and it is already the law. Why not just vote for it again? That is the final and, perhaps, the most important point in all of this--that the timing couldn't really be worse. It is not necessary, but the redundancy here is actually damaging, and here is why. I think sometimes we make a terrible mistake in American politics. We ascribe our attributes to those of the leaders of other countries. When we hear that the President of Iran said something, we think Iran's President and his system is like ours. They are not. The President of Iran doesn't have one-tenth the power of our President, meaning there is a Supreme Leader, and everything goes to the Supreme Leader, a cleric. That is where the power really resides. No. 2, we make a terrible mistake of believing that they truly understand us, our systems, and our debates when they don't, especially the Ayatollah. He is not a world traveler nor a constitutional expert nor a consumer of a varied amount of news and information from around the world nor a nuanced person who understands that this amendment, for example, is never going to become law. Here is what they do believe, and I encourage all Members here to go out and inform themselves as to this. As a Senator, one has the opportunity to do it. They do believe that this President cannot respond. They believe that this President cannot and would not respond. They believe that there is a threshold--that there are x numbers of Americans they can kill and that there are certain types of attacks they can get away with without getting a response back. That is what they believe. Why do they believe it? No. 1, it is that our President has talked on various occasions about withdrawing all Americans from the region. So they begin by believing, by and large, that we don't even want to be there. No. 2, they believe it because they look at our domestic politics, and they say: I have heard the debates, and I watched 5 minutes of CNN or some other network the other night, and I heard people on there who were from Congress or wherever who told the President he can't do this and can't do that. There is no support in America for responding, so the President is constrained in what he is able to do. Why is that a problem? It is because that is where you miscalculate. That is where what they think would trigger a response and what will actually trigger a response are two very different things. If this thing were to pass--and I know there are still a couple of people who are thinking about voting for it--this would not be reported as an amendment that had passed on a bill but that was never going to become law because it was never going to get signed with that in there. That is not how it would be reported. In fact, if there were a close vote on it, as I anticipate there will be, the way it would be reported would be as ``even a handful of Republicans and virtually every Democrat voted to send the President a message of `we don't want you using Armed Forces in wars against Iran.' '' That is how it would be reported. That is how they would read it. It would only reinforce this belief among some in that regime that they can go further than they actually can. I don't mean to say this to argue that there are Members of this body here who are deliberately putting the men and women of our Armed Forces in danger. I am telling them I don't know if they have thought through that part of it. What we do here and how it is perceived in other parts of the world, especially in a reclusive organization such as the regime in Iran, are often two very different things. The danger with this amendment is that it is going to confirm to several hard-liners in that regime that the President is constrained, that America's President will not be able to respond, and that they will be able to get away with more than they actually will get away with. In some ways, ironically, I believe that even a big vote on this-- but, certainly, the passage of it--increases the chance of war. I say that because, if they miscalculate and they read into this an opportunity to attack at a higher level without taking a retaliatory response, they are going to do it. Then they are going to be wrong, and then the retaliation will come. Then it is on. Then we can't predict what will happen next. What happens next is terrifying to even contemplate because what happens next could be a Hezbollah strike against Israel and Israel's responding 10 times stronger. It could be Hezbollah's moving to abduct, kill, murder American diplomats or personnel inside of Lebanon; it could be Shia militias throughout Iraq and Syria attacking U.S. personnel; it could be increased Houthi attacks not just into Saudi Arabia but potentially even hitting civilian populations and Saudi Arabia's responding back. What could come next is a spiraling series of events that could lead to a dangerous regional war. That is not an exaggeration. Neither is it an exaggeration to believe that a miscalculation on the part of Iran and what it can get away with would trigger that. This is an unnecessary amendment because, if you accept the War Powers Resolution as valid under our Constitution--I do not--it already reads that the President has a right to respond in self-defense. The administration has made it very clear that this is the only way it intends to use it. It has made it abundantly clear. In fact, its force posture proves it. If you look at what we have in the region--the number of ships and the number of people--we are not postured for an invasion or an all-out war. We are postured for defensive operations and retaliatory strikes to an attack, and that is what the administration says it intends to do. What it intends to do is to continue forward, strangling the sources of financing that the Iranian regime is using to sponsor terrorism and its ballistic missile program and having enough force in the region to protect our men and women who serve us if they were to come under attack. The President is allowed to do that in the Constitution and in the War Powers Resolution. All this amendment does is create a dangerous opportunity to be misread and to cause Iran to do something, and that will trigger a response. Then we will have a war. For those who are considering still voting for this because they want to reassert Congress's role, this is the wrong time and place in which to do it. I will close with this. I don't agree with all of the President's foreign policy views. I can tell you, for example, that I do believe that openly talking about getting out of the Middle East as soon as possible has emboldened some of this thinking that America is constrained and that we really don't have the dedication or the commitment to see this through if we are attacked. Yet, in fairness, this President is far less likely to get into a war or to start one than was his predecessor--or his two predecessors, actually. He showed great restraint the other day. It strikes me that not only is this unnecessary from a policy perspective, it is also unnecessary from a personality perspective. This is not a President who is looking to start wars. This is a President who is looking to get out of the ones we are already in. Again, I just don't know why we would run the risk of putting something out there that could be misconstrued and lead to an attack when we have a President who has no intention of starting a war, when we have a military posture in the region that would not support an offensive military operation or anything close to what Afghanistan or Iraq was like, and when we have this danger of miscalculation. The amendment has been filed, and there will be a vote on it tomorrow. I just hope that the handful of people still thinking about it will consider all of these points. