Tim Kaine

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues on the floor this evening to discuss the very unfortunate actions of my Senate colleague from Alabama, blocking the advancements and promotions for hundreds of military officers. I am a Senator from Virginia. Virginia is as connected to the U.S. military mission as any State. One out of every nine Virginians is a veteran. Our Active-Duty community is massive. Our military families, reservists, Guard men and women, DOD civilians, and DOD contractors create a Commonwealth deeply, deeply connected to the American military mission. The map of Virginia--Yorktown, where the Revolutionary War ended; the battlefields of the Civil War; Appomattox, where the Civil War ended; Bedford, where a core of young people from that tiny mountain community served and died on D-day; the Pentagon, where we were attacked on 9/ 11--our map is a map of American military history. We train all Marine officers at Quantico. We have the largest naval base in the world in Norfolk and the largest military personnel facility in the world at the Pentagon. Virginia is steeped in the Nation's military mission. I also rise as a member of the Armed Services Committee and as the father of a U.S. marine to urge my colleague from Alabama, as have my other friends on the floor tonight, to stop punishing our troops and their families, to stop punishing our troops and their families. I want to talk about the policy, I want to talk about the stunt, and I want to talk about the victims. The policy: Senator Tuberville objects to the fact that the Department of Defense will allow a servicemember to take time off and travel to terminate a pregnancy lawfully. He objects to that policy. Is that policy an unreasonable policy? No. It has been Federal policy since the Reagan administration that Federal funds could pay for a Peace Corps volunteer to travel to terminate a pregnancy lawfully if the place where that Peace Corps volunteer was serving did not offer reproductive healthcare access. The Reagan administration was a Republican administration. The policy announced with respect to Peace Corps volunteers in the 1980s was written by then-Department of Justice lawyer Ted Olson, who became the Solicitor General under the Bush administration. So, for now 40 years, it has been Federal policy that if a Peace Corps volunteer chooses to lawfully terminate a pregnancy, the Federal Government will both allow her time off and pay for her travel--in Democratic and Republican administrations. It is, similarly, Federal policy that a female prisoner committed to the Federal Bureau of Prisons will be allowed to travel to terminate a pregnancy lawfully and that the Federal Government will pay for that travel. So the policy has been now for 40 years that the Federal Government will pay for travel of Peace Corps volunteers and Federal prisoners to lawfully terminate a pregnancy. Senator Tuberville wants women servicemembers to have fewer rights than Federal prisoners. Senator Tuberville wants women servicemembers to not be accorded the same choice and protection that we have accorded Peace Corps volunteers since the early 1980s during the Reagan administration. Why--why--would we say to women who volunteer to wear the uniform of this country and risk their lives that you are not entitled to what we have allowed Peace Corps volunteers and Federal prisoners to have for decades? What is it about pledging to wear the uniform and offer your life and service to the Nation that should disable you from rights that have been afforded to others? This is the policy that Senator Tuberville wants to reverse. He wants to mandate that our servicewomen receive fewer rights and fewer protections than Federal prisoners or Peace Corps volunteers. I find that proposal outrageous. I find that proposal deeply inequitable. But I do defend my colleague's right to have that opinion, if that is his opinion. We have 100 people in this body. We have a lot of different opinions about a lot of different things. But there is a right way and a wrong way. And so now let me move from the policy to the stunt. I am on the Armed Services Committee. I have my chair here. I have been so pleased to serve with him for the 10 years I have been in the Senate. And he knows I have often offered amendments as part of our annual Defense bill where I failed. I have tried to convince my colleagues, for example, in the writing of the Defense bill to terminate outdated war authorizations, and I have been told, no, this is not the right committee for that; that should be in the Foreign Relations Committee. I have asked for a vote anyway, and I lost. I couldn't convince my colleagues that I was right. We had a significant debate a few years ago about whether we should do across-the-board cuts in the headquarters of the Pentagon, and I was worried about what across-the-board cuts might do to things like military housing. So I tried to convince my colleagues to see things my way and, instead, adopt my position, and I failed. I had the opportunity to persuade them, but I couldn't persuade a majority. So what do you do when you can't persuade a majority? Do you punish people who had nothing to do with the policy that you disagree with? No. Not a single member of our committee has ever taken this step during the 10 years that I have been on the committee until Senator Tuberville has decided to undertake this stunt. Senator Tuberville had an opportunity in connection with the Defense bill in the committee to advocate his position--it was actually an amendment drafted by Senator Ernst, and Senator Tuberville was the cosponsor--to reverse the policy I described earlier and to take away rights from servicewomen--rights that are enjoyed by Federal prisoners and Peace Corps volunteers. And they had an opportunity to persuade. And they offered that amendment, and they failed. They couldn't convince a majority of the committee to go along with them. But they had their chance. And so once they have had their chance and failed to persuade their colleagues, they now turn, and Senator Tuberville--I don't want to assert this is Senator Ernst; Senator Ernst and Senator Tuberville have the same position on the policy, but Senator Ernst disagrees with the blockade--Senator Tuberville is now taking out his disappointment. I couldn't convince my colleagues of the policy, so why don't I now punish hundreds of military officers and their families? It is a stunt. When you can't convince your colleagues, be more persuasive next time or find a middle ground or have a dialogue and listen; and maybe the next time you will try, you will do it better, and you will be more persuasive. But, no, that is not what the Senator is doing. Instead, he is deciding to punish these officers and their families. And I will tell you, in some ways, the part of this stunt that makes me the angriest is the part that is happening right now. Right now on the Senate floor, we are debating the Defense bill, because maybe you could say I lost my vote in committee, but it is such an issue of conviction and conscience for me that I want to have the whole Senate vote on it. I could see Senator Tuberville--if it really mattered to him, if this policy was really a matter of conviction and conscience for him, you would think he would say: I know I lost in committee, but maybe I will succeed on the floor of the Senate, and I want that opportunity. I want the public to know we have offered Senator Tuberville the ability to vote on this matter on the floor of the Senate. Let's do it in front of the entire American public. You stand up and you say why the Department of Defense policy is wrong and you put it to a vote and make every one of the 100 Senators vote on it. We have given him that opportunity. As of right now, 5 after 11, the night before we hope to finish the NDAA, he has not accepted it. Wait a minute. Does he even care about this issue? If it is a matter of conscience and conviction, wouldn't you want to debate it on the floor of the Senate to show how much you care about it? But as of right now, he has not accepted our offer to allow him to have this vote. Why hasn't he accepted the offer? He knows he is going to lose and probably lose worse than he lost in the committee because there are many people--both Democrats and Republicans--who are tired of the punishment that he is meting out on these military officers. That is why this is a stunt. If he had the courage of his convictions, he would be on the floor listening to this right now. If he had the courage of his convictions, he would be asking for a vote. If he had the courage of his convictions, he would be accepting the outcome of the vote. And if unsuccessful, he would stop this foolish blockade. Last, about the victims: My colleagues have done a very good job of talking about who is being damaged and how. It is these officers, certainly, but it is really their families--the inability to move, to find a new school for your children. We have officers among the list of those being blockaded who, on the assumption of a promotion, because it has been done as a matter of course for decades--sold a home, can't buy a new one because the new orders haven't yet come through and have had to pay out of their personal funds to move their families because the military won't pay to move them, hoping that they might be able to get reimbursed. We have a Virginia officer who has been blocked a promotion, whose wife is a public-school teacher who had resigned from her job and not accepted the contract for the public school for the next year on the thought that she would be looking for a job in a new jurisdiction for a public school. And now she is out of the past job without the ability to go find a new job. What did they do to deserve this? My colleagues have pointed out that Senator Tuberville does not object to the qualifications of any of these people. He voted for them in committee. In addition, Senator Tuberville has not asserted that a single one of these people had anything to do with the policy he doesn't like. I mean, it would be one thing if we were nominating for a promotion the individual who developed the policy that Senator Tuberville didn't like. You might understand him subjecting that individual to some more significant scrutiny and even opposition. But none of these people had anything to do with the travel policy announced by the Department of Defense after the Dobbs decision. So punishing people who were serving this country, who had nothing to do with the policy that you complain about; punishing them not because of what they did but punishing them because you were not persuasive enough to convince your colleagues to embrace a policy that you advanced. It makes no sense. We know we are facing a recruiting challenge in the military. We are facing it generally. We also know that in certain specialties, that recruiting challenge is particularly acute. Use pilots for an example. Pilots have a lot of opportunities. A number of the officers who are on this list are Air Force or Aviators in the other service branches, and they have all kinds of options to go to the private sector and get paid a whole lot more than they do, but they choose to work for less because they are patriotic about this country and they believe this country respects them. What does this say to them? What would you do if you were a rational person and you had an opportunity when your promotion was being blocked for something you had nothing to do with, what would you do if there was another opportunity you could take? My oldest son, who is Active Duty and now a Marine Reservist, is of an age where an awful lot of people are trying to make this decision about: Do I stay in the military or not? I have had a career. I have been in for 8 years or so. Do I stay and make a full career out of it or not? We know from recruiting polling that we have been doing that one of the main reasons we have a recruiting and retention problem in the military--this was identified in Army polling--is people's belief--it is interesting. I was actually surprised by this polling. We are not having a recruiting challenge because people are afraid to serve or think they might get injured. We are having a recruiting challenge because people believe that if they serve in the military, they will fall behind their peers who don't serve in the military; that their peers who don't serve might advance in their careers and have opportunities decades from now that would be more than what I have if I went in the military. So if that is our significant problem right now, what is the message that is sent to people who might want to serve if they know: Wow, one Senator who is unhappy with something the Pentagon does can block my professional advancement even though I had nothing to do with that, even though I have served honorably and deployed and won a Silver Star and Purple Heart and other citations for bravery, even though all that happens--if one Senator--only one, only one--is unhappy with something that the Pentagon has done, they can block my professional advancement, just for that reason. How is that going to help us counter the recruiting and retention problem we have in the U.S. military? My colleagues have done a good job of listing some of the particular positions that are vacant. They have no confirmed Commandant of the Marine Corps to come up against possibly no confirmed chief of staff on the joint chiefs of staff, to have no confirmed head of the U.S. Naval Academy. Virginia is a shipbuilding and sub-building State. To have no head of Navy nuclear reactors--we are the premiere producer of nuclear subs in the world. The reactors get built in Virginia--in Lynchburg, generally--and then they get installed on subs and carriers in Newport News. This is what our State does. This nuclear reactor thing is not something to mess around with. It is not a minor thing that just anyone can do. To be the head of Navy nuclear reactors is a really important position. We just announced through President Biden an initiative with Australia and the United Kingdom to do nuclear sub capacity building together over the course of decades. How good would we be at this commitment we have made if we don't have a head of naval nuclear reactors confirmed in serving this country? So I join with my colleagues on this floor and ask Senator Tuberville to stop punishing these people. They served enough. They have done enough. They sweat enough. They bled enough. They moved enough. They sacrificed enough, and they are willing to do even more. Stop punishing them. Stop punishing them. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I would like to continue this wall of honor, this honor roll of these patriotic public servants. Rear Admiral John Gumbleton to be a vice admiral of the U.S. Navy and Deputy Commander of U.S. Fleet Forces Command. He currently serves as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Budget. He has 34 years of service to the Navy. His awards include the Legion of Merit, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, and the Meritorious Service Medal. Rear Admiral Christopher S. Gray to be a vice admiral of the U.S. Navy and the Commander of Navy Installations Command. He currently serves as Commander of Navy Region Mid-Atlantic and has 34 years of service. He has served as the Commander of Navy Region Northwest and the Chief of Staff of Navy Installations Command. His awards include the Legion of Merit, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal With Combat ``V'' and Strike/ Flight numeral 1. Rear Admiral James Pitts to be a vice admiral in the U.S. Navy and Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfighting Requirements and Capabilities. He currently serves as the Director of the Warfare Integration, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations. He has 37 years of service. He has been awarded the Legion of Merit with one gold star, Defense Superior Service Medal, and the Meritorious Service Medal with three gold stars. He has 30 different awards, many received multiple times. Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach for reappointment as a general in the U.S. Air Force and Commander, Air Force Combat Command. He currently serves as the Commander of Pacific Air Forces. He has 38 years of service. General Wilsbach is a command pilot with more than 5,000 hours in multiple aircrafts, Defense Distinguished Service Medal with one oakleaf cluster, Defense Superior Service Medal with one oakleaf cluster, Legion of Merit with two oakleaf clusters, and the Bronze Star Medal. Maj. Gen. Linda S. Hurry to be a lieutenant general in the U.S. Air Force and Deputy Commander, Air Force Materiel Command. She is nominated to be the Deputy Commander of Air Force Materiel Command, which manages installation and mission support, discovery and development, testing and evaluation, and life cycle management services and sustainment for every Air Force weapon system. Air Force Materiel Command employs nearly 86,000 military and civilian airmen, managing a $71.3 billion budget. Major Hurry has served for 32 years. Her awards include the Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit with one oakleaf cluster, and the Defense Meritorious Service Medal with one oakleaf cluster. BG Miguel Mendez to be a major general in the Army National Guard of the United States. He served 35 years in the Army, encompassing 20 different duty stations. He was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal with two bronze oakleaf clusters and the Army Commendation Medal with one bronze oakleaf cluster. COL Marlene Markotan to be brigadier general of the U.S. Army Reserve. She currently serves as the Group Commander at Fort Totten, NY. She served 32 years in the Army, encompassing 20 different duty stations. She was awarded the Bronze Star Medal and the Meritorious Service Medal with three bronze oakleaf clusters. Col. David Castaneda to be brigadier general in the U.S. Air Force Reserve. He served 30 years in the Air Force, 21 different duty stations. He served in multiple different leadership capacities at both the headquarters and wing level. He is a command pilot with more than 2,600 hours in the F-16 and F-35, and more than 550 of those hours are in combat. His awards include the