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, the senior Senator from South Carolina, the junior Senator from Oklahoma, and the junior Senator from North Carolina be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions from June 27 through the July 8.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, today I honor Summer Holtzhower, the Sumter County Teacher of the Year from Wildwood Elementary School in Wildwood, FL. Summer, a 4th grade math and science teacher, just completed her second year and designs her classroom activities to challenge her students. She has a teaching activity called the Density Lab, where students experiment with placing certain liquids in measuring cups and hypothesize where they think the liquids will settle. Students then test to see if their hypothesis are correct and answer Summer's ``higher order thinking'' questions about their lab results. Summer, who believes that one of her goals as an educator is to make her students feel valued, does this by encouraging her students to participate in days such as National Compliment Day. She believes that events like this will allow her students to feel empowered and know that they are capable of success in the future. I offer my best wishes to Summer and look forward to hearing of her continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, today I honor Linda Howell, the Taylor County Teacher of the Year from Taylor County High School in Perry, FL. Linda has a strong belief that every student can learn and succeed, but it takes an entire community to support that success. Her peers take note of her dedication to being a part of a team at her school. A 1987 graduate from Florida State University, Linda previously worked for Proctor and Gamble, helping to develop its employee assistance program and was a member of its Foley Impact Team. She was also previously a home educator and substitute teacher. Linda has great experience as an educator, spending many years cultivating an esteemed and diverse resume. Linda currently teaches 9th and 10th grade English, and has spent 8 years with the Taylor County Public School District. She also intermittently teaches at her local Boys and Girls Club in its afterschool and summer programs. I offer my best wishes to Linda and look forward to hearing of her continued good work in the years to come.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I recognize the Chipola College Lady Indians softball team, winners of the National Junior College Athletic Association Division I National Championship. The Lady Indians are comprised of talented young women in Marianna, FL and finished their season scoring a total of 69 runs and a 52-5-1 record, leading them to the team's third overall NJCAA championship title. In the national championship game, they played against Angelina College from Lufkin, TX, and trailed by two runs after the first inning. Beginning in the second inning, the Lady Indians scored five runs, with Mikayla Lewin and Haley Sandridge both hitting homeruns. In the third inning, the team scored five more runs on six hits from Thais Uyeme, Sydney Mclain, Candela Figueroa, and Haley Sandridge, who all had RBIs in the inning. The Lady Indians led Angelina College 10-2 entering the fourth inning. The scored remained the same until the sixth inning, when Eila Infante and Mikayla Lewin scored two more runs for the team. In the seventh and final inning, the Lady Indians scored seven more runs from Yoshi Omori, Tammie Lijbers, Sandridge, Infante, Jadia Jones, and Ally Clegg. At the bottom of the seventh, Amy Woodham recorded the first two outs against Angelina College before Brianna Bailey entered the game and recorded the final strikeout of the championship game. Chipola won with a final score of 19-2. I extend my best wishes to head softball coach Belinda Hendrix, associate head softball coach Jimmy Hendrix, assistant softball coach Kelly Brookins, Brianna Bailey, Tyra Brown, Payton Clark, Ally Clegg, Candela Figeroa, Lauren Finch, Eila Infante, Jadia Jones, Madison Kent, Mikayla Lewin, Tammie Lijbers Christine Marsland, Sydney Mclain, Yoshie Omori, Naomi Parker, Haley Sandridge, Morgan Scala, Taylor Scala, Amy Woodham, Thais Uyema, and the Lady Indians softball team on this impressive accomplishment. I look forward to hearing of their continued success in the years to come.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I am pleased to recognize Philip Jones, the Jackson County Teacher of the Year from Marianna High School in Marianna, FL. To Philip, his job is to improve a student's reading and writing skills. He believes this is best achieved through an openness to dynamic academic and social changes. Philip designed his English class curriculum with structured plans, which builds trust in his students after the first 9 weeks of the school year and allows them to communicate with him during class and through written assignments clearly and without negative distractions. Philip has taught 10th grade English at Marianna High School for 6 years and serves as the chairperson for the English Department. He has also received the Florida Department of Education's High Impact recognition 3 years in a row. Philip earned his bachelor's degree in political science from the University of Florida in 2000 and his master's degree in environmental law from Vermont Law School in 2004. I extend my best wishes to Philip for his dedication to his English students and look forward to hearing of his continued success in the coming years.