Legion of Merit with one oakleaf cluster and the Meritorious Service Medal with three oakleaf clusters. MG Karl H. Gingrich to be a lieutenant general in the U.S. Army while also serving as a Deputy Chief of Staff in the U.S. Army. He currently serves as Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation with the U.S. Army. He has 34 years in the Army, 23 different duty assignments, including 2 assignments in support of combat operations. He was awarded the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with four bronze oakleaf clusters, and the Bronze Star Medal. The following three officers have been nominated to serve as rear admiral in the Navy Reserve: Rear Admiral Kenneth R. Blackmon currently serves as the Reserve Director for U.S. Fleet Forces Command and previously served as Deputy Commander of the U.S. Third Fleet. He was awarded the Legion of Merit, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal with one oakleaf cluster, and the Joint Service Commendation Medal. Rear Admiral Marc Lederer currently serves as the Reserve Deputy for Fleet Readiness and Logistics for the CNO. He has 32 years in the Navy encompassing 21 different duty assignments. His awards include the Legion of Merit with one gold star, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal with one oakleaf cluster, and the Meritorious Service Medal with one gold star. Rear Admiral Robert Nowakowski currently serves as Reserve Vice Commander, U.S. Naval Forces for U.S. Central Command. He has 31 years in the Navy encompassing 21 different duty assignments. He previously served as Deputy Commander of the Navy Recruiting Command. I would love to have him here and ask him how this blockade might affect recruiting into the Navy. His awards include the Legion of Merit, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, and the Meritorious Service Medal with one gold star. The President has nominated these six officers in the Navy Reserve to the grade of rear admiral as unrestricted line officers: CAPT Jeffrey Jurgemeyer. He currently serves as Chief of Navy Reserve, U.S. Naval Surface Force Pacific. He has 30 years in the Navy and Reserve encompassing 18 different duty assignments. He was awarded the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, and the Meritorious Service Medal with two gold stars. CAPT Richard S. Lofgren currently serves as the Commanding Officer of Navy Reserve Fourth Fleet. He has served 30 years, 20 different duty assignments. His awards include the Legion of Merit and the Meritorious Service Medal with one gold star. CAPT Michael Mattis currently serves as the Deputy Commander, Navy Reserve Region Readiness and Mobilization Command in San Diego. He has 29 years in the Navy, 17 different duty assignments. He has been awarded the Legion of Merit with two gold stars and the Bronze Star. CAPT Richard Meyer serves as the Deputy Commander of the Navy Region Southeast Reserve Component in Fort Worth. He has 30 years in the Navy, 20 different duty assignments, and has been awarded the Legion of Merit with one gold star and the Defense Meritorious Service Medal. CAPT Bryon T. Smith is currently serving as Commanding Officer of the Navy Reserve Navy Installations Command EOC. He has 28 years in the Navy, 17 different duty assignments. His awards include the Legion of Merit with one gold star and the Meritorious Service Medal with one gold star. CAPT Michael R. Vanpoots is currently serving as the Deputy Commander of Navy Reserve Region Readiness and Mobilization Command. He has 28 years in the Navy, 20 different assignments. His awards include the Defense Superior Service Medal and the Defense Meritorious Service Medal. CAPT John Byington to be a rear admiral. He has served 33 years in the Navy, with 22 different duty assignments. He previously served as the Region Commander for the Naval Information Force Reserve Southeast Region. His awards include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal with two bronze oakleaf clusters and the Meritorious Service Medal with one gold star. CAPT John Robinson to be rear admiral in the U.S. Navy Reserve. He currently serves as the Commanding Officer of the Navy Reserve Chief of Information Headquarters. He has 26 years in the Navy, 10 different duty stations. He has been awarded the Defense Meritorious Service Medal with one gold star and the Meritorious Service Medal. Lt. Gen. Gregory Guillot--we had him before our committee today--who is a general in the U.S. Air Force, to serve as the Commander of the U.S. Northern Command, protecting the homeland of the United States and North America, and also to be the Commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command, NORAD. He currently serves as Deputy Commander of U.S. Central Command. He has commanded a flying squadron, operations group, two flying wings, and a numbered Air Force. He has served 34 years in the Air Force, with 24 different duty assignments, and has more than 1,380 flying hours. His awards include the Distinguished Service Medal, the Defense Superior Service Medal with two oakleaf clusters, the Legion of Merit with one oakleaf cluster, and the Bronze Star Medal with two oakleaf clusters. LTG Laura A. Potter to be a lieutenant general in the Army and also to serve as the Director of Army Staff. She currently serves as the Deputy Chief of Staff, which is the principal officer responsible to the Chief of Staff of the Army for all Army intelligence matters. She has 33 years in the Army, 20 different duty assignments, including four in support of combat operations. She has been awarded the Distinguished Service Medal, the Defense Superior Service Medal with one bronze oakleaf cluster, Legion of Merit with one bronze oakleaf cluster, and the Bronze Star Medal with one bronze oakleaf cluster. MG William J. Hartman to be a lieutenant general in the U.S. Army while serving as the Deputy Commander of U.S. Cyber Command. He currently serves as Commander of Cyber National Mission Force. He was born in Mobile, AL. He graduated from the University of South Alabama ROTC Program. He has 33 years in the Army, encompassing 19 different duty assignments, including 8 assignments in support of combat operations. His awards include the Legion of Merit with one bronze oakleaf cluster, the Bronze Star Medal with two bronze oakleaf clusters, and the Meritorious Service Medal with four bronze oakleaf clusters. CAPT David Ludwa to be a rear admiral in the U.S. Navy Reserve. He has 28 years in the Navy, 24 different duty assignments. He has been awarded the Legion of Merit, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal with one bronze oakleaf cluster and the Meritorious Service Medal with two gold stars. CAPT Peter Muschinske to be a rear admiral to the U.S. Naval Reserve as a Navy Chaplain. He currently serves as the Deputy Fleet Chaplain with the Navy Reserve U.S. Pacific Fleet. He served 33 years in the Navy, all as Chaplain. He served in 15 different duty assignments providing chaplain and ministry services to sailors and marines around the world. His awards include the Meritorious Service Medal with three gold stars. CAPT Marc F. Williams to be a rear admiral in the U.S. Navy Reserve Civil Engineer Corps. He earned his commission after graduating from the academy in 1998 with a degree in ocean engineering. He has 25 years in the Navy, 17 different duty assignments. His awards include the Meritorious Service Medal with two gold stars and the Joint Service Commendation Medal. LTG Andrew M. Rohling to be a lieutenant general while also serving as the Deputy Chairman of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Military Committee--a very important position because it is a very important time for NATO. He served as a deputy commanding general, U.S. Army, Africa, Europe. He has 34 years in the Army, 27 different duty stations, 7 supporting combat operations. His awards include the Distinguished Service Medal, the Defense Superior Service Medal for combat service, Legion of Merit with two bronze oakleaf clusters, the Bronze Star Medal for Valor with one bronze oakleaf cluster, the Bronze Star Medal with three bronze oakleaf clusters, and he is also a Purple Heart recipient. MG John B. Richardson IV to serve as Commanding General, First U.S. Army; 32 years of service, 27 different duty assignments, including 6 assignments supporting combat operations. Defense Superior Service Medal for Combat Service, Defense Superior Service Medal with one bronze oakleaf cluster, Legion of Merit for Combat Service, the Legion of Merit with two bronze oakleaf clusters, Bronze Star Medal for Valor, Bronze Star Medal with two oakleaf clusters, Purple Heart recipient. I will now rest my voice and yield back to my chairman, Senator Reed.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today, we commemorate the 75th anniversary of a momentous event in our Nation's history: the signing of Executive Order 9981 by President Harry S. Truman on July 26, 1948. This landmark executive order marked a significant step forward in our ongoing journey toward a more inclusive and equitable society. A fundamental value of the United States is to support the equality of all. E.O. 9981, titled ``Establishing the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services,'' proclaimed that ``there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.'' By desegregating the military, this order shattered long-standing discriminatory practices and set a precedent for the pursuit of justice and racial equality. The issuance of E.O. 9981 was a response to the tireless efforts of countless civil rights activists, military leaders, and concerned citizens who recognized the moral imperative to confront racism and discrimination. It represented a critical turning point in the fight against racial injustice, serving as a catalyst for the broader civil rights movement to follow. Over the past seven and a half decades, the principles enshrined in E.O. 9981 have had a profound impact on our society. By integrating the military, this historic document not only helped to foster a spirit of unity among servicemembers, irrespective of their race or background, but it also provided a model for progress, inspiring subsequent legislation and initiatives aimed at combating discrimination and inequality in various sectors of American life. Moreover, E.O. 9981 has served as a beacon of hope for marginalized communities, demonstrating that institutionalized prejudice can be dismantled through bold leadership, determined activism, and collective will. Its legacy has reverberated far beyond the military, contributing to the broader struggle for civil rights and social justice, including the landmark civil rights legislation of the 1960s and the ongoing quest for racial equality today. As we celebrate this significant milestone, it is essential that we reflect on the progress made and acknowledge the work that remains unfinished. While E.O. 9981 marked a pivotal moment, we recognize that systemic racism continues to persist in various forms, demanding our unwavering commitment to its eradication. In honoring the 75th anniversary of E.O. 9981, let us recommit ourselves to the enduring principles of equality and justice for all. Let us continue to strive for a society that values diversity, inclusivity, and equal opportunity, where the color of one's skin does not determine their worth or limit their potential. As members of Congress, entrusted with the duty of shaping legislation and promoting the well-being of all Americans, I urge you to draw inspiration from the spirit of E.O. 9981 and to uphold our fundamental American values. Although our painful history cannot be erased, let us work together to enact policies that dismantle systemic barriers, rectify historical injustices, and build a more equitable and harmonious future for our Nation.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, today I am introducing the Auto Reenroll Act of 2023, alongside Senator Cassidy. Enacting this bill would improve financial security for Americans by strengthening their private retirement savings. Nearly 7 in 10 Americans working in the private sector have access to employer-sponsored retirement plans, but a quarter of those with access do not participate in those plans. This means less money saved for retirement. Often, it means leaving money on the table, in the form of employer-matching contributions. Encouraging more employees to participate in their workplace plans would increase their overall compensation and improve their financial security and retirement outlook. The Auto Reenroll Act of 2023 would boost participation by encouraging safe harbor retirement plans to adopt automatic reenrollment features. Automatic enrollment plans have been tremendously successful at encouraging workers to participate in employer-sponsored plans, but employees who opt out of participating at the beginning of their tenure will likely never reconsider that decision. This bill would build on the success of auto enrollment by permitting employers to reenroll nonparticipants once every 3 years, providing them another opportunity to consider participation. This would encourage those employees to reassess their nonparticipation as their financial situation evolves. I encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation to bolster private retirement savings.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, today, I am introducing a bill to make the process of siting natural gas pipelines fairer, more transparent, and more responsive to landowner concerns. For some time now, I have been listening to Virginians with passionate views on the process involved in permitting the Mountain Valley Pipeline, as well as the previous proposal for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. For various reasons, many oppose one or both of these projects, while others support these projects. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, is tasked with analyzing all the issues-- purpose and need for a project, impacts on people living on the route, potential risks to the environment or property--and deciding what course best serves the public interest. From listening to all sides, I have concluded that while reasonable people may reach different conclusions, FERC's public input process is flawed and could be better. Accordingly, this legislation proposes several steps to address several shortcomings, all of which were originally brought to my attention by Virginia constituents. For instance, this bill requires programmatic analysis of pipelines proposed around the same time and in the same geographic vicinity so that the full impacts of multiple projects can be analyzed. It requires a greater number of public comment meetings so that citizens are not required to commute long distances to meetings at which they must speed through just a few minutes of remarks on these complex topics. It ensures that affected landowners are given proper notice and compensation. It guarantees that landowner complaints will be heard before construction commences. And it clarifies the circumstances under which eminent domain should and should not be used. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Mark Warner on this bill. The public deserves reasonable opportunity to weigh in on energy infrastructure projects, and we are heeding calls by our constituents to make this process fairer and more transparent without mandating a particular outcome. I encourage the Senate to consider this legislation, not to pave the way for pipelines nor to throw up insurmountable roadblocks to them but to give the public greater certainty that the Federal Government's infrastructure decisions are fair and transparent.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, this is an amendment dealing with the power of the NATO alliance. We have seen since the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine that NATO allows the democracies to link arms and stand courageously against an illegal invasion of Ukraine by the dictator Vladimir Putin. Some had questioned the value of NATO, but NATO has demonstrated its power to protect democracy against this invasion since February of 2022. There had been an issue raised in the last few years about whether any President could unilaterally withdraw from NATO, which was approved by the Senate in a treaty. The Constitution of the United States indicates that the Senate must ratify treaties but is silent about how to exit treaties. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1979, said that is a political question for the legislature, the executive, to resolve. What this amendment would do would make plain that no one can withdraw from NATO--the United States from NATO--without either a two- thirds vote in the Senate or an act of Congress. We received a green light for this in the Goldwater v. Carter decision in 1979, and I think, of all the treaties the United States has entered into, right now at this moment, in the aftermath of the summit in Lithuania and during this war in Europe, this Congress should send a powerful message to our allies in NATO that we stand with this historic alliance. The administration supports this amendment. I would reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KAINE. On the constitutional argument, my colleagues, this very question came before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1979. President Carter terminated a Taiwan-related treaty and was sued by Senator Goldwater and others. The case went to the United States Supreme Court. The Court said because the Constitution on exiting a treaty is silent, it is a political question that the legislature and Executive can resolve for themselves. The Supreme Court refused to overturn Carter's action. That is a clear green light that if Congress, the legislative, and Executive branch agree that on this particular treaty the silence does not dictate but can be the source of legislation, we would be able to undertake this action. Finally, I note this is widely bipartisan, and I thank Senator Rubio and many other Democratic and Republican colleagues who have cosponsored this amendment to stand strong at this moment with me. With that, I yield.

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 429 and ask that it be reported by number.