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I am pleased to honor Leigh Norris, the Hamilton County Teacher of the Year from Hamilton County Elementary School in Jasper, FL. Peggy Sue Hasty, principal at Hamilton County Elementary School, described Leigh as a fine example of a dedicated teacher who works hard to ensure her students achieve academic success. A sixth grade math teacher who has worked in the district for 21 years, Leigh considers teaching the profession she was born to do. She loves to inspire a passion for learning math, and shares the excitement with her students when they make gains or solve challenging problems on their own. I offer my best wishes to Leigh for her work and look forward to hearing of her continued success in the coming years.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I honor Judith Paris, the Wakulla County Teacher of the Year from Shadeville Elementary School in Shadeville, FL. Judy's teaching philosophy guides her students to thrive in environments where they are encouraged to explain their thinking and also understand how their classmates think. She works to create a classroom that facilitates a love of learning and where students build self-confidence. In her classes, groups of students often begin the school year at 40- 50 percent proficiency in math and consistently improve their math scores to 90 percent or higher by the end of the school year. She credits their success to the instructional practices that she teaches to make students solve problems on their own and by working together. Judy is a fifth grade math teach and is also her school's math team leader and chair of the mathematics committee and coteaches faculty workshops on accelerated math. Judy earned her bachelor's degree in technical writing with a minor in mathematics from Louisiana State University and earned a post baccalaureate degree in mathematics education. She is certified in elementary education, middle school math, and high school math. Judy has been recognized twice by the Florida Department of Education as a High Impact Teacher due to her students' learning gains and has earned the Best and Brightest Florida Department of Education award for 3 consecutive years. She was voted by her supplemental educational services colleagues as the September 2018 Teacher of the Month. I extend my best wishes and gratitude to Judy for her dedication to helping her students succeed in mathematics. I look forward to learning of her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I honor Tracy Kerby, the Lafayette County Teacher of the Year from Lafayette High School in Mayo, FL. An eighth grade language arts teacher since 2006, Tracy's colleagues note that she is always looking for opportunities to grow as an educator. Tracy is a great leader for her students to follow because of her high moral character and her desire to set her students up for success later in life. Tracy loves being a teacher in the Lafayette District Schools because she has the ability to watch her students learn and grow. She enjoys watching her students succeed in class, athletics, at local fairs, or with volunteer events at their church. I express my best wishes and gratitude to Tracy and look forward to hearing of her continued success in the coming years.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I honor Derita Pinkard, the Madison County Teacher of the Year from Madison County Central School in Madison, FL. One of Derita's greatest joys as a teacher is the knowledge that she is helping to shape the next generation that will lead the Madison community, our State, Nation, and the world. By educating the youth, she hopes their decisions and dreams will positively affect communities in the future. A seventh grade math teacher and math instructional coach, Derita has been a teacher for 32 years, and she does not plan to slow down. Derita is a patient educator, who likes to break down math problems for her students when they have trouble understanding the steps or formulas. She believes this approach is best suited to help them learn not only in her classroom, but also in their future classes. Derita graduated from North Florida Junior College, earning an associate of arts degree before attending Valdosta State University, where she earned her bachelor's degree. I offer my best wishes and gratitude to Derita for her dedication to teaching her students and look forward to hearing of her continued good work in the coming years.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I recognize Charles Mearsheimer, the Collier County Teacher of the Year from Oakridge Middle School in Naples, FL. Charles has taught U.S. history at Oakridge Middle School for the past 16 years and has worked in education for 24 years. Charles believes in his students' ability to achieve success and in the invaluable power of teaching to ignite the passion for learning that will follow them as they grow throughout their educational journey. He also serves as an unofficial mentor for new staff members, passing along his own passion for teaching. Both his colleagues and students feel the contagious effect of his enthusiasm and has led to Charles being one of the most requested teachers at his school. I extend my sincere thanks and gratitude to Charles for his dedication to his students and look forward to hearing of his continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I recognize Jeannine Meis, the Leon County Teacher of the Year from Leon High School in Tallahassee, FL. A teacher in the Leon County School district for 16 years, Jannine is an educator who is consistently modifying her curriculum to create lesson plans that help her to connect with her students while creating an atmosphere that is encouraging. Before Jeannine started her tenure at Leon High School, she taught elementary school at the Apalachee Tapestry Magnet School of the Arts and middle school students at Cobb Middle School, where she had the privilege of teaching some of her students again. I express my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jeannine for her work and look forward to learning of her continued success in her future endeavors.

Mr. RUBIO

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, today I recognize Kayla Patton, the DeSoto County Teacher of the Year from West Elementary School in Arcadia City, FL. Kayla says that the most challenging part of teaching is finding creative ways to motivate the uninterested students. However, this can lead to the most rewarding part of her job: watching a student realize they are able to do the work. Kayla implements a unique technique in her fourth grade writing class. She asks her students to translate what they see into words and then compose the visual objects into an essay. Maintaining perseverance, self-criticism, innovation, and orderliness in work are Kayla's keys to success. She says that channeling her student's energy is what takes them from average to great. I extend my sincere thanks and gratitude to Kayla for her dedication to her students and look forward to hearing of her continued good work in the coming years.