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

Mr. KAINE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to discuss an amendment we will vote on later. When we vote on it, it is 1 minute a side, and I think it might take a couple of more minutes to explain a vote on NATO that is very powerful. A few years ago, people were questioning the viability of NATO. Was it still worth it? Well, what President Biden and what this body have shown is that, with American leadership, NATO is stronger today than it has ever been. NATO's capacity and NATO's willingness to link arms and provide defense to Ukraine in the midst of an illegal invasion by a human-rights-abusing Vladimir Putin has been extremely powerful, and the value of NATO has been demonstrated to such a degree that even nations that never would have contemplated entering NATO in the past-- Finland and Sweden--have fought for accession and have been green-lit by this body and now the international community to join. There is a question, though, that was coming up as people were talking about should we withdraw from NATO: How do you withdraw from a treaty? The Constitution is plain that, to enter into a treaty, you need a ratification vote by the Senate, but the Constitution is silent about withdrawal. So, in the last administration, a question came up about whether a President could withdraw from NATO unilaterally. I have a bill that is bipartisan, together with Senator Rubio, and we will vote on it later this afternoon. It will specify that no President can unilaterally withdraw from NATO, and any effort to withdraw from NATO would have to be either approved by Senate ratification--a two-thirds vote--or by an act of Congress. This sends a powerful message that Congress, after these decades, still believes in the power of NATO. Our allies who worry about different Presidents--should the policy change depending upon every 4 years who is President--would take this statement of congressional support in a very, very powerful way. I am happy to say it is an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill that came through the Foreign Regulations Committee in the 117th Congress by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, and the administration supports it. Finally, the question did come up once in a Supreme Court case from 1979, Goldwater v. Carter: How do you withdraw from a treaty? What the Supreme Court said is that it was a political question for the executive and legislature to work out. We will take a legislative step, in my hopes today, as part of this NDAA, that when it is on the President's desk, by his ratification, we will demonstrate that in America both the executive and legislative branches appreciate NATO and are committed to its success. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE. I ask unanimous consent that there be 6 minutes equally divided prior to a vote on the amendment.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, might I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise today to talk about a crisis in our military leadership driven by one of my Senate colleague's decision to place a blanket hold on now more than 250 apolitical nominations of senior military officers. The senior Senator from Alabama has done so. These 250 military nominations are soon to be joined by another 400 or so, which would mean that 650 individuals who volunteered to wear the uniform of this country and to defend the country, even at risk of their own lives, are being blocked in their professional advancement by a Senator punishing them for something they had nothing to do with-- nothing to do with. The Senator is concerned about a policy of the Pentagon's that would allow women servicemembers who cannot obtain reproductive healthcare where they are deployed or assigned to travel to other places to receive that care. That is currently the way we treat members of the military. If they are assigned at a base in the United States or elsewhere and they need medical care that they cannot obtain where they are assigned, they are able to travel to seek that care. But because the Pentagon, in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, has said that longstanding policy allowing travel would also apply to women troops seeking reproductive healthcare, the Senator from Alabama has taken the drastic, radical, extreme, unusual step of saying he will block confirmation and approval of now hundreds of our military officers. I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. I have a child who is a U.S. marine. I want to take the floor today to talk about how destructive this policy is and ask the Republican minority in the Senate to drop this opposition, stop punishing people who are patriotically serving this country. To be clear, my colleague who has placed a hold on these individuals has stated no challenge with their qualifications. And to be clear, my colleague who has placed a hold on these nominations has never suggested that they had anything to do with the policy he disagrees with. He is just using them as targets because he is dissatisfied with the way the Pentagon is operating. There is a right way and a wrong way to do this. Before I get to the right way to raise the issue, let me talk about what this means when you are a member of the military and you have your career delayed because a Member of this body decides to hold you up so that you cannot be promoted. Many of the promotions and appointments in the military that we are obligated to vote on in the Senate occur during the summer. The transition times occur during the summer. Why? Because this is the time, when someone gets a promotion and they move, where they can move with their families--sometimes across the country, sometimes across the world--at a time when they can then maybe look for a new place to live or a new school for their children to attend. When you are held up in a promotion or advancement, you don't know what to do. You might have sold a house, but you don't yet have orders where you can take a new position. Your children might be in a school, but you are not yet sure what you can do to try to find the next school they should go to. Remember, these senior military officers--many of them have deployed not once or twice or moved three or four times in their careers; they have moved dozens of times--5, 10. We had a military leader before us recently whose family, during the course of his career--who is up for one of these positions, who is being blocked--has moved 20 times. It is not easy on a family to do that. Blocking them from planning and moving and accepting an appointment is not just keeping them from an advancement that they have merited, that they have earned, but it is also hurting their families. What have they done to deserve it? I mean, they volunteered to wear the uniform of this country. They volunteered to risk their lives for this country. Why do they deserve to be punished? Why do they deserve to be disrespected? Why do they deserve to have their careers blocked? Let me give you an example of a couple of the people--the positions that are being blocked by this. As of Monday, for the first time in 164 years, the United States of America does not have a confirmed Commandant of the Marine Corps. The proud Marine Corps is lacking a confirmed Commandant for the first time since the 1850s. That interregnum was caused because of the death of a Commandant when there was no successor confirmed. So obviously there was a brief period where there was no confirmed Commandant. This one, we have seen coming for months. General Berger had an announced retirement date that was Monday. There should have been a Commandant in place. Yet there is not a confirmed Commandant because of this block. Eric Smith can't take over as Commandant of the Marines. It impacts the Marine Corps' ability to develop and implement long-term plans and policies. It is especially damaging because, as those of us know who have been on the Armed Services Committee and are working with our marines, they are in the midst of a force design transformation that is midstream right now. We don't need a gap in leadership in the Marine Corps. It goes deeper in the Marine Corps. Forgive me for being a little Marine Corps centric, with a marine in the family, but it goes deeper in the Marine Corps. The hold is also impacting the leadership of the I Marine Expeditionary Force, which is in California, and the III Marine Expeditionary Force, which is based in Okinawa, Japan. The I Expeditionary Force is the Marine Corps' combat power focused on the Indo-Pacific. We are spending all this time talking about the challenges of the Indo-Pacific, the challenges of China, but the leadership of this critical Marine Expeditionary Force is now not in place because of this hold. The III Marine Expeditionary Force is our standing force that would be called upon if there were any challenges in the first island chain in the Indo-Pacific. So these holds are affecting these critical units just in the Marine Corps Commandant and the leadership of key expeditionary forces that the Nation needs for defense and to protect allies. I have been working on a really exciting initiative of President Biden's, the AUKUS partnership, which would combine the military capacities of the United States, the UK, and Australia to do submarine construction and other work. These are nuclear subs managed by naval reactors. The appointment for the current Director of Naval Reactor expires next month. The hold that has been used by the Senator from Alabama would block our ability to put someone into this key position, challenging not only the AUKUS advance, but our nuclear submarines are one of the most important capacities that we have to promote security all around the world and protect this country. I said there is a right way and a wrong way to do this. I am on the Armed Services Committee. I will be honest, there are things in the Pentagon I am not happy with, and every year I have a chance to do something about it. Just 3 weeks ago, in the committee--and the Senator from Alabama sits on that committee with me--we had an opportunity to mark up the Defense authorizing bill, and any of us could advance any policy change we wanted. If we wanted something in Pentagon policy that wasn't there, we got to make our case. If we wanted to take something out of Pentagon policy that we didn't like, we got to make our case. I have done this year after year after year. I have a pretty good batting average when I offer an amendment, but I know when I offer one, if I can't convince a majority of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, I am not going to win. When I don't win, I am disappointed, but never would it even occur to me to offer an amendment to my committee colleagues, to fail to persuade them, and then take my disappointment and use it as a weapon to block the promotion of hundreds of military officers. Indeed, the Senator from Alabama had that opportunity, and he exercised that opportunity. In the debate--we had a very full debate-- every Member gets to offer any amendment they want, and there was an amendment specifically drawn and designed to change the Pentagon policy with which he disagrees. He lost the amendment vote. He lost the amendment vote. He couldn't convince a majority of the committee that this was a Pentagon policy that should be changed. That is the right way to go about this. If you don't like a Pentagon policy, convince your colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, convince your colleagues in the U.S. Senate to change the policy. But if you fail, if you fall short, if you are not persuasive enough to convince your colleagues to change the policy, that is on you. When I lose amendment votes in the committee, I don't take it out on people who have had nothing to do with the policy. I try to work with my colleagues, come up with a better argument, change it, shape it, do something so that, if it matters to me, I might find some success in the future. But it shocks me because it never would have occurred to me--every time I have lost an amendment vote in working on 10 or 11 Defense authorizing bills, it never occurred to me: I know what I am going to do. I did not get my way on the committee, and so what I am going to do is I am going to punish hundreds of people who have volunteered to serve this country and risk their lives in doing so. That is what I am going to do. I will conclude and just say that we are facing recruiting challenges in the military right now and particularly in the Army. We had the hearing this morning for General George, who is the nominee to be the new Secretary of the Army. He is the Vice Chief right now--not Secretary; he would be the Service Chief for the Army. He is Vice Chief right now. We have been talking about some of the recruiting challenges that the Army is facing. In the last fiscal year, they had a goal of trying to get about 60,000 people in, and they fell 20,000 short--40,000. The good news is, they have upped their goal to 65, and they will probably come in at about 53 this year. They are still not getting what they need, but they are kind of closing that gap. But we talked about, well, what is it that makes recruiting into the military hard? And the Army, to their credit, has done a really good job of kind of surveying what it is that makes it hard to recruit people into the military, and I was surprised at this. I would have guessed that the No. 1 obstacle would have been people thinking: It is dangerous. I might risk my life. I might see something bad happen to somebody I care about. But, you know, that wasn't the top reason. People coming into the military are patriotic, and they are willing to be patriotic even to the point of risking their lives. The No. 1 reason that was cited by people for being reluctant to join our volunteer military, which just celebrated 50 years of being an All-Volunteer Force, is their belief that if they do so, they will have to put a lot of their lives on hold, that others who don't join the military will move ahead while they might find themselves limited or put on hold by conditions beyond their control. What message does it send to someone who is thinking about going into an ROTC Program and being an officer, going to a service academy; what message does it send to someone who might be a young officer who is thinking ``Do I make this a career or do I leave and go somewhere else?'' when a single Member of this body has decided to take it upon himself to punish hundreds of officers and block their professional advancement because of something they had nothing to do with? We should be sending a message to these officers that we are proud of them. We should be sending a message to them that we are thankful to them for the sacrifices they and their families have made. We should not be sending a loud message that we are going to hold their careers hostage, disrespect them, delay or postpone their appointments. I would urge my colleague from Alabama, but what I really want to urge is I want to urge the Republican minority in this because I don't want to see Members of this body enable this kind of behavior because where do we stop? All the hundred Members of this body could find things in the Pentagon they are not happy about. It might be the travel policy for Senator Tuberville. It might be cluster munitions for someone else. It might be whether the military is doing enough to battle sexual harassment for somebody else. We can all find things in the Pentagon that we are not wild about, and to the extent that we do, we should be trying to persuade our colleagues to make the policies better. But when we make that effort in good faith and fall short, the last thing we should do--the last thing we should do--is take our own disappointment out on and punish people who are serving this country who have had nothing to do with the policy we disagree with. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

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

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, today, I am introducing legislation to remove ``Robert E. Lee Memorial'' from the official name of Arlington House. This legislation is partially inspired by requests from descendants of General Robert E. Lee and people who were enslaved at Arlington House. This is an effort to promote a society that is more just and equitable for all, regardless of race, by moving on from a public symbol that honors a figure that fought to protect slavery. Arlington House is the first name of the historic mansion, which sits on Federal land within Arlington National Cemetery. The property is administered by the National Park Service and overlooks the Potomac River and the Nation's Capital. The house was built by Martha Custis Washington's grandson, George Washington Parke Custis, as the Nation's first memorial to George Washington. Later, his daughter married Robert E. Lee and the couple lived in the home until the Civil War, when Federal forces occupied the house and surrounding property. During that period, the site was chosen to serve as a national military cemetery in part to prevent Lee from returning. Only in the 20th century, in 1955 and again in 1972, did Congress add the commemorative text honoring Robert E. Lee to the site's formal name in Federal statute. This was part of a retrograde effort across the former Confederacy to bestow public recognition on prominent Confederate figures as heroes while minimizing or whitewashing their roles in taking up arms against the United States to preserve slavery. As Senator from the State that has among the most difficult histories when it comes to slavery, civil rights, and Confederate monuments, I believe these symbolic proposals matter, that the Federal Government should reserve honorifics for individuals whose lives advanced American values and ideals, not detracted from them. Today, the National Park Service is dedicated to telling the story of those who were enslaved at the Arlington House. I am hopeful that this name change will help to do just a little bit more to encapsulate the full history of the site, which included the presence of many families and generations throughout history, such as the Syphax, Burke, Parks, and Gray families. I am pleased that companion legislation is also being introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by my colleague, Representative Don Beyer, who has led this effort for years.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, today, I am introducing legislation to remove ``Robert E. Lee Memorial'' from the official name of Arlington House. This legislation is partially inspired by requests from descendants of General Robert E. Lee and people who were enslaved at Arlington House. This is an effort to promote a society that is more just and equitable for all, regardless of race, by moving on from a public symbol that honors a figure that fought to protect slavery. Arlington House is the first name of the historic mansion, which sits on Federal land within Arlington National Cemetery. The property is administered by the National Park Service and overlooks the Potomac River and the Nation's Capital. The house was built by Martha Custis Washington's grandson, George Washington Parke Custis, as the Nation's first memorial to George Washington. Later, his daughter married Robert E. Lee and the couple lived in the home until the Civil War, when Federal forces occupied the house and surrounding property. During that period, the site was chosen to serve as a national military cemetery in part to prevent Lee from returning. Only in the 20th century, in 1955 and again in 1972, did Congress add the commemorative text honoring Robert E. Lee to the site's formal name in Federal statute. This was part of a retrograde effort across the former Confederacy to bestow public recognition on prominent Confederate figures as heroes while minimizing or whitewashing their roles in taking up arms against the United States to preserve slavery. As Senator from the State that has among the most difficult histories when it comes to slavery, civil rights, and Confederate monuments, I believe these symbolic proposals matter, that the Federal Government should reserve honorifics for individuals whose lives advanced American values and ideals, not detracted from them. Today, the National Park Service is dedicated to telling the story of those who were enslaved at the Arlington House. I am hopeful that this name change will help to do just a little bit more to encapsulate the full history of the site, which included the presence of many families and generations throughout history, such as the Syphax, Burke, Parks, and Gray families. I am pleased that companion legislation is also being introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by my colleague, Representative Don Beyer, who has led this effort for years.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a tragedy that happened in Richmond a couple of days ago at the Altria center, in the heart of our city, when gun violence erupted right at the end of the graduation ceremony for the 2023 graduating class of Huguenot High School. Two people were killed: a Huguenot High School graduate, Shawn Jackson, and his stepfather, Renzo Smith. It is a tragedy that is really having a deep, deep impact in my community. I wanted to rise to speak about those who were killed and those who were injured, trampled in the pandemonium, the Huguenot High School community, the Richmond Public Schools community. The Altria center is a beautiful entertainment and event venue on Monroe Park in downtown Richmond. It was built in the 1920s and was built in the Moorish architectural style and was given the name of the ``Mosque,'' and it was called the Mosque for a very long time. I was elected to the Richmond City Council in 1994, and members of our Muslim community came to the Richmond City Council and said: We understand that this building has a particular architectural style. And we understand it may even be sort of a tribute to us to call this building a mosque, but it is not a mosque; it is an entertainment venue. There is alcohol served. There is dancing and other things that wouldn't be appropriate. And our Muslim community asked, in a very respectful way: Can you come up with a different name for this facility? It was in my city council district, and we acted to change the name of this facility to the Landmark. And then a number of years later, Altria, a company headquartered in Richmond, agreed to help renovate the facility, after nearly 100 years, and bring it to more 21st century use, and the name is now the Altria Theater. I spend some time talking about this place because, Mr. President, I imagine you have places like this in Hawaii. These are places where everybody has gone for their entire lives for events like high school graduation. Virtually every public high school in Richmond and many of the private high schools in Richmond and the surrounding community, you go to a graduation, and it is at the Altria Theater. Of my three children, two of them graduated and walked across that stage at the Altria Theater. As a mayor and then-Governor and now Senator, I have spoken at many graduations right there on that stage at the Altria Theater. My wife, a graduate of Richmond Public Schools, who was the Secretary of Education in Virginia and First Lady of Virginia, has also delivered graduation speeches right there. We have been to concerts there and theatrical performances there. We know this building in every last square centimeter, and we know what it is like when the Altria Theater is filled with a crowd of people. High school graduation. I mean, think about it. I am 65 years old. Think about, over the course of a life, the happiest days of your life: high school graduation, college graduation, your wedding day, births of your children. I mean, over the course of a life, there are maybe 5 to 10 days that are universal experiences for American people where it will be in the top 5 to 10 happiest days of your life. High school graduation is that. For Richmonders and people in the surrounding communities, you think high school graduation, the odds are, you are walking across the stage at that theater. These Huguenot High School graduates had walked across the stage. The young man, Mr. Jackson, had shaken the hand of Jason Kamras, the Richmond Public Schools principal, had received his congratulations. He was a young man who had done well in the classroom and had a lot of challenges--a lot of challenges--to get to that day. Often a graduation is that. It is an opportunity to thank everybody who helped you, but it is also an opportunity to reflect upon the challenges that people have to get to that day. Back in the day, the grandparents would tell us how they used to have to walk 5 miles through the snow to get to school. That may not be the case anymore, but an awful lot of our kids have to do the equivalent-- the kind of psychic equivalent--of a 5-mile walk through the snow because they have to go through challenges. Whether they were homeless, whether they got a cancer diagnosis through school, they faced adversity and challenges. Then they get to this day, and they are entitled--they are entitled-- to celebrate. That is what they were doing. Then, as they are exiting the Altria Theater, which is right near the campus of Virginia Commonwealth University, and crossing the street to a beautiful park, Monroe Park, directly across, these gunshots break out, 20 shots in succession: families scrambling, knocking over people; vendors who were there, knocking over citizens; people scrambling in every direction. A young kid got pushed out onto the street and got hit by a vehicle. Thank goodness, she is going to be OK. Others sustained all kinds of minor injuries. Even those who were not injured, they will remember this and be scarred by it for the rest of their life because one of these four or five or six pivotal days in your life--the happiest days of your life--for them, will always be connected to seeing a classmate killed and seeing this happy day turned into an unspeakable tragedy. I know how I think about my high school graduation. It was one of the happiest days of my life. Having been in that building, I know how the Huguenot community for the class of 2023 will remember their high school graduation day, and it is a tragedy that the memory is so polluted by this epidemic of gun violence. Mr. President, I had the opportunity earlier this year--and I have spoken about it on the floor--to attend another school in Virginia, Richneck Elementary School in Newport News. On January 6, a 6-year-old brought a gun to school in a backpack. It was a student who had all kinds of difficult, difficult challenges. As his compassionate and brave teacher, Abby Zwerner, tried to deal with the situation, the student shot her. Thank God, she is recovering. Thank God, no one was killed that day. But I had the opportunity to go down about 2 weeks after that to have an off-the-record, no press, no administrators discussion with parents and teachers at the school. The degree of trauma--the degree of trauma--of this happening and the degree of fear: ``Every day I go to work now, every day I go to work now, I am afraid this might happen.'' ``Every day I drop my child off in the morning, I drive away wondering whether I am going to get a call'' or ``I am going to get an emergency alert on my phone or if I pull up at the end of the day, am I going to be able to pick up my child and will my child be safe?'' My kids all went to the Richmond Public schools, the same schools that include Huguenot High School, and my youngest only graduated 10 years ago. But I will say, my wife and I, from pre-K to 12, in that 13 years for each of my three kids, never one day--never one day--never one day did we drop our kid off at school and worry about whether they would be safe at the end of the day. The shooting at Sandy Hook happened right after my youngest child graduated from high school. There had been shootings at Columbine High School years and years ago. But the reality of my own children's public education in an urban school setting was we weren't worried about them. But just 10 years later, what parent in this country who takes a child to school does not have a voice in their head with some worry about what might happen to them when they are there? Even if you live in a community where there has never been a school shooting, that fear is not absent from your mind because you have seen it happen in every region of the country. You have seen it happen in public schools. You have seen it happen in the Covenant Christian School in Nashville, in elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, colleges. Maybe I am naive, but gun violence has been a reality of American life for a very long time. To me, it seemed, as a 65-year-old, that there have been some safe spaces. There have been some safe havens. There have been some refugees. There are none anymore. A church is not a refuge. A synagogue is not a refuge. A mosque is not a refuge. A school is not a refuge. An event space that is beloved by the entire community because everybody graduated from high school there for the last 100 years is not a refuge. A public park where you can gather to recreate with your family and friends is not a refuge. There is no refuge from this epidemic. We talk about American exceptionalism. Often, when we do, we are talking about the things where we are exceptional in a positive way. It is important to acknowledge those things and be proud of them. But there is an American exceptionalism to this, the degree of these mass shootings and the absence of any place--any place--that is a refuge is something that is exceptional about us in a way that is very, very painful. As you know, because of my time in Central America, I have a particular connection with a lot of folks from the Americas who work here in the Capitol, and they often come up to me and we shoot the breeze and we talk in my somewhat limited Spanish about what is going on. And I had somebody, earlier in the year, after the shooting at the Richneck Elementary School in Newport News, come up to me and say: You know what--in Spanish--you know, El Salvador is one of the most dangerous countries in the world, but there aren't shootings in the schools. The homicide rate may be higher than here, but there is a refuge. There is an understanding that you do not strip young people of their innocence and subject students and their families to the threat of gun violence every day. We live in a country of no refuge, and I just wanted to take the floor to say to the family of Shawn Jackson and Lorenzo Smith, his stepfather--Shawn's mother has had to deal with both her husband and her son not just being taken away but taken away on the same day, on what was supposed to be the happiest day of their life. And she has been interviewed and talked about how hard it was for her son to get to this graduation and what a meaningful milestone in his life it was to be there on that day. But the last thing that I would like to say is, it is easy to give up and be hopeless. I mean, I find, having been a mayor in Richmond when the homicide rate was the second highest in the United States and having been the Governor when the worst shooting in the United States happened at Virginia Tech, and how sad it is that I wish that would always be the worst shooting--it is a weird thing to say about your own State. But I hope there never would have been a tragedy that would have eclipsed 32 people being killed at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, and yet there have now been many tragedies that have claimed more victims than that, what had seemed like an unprecedented one. It can seem hopeless. It can seem hopeless. I just want to say to students and families, especially to young people who are kind of trying to grapple with the reality of life in America circa 2023, and they are seeing skies that look apocalyptic outside because of climate issues, and they are reading stories about gun violence, and they are worried about a whole variety of things that maybe I didn't have to worry about when I was their age: We can't be hopeless because we can make progress. Last year, for the first time in 20 years, here in the Senate, we passed a bipartisan gun safety bill. It didn't do everything that needs to be done, but we showed--not easily, but we showed--that we could act. During my time as a public official in Virginia, we have finally worked our way into the ranks of one of the 10 safest States in terms of major and violent crime. We were never in the 10 safest for a very long time, but, sort of toward the end of my time as Governor, we got there, and we maintained that position. The Virginia General Assembly, which had long, frankly, been enthralled to the National Rifle Association, whose headquarters is in Virginia, in 2019 and 2020 finally embraced a set of gun safety measures that haven't eliminated gun violence, just like seatbelts don't eliminate all traffic accident death, but have helped make us safer. And if we can do it in Virginia, though we have so much more to do, we can do it here in the U.S. Congress. Thank you for indulging me and letting me just share the personal nature of this reflection in my hometown, in this place where we have spent so much time and that Richmonders know in such an intimate way. And this beautiful building, now 100 years old, where we have gone for generations to celebrate, it has a bloodstain on it now. And I am sure that stain is cleaned away, but we all will see it, and we all will feel it forever--forever. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I have seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment to strip a single provision out of this bill: the provision green-lighting the Mountain Valley Pipeline. I offer my amendment for three reasons. First, this provision that would put Congress's thumb on a permitting scale is completely unrelated to the debt ceiling and should not be included in this bill. Second, I object on behalf of Virginia landowners. If you could build a pipeline in midair, that is one thing. But the only way to build it is to use eminent domain to take people's land. Virginians don't want to have their land taken for a pipeline unless there is a thorough process where they have all the rights accorded to them by law, administrative agency, and judicial review. Cutting off those rights is disrespectful to these landowners, who, in this part of the State, sometimes land is all they have, and it has been in their family for generations. Finally, this bill would strip jurisdiction of a case away from the Fourth Circuit in the middle of the case. That is unprecedented and historic. I used to try cases all the time in this circuit. I lost them, and I would appeal them. But I wouldn't try to get Congress to strip jurisdiction away from the court because I was unhappy. No everyday person gets this deal. No criminal defendant gets this deal. No small business gets this deal. Nobody gets this deal, and we shouldn't give it to some company just because they are powerful and they have influence in Congress. For these reasons I ask for a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.

Mr. KAINE. I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 minutes equally divided prior to the vote on my amendment, with Senators Capito and Manchin each controlling 1 minute in opposition.

Mr. KAINE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 101 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a provision of the debt ceiling deal that I will later today offer an amendment so that we can remove it. It is the provision dealing with the Mountain Valley Pipeline. I appreciate the hard bipartisan work that has been done to put together a deal. And the deal has things I like and things that I don't like. That is the nature of any deal that is struck between Houses of Congress controlled by different parties. It would have been my intention to be a supporter of the deal despite its imperfections. However, a provision was added to the deal to green- light a pipeline project that goes through two States: West Virginia and my Commonwealth of Virginia. It was struck without any consultation with either of the Virginia Senators. It is a highly controversial project in Virginia that directly impacts families whose land will be taken for the pipeline project. I stand to speak on their behalf about the reasons that I will seek to remove the Mountain Valley Pipeline provision from the bill when we vote on it later tonight. It would be one thing if you could build pipelines in midair, but you can't. To build a pipeline, you have to take people's land. Sometimes the land you take might be public land, a national park or a national forest, but in any pipeline project of size--and the Mountain Valley Pipeline is about 330 miles long--you have to take a lot of land from private landowners, most of whom don't want to give up their land. That means that when you do a pipeline project and you approve it and you give a private company the right to take people's land, you ought to do it carefully after significant deliberation. So since the 1930s, there has been a pipeline permitting process that has required for an interstate pipeline--first a determination by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that there is a need for the pipeline, the gas pipeline, and then once that determination is made, a separate determination has to be made about what is the best route for the pipeline. Once those determinations are made, you are able to take private land to build a pipeline even though those landowners will never benefit at all from having a pipeline cross their property. Then, additionally, the permitting process isn't just about building, but it is about holding the developer to strict standards so that when they build the pipeline, they minimally disturb the land, they minimally affect species, and they minimally affect creeks and streams and river crossings. The Mountain Valley Pipeline is proposed to go about 110 miles through the poorest part of my State--Appalachia. In the Appalachian region of Virginia, a lot of people don't have very much. For many of them, their land is what they have, and for many of them, that land has been in their family for generations. They are entitled to a fair process that would look at the need for the pipeline and what is the best route and then would insist that the pipeline be built to a high standard to maximally protect their property. Congress has made a decision that this is not to be decided by Congress. Pipeline routing, pipeline need is not to be determined by Congress. Instead, you put it in administrative agencies. Why do you do that? It is because, A, they have expertise, and B, it is less likely to be abused. If you were to let Congress do pipeline deals, it would be pretty easy for somebody to look at a map and say: Well, this county never voted for me. Why don't we run it through that county and take their land? Instead, we remove it from Congress so that professionals can undertake the right analysis and review. In this bipartisan debt ceiling deal, there is a provision to green- light one project in the United States, the Mountain Valley Pipeline-- to green-light it--and to say that there will be no more administrative processes to determine whether it had been fully permitted and no more ability for the courts to review the administrative Agency's decisions. I strongly object to that. I don't have an objection to the pipeline itself. I have been asked again and again and again, and I said: This is not for Congress to decide. In fact, it would be wrong for Congress to do this. You should have an administrative process. You should go through it. A pipeline proponent should have to meet the standard, get over the hurdles, and when they do, then, OK, they should be enabled to take land and build a pipeline but only then. We shouldn't shorten it and give one project a green light. This is ultimately about Virginians who care about their land. They don't want to give up their land for this pipeline because they don't think they will benefit from it. Sometimes a county will take someone's land to build a road, and even if you are not happy about that, at least there is a road. You can have an ambulance get to your house or your kid can go out and catch a schoolbus on it. But a pipeline of this kind that is transmitting gas from one part of the country to the other--people can't hook into it to get low-cost natural gas. Many of the communities in Virginia that this pipeline will run across don't even have natural gas distribution to their communities. It might have some effect upon global gas prices, but that won't affect somebody who doesn't have gas service to their home. So my Virginians just want to be sure that if this pipeline is built, it has met the requisite standards of the review agencies, both State and Federal, and it has withstood any court challenges. This is a pipeline project that has been underway for a while. I know the proponents of this provision will say it has just been going on too long. But one of the reasons it has been going on for a while is because the company was slipshod in a lot of its operations and construction, particularly early in the life of this project. I do believe the company has better management now, but the project has been cited for dozens and dozens of Clean Water Act violations and other construction problems that have led to mudslides on people's property. That is why my Virginia constituents are so desiring that, let's do this the right way or let's not do it at all. The provision in this bill not only frustrates these Virginia landowners who want to make sure that if their land is going to be taken, it is done in a fair way after deliberate consideration, but it also does something that I believe is unwarranted and really historical in the wrong way. It is a rebuke of the Fourth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, which is headquartered in Richmond, my hometown, which has been the court that has heard cases about the Mountain Valley Pipeline, challenges to agency decisions in the previous administration where the court said: Hey, look, the agency didn't do what they were supposed to do. Go back and do it right this time. When landowners feel like they are being abused, they have a right to go to court and present their case, and the Fourth Circuit and the district courts within it have said: You have shown your case. The company didn't do it right. The agency didn't do it right. Go back and do it right. That has made the company upset. For 18 years, I tried cases in the Fourth Circuit, and I won some, and I lost some. When I lost, I wasn't happy, but if I lost, I would tell my client: We can appeal. We would appeal to the Fourth Circuit. Sometimes I would win my appeal, and sometimes I would lose my appeal. When we lost, I wasn't happy, but we would try to get the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case. Never once did I tell a client after a loss: What we need to do is go to Congress and take this case away from the Fourth Circuit and put it in a court that is more likely to be favorable. I would never have thought to do that. No one gets that deal. No individual gets that deal. No civil rights plaintiff gets that deal. No criminal defendant gets that deal. No small business gets that deal. Most people would be embarrassed to ask for that. I lost. I am unhappy. Why don't I get Congress to rewrite the rules of Federal jurisdiction and take this case away from the court that has made me unhappy and put it in another court? Yet that is what this bill will do. It will end further administrative review. It will end judicial review of any permit. And it will say only this: If someone wants to challenge what Congress is doing here, saying it is unlawful or unconstitutional or an overreach, they have to file that challenge in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. They cannot file it in the Fourth Circuit where this project is being considered. Both to protect these landowners, who have a right to a full and deliberate consideration if they are going to have to give up their land, and to protect the integrity of both our court system and this body, I strongly oppose this provision. I will move later in the day to bring up my amendment, and I would encourage my colleagues to support me in it. I yield the floor.

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