Tim Kaine

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, we are currently in consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act, and the leadership is working out a timing agreement for a vote possibly on one or more amendments and then a vote on the NDAA. The Defense bill is the most important thing I work on every year as a member of the Armed Services Committee, and I think the Defense bill that our Armed Services Committee did with strong bipartisan support is a very strong one. The timing isn't to my liking, that it took so long to reach an agreement with the House. But it is what it is. The Defense bill is strong. We are likely to have a vote on an amendment tomorrow offered by my friend and colleague Joe Manchin dealing with permitting reform, and I wanted to stand on the floor to express my objection not to the topic and even not to much of the substance but to one particular provision that I think is horrible policy and I think will cause me to oppose the amendment. Do we need to do permitting reform to accelerate infrastructure in this country? We do. We do. Many of the permitting reform rules--FERC, for example--are decades old, and they haven't kept up with new technologies or new needs of our population. I am strongly of the belief that we should do permitting reform, and I have introduced my own bills going back years to make at least that permitting process work better. The amendment that we are going to be voting on tomorrow, at least as I have been told--I haven't seen the language, but I have been told it is very similar to an amendment that was offered in September. It is an 88-page permitting reform bill. Eighty-five pages are permitting reform; the last three pages are the opposite of permitting reform. What do I mean by that? Eighty-five pages of the bill go deeply into permitting for infrastructure, especially energy infrastructure, and propose a whole series of reforms, many of which I strongly support. Although I had no hand in the drafting of that bill and I think I could improve it if I was involved, I would give that bill a good solid B or B-plus, and I would have no trouble voting for it as an amendment to the Defense bill or a stand-alone bill. However, the last three pages of the bill take a particular single project--100 miles of which is in Virginia--called the Mountain Valley Pipeline and exempts it from permitting reform. It, essentially, says this 85-page reform that sets up how a project should be considered and approved by administrative agencies and then reviewed by the judiciary if there are complaints about it--that is what the 85 pages does, but then the last three pages says the Mountain Valley Pipeline should be exempt from all of that, should get an administrative green light. And, in a provision that I find to be both unprecedented and really troubling, it suggests that if individuals want to seek judicial review of Mountain Valley Pipeline, the current jurisdiction in the Federal code which would suggest that that suit would be heard in the Fourth Judicial Circuit, which includes Virginia, the case about one project, the Mountain Valley Pipeline, will be stripped away from the court where it is currently being litigated and all future litigation must happen in the DC circuit. Now, never in the history of this body has Congress gone into the middle of a case and, because a corporation was not happy with the rulings of the court, stripped the case away from that court and given it to another court. And I have verified that through my own staff in research since this provision came up in September: stripping a case away from a court. Now, this is my hometown court. It is headquartered in Richmond. The chief judge is somebody that I used to try cases against when I was a civil rights lawyer before I got into politics. He is an esteemed jurist. Yes, the Fourth Circuit has rendered some rulings in this case that the pipeline operator doesn't like. I used to lose cases in the Fourth Circuit. I wasn't always happy with them. But the people that I represented--if you lose a case, you appeal; you don't rewrite the Federal jurisdictional code to say this court can no longer hear the case, in the middle of the case. If we go down this path on this project, I can see it opening a door we will not want to open, a door that could even lead to corruption: I am a wealthy, powerful corporation; I don't like the way the Second Circuit is ruling on derivative shareholder suits. Maybe I can strip jurisdiction away from them. I don't like the way the Ninth Circuit is ruling on employment discrimination cases. Maybe I could strip jurisdiction away from them. I get it that a big company is not happy because they have lost a case. Fifty percent of our litigants are unhappy. Someone wins and somebody loses, but the solution is not to take jurisdiction away from the court that is hearing the case and give it to another court. That is not the solution. The solution is to improve the permitting process. There are two elements of the first 85 pages of the bill that actually help Mountain Valley Pipeline. One element would be, in the first 85 pages, that President Biden--the President, in the bill, is allowed to designate 15 projects of national significance and then expedite them. That is in the first 85 pages. And if President Biden decided the Mountain Valley Pipeline was so important to make that top 15 list, that permitting reform could help the Mountain Valley Pipeline. And, second, there is a provision in the first 85 pages that would require that on matters that come up again and again and again, the panels on circuit courts have to rotate and randomly assign and not keep the same panel. That would solve one of Mountain Valley Pipeline's professed concerns. So because I haven't seen the language yet, it may not still be final, and I would urge those pushing it: Do permitting reform, but don't exempt a project in my State from the permits, don't exempt it from judicial review, don't strip jurisdiction away from my hometown court and give it to another court. I was never consulted about this. My constituents feel very, very passionately. Their land is being taken for this. The only way you build pipelines is to take people's land, and this is 100 miles in Virginia of people's land being taken, and this body should not green- light a project and exempt it from permitting rules in a bill that we are saying is designed to improve permitting. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I do rise for multiple purposes. The first is to acknowledge that earlier this week, on Monday, December 12, we marked the historic bicentennial of diplomatic relations between the United States and Mexico. Our two countries share a 2,000-mile border, an extensive trade, security, economic, cultural, and familial ties. Our cultural ties are particularly deep. Forty million Americans have Mexican heritage, many of whom are proud residents of Virginia. People of Mexican origin represent nearly 60 percent of our Nation's Hispanic population, and 2 million Americans live in Mexico. These people-to- people ties are invaluable. The two countries share an important tradition of democracy, and those traditions require consistent work and maintenance to ensure strong and independent institutions, rule of law, and democratic freedoms. We know that upholding democracy in both our nations isn't always easy, but it is a vital endeavor, and it is the bedrock of our partnership. As we celebrate the bicentennial, it is crucial that the Senate and the U.S. Government as a whole continue all efforts to advance this relationship. I want to commend the Biden administration for working side by side with Mexican leaders and taking on the many challenges we face together. This is exactly what we should be doing with such a close neighboring partner, and I am committing to continue to support these efforts through my role on the Foreign Relations Subcommittee over the Americas, which I chair. Through the high-level economic dialogue, the high-level security dialogue, the North American Leaders' Summit, and innumerable local and national engagements, the United States and Mexico have worked more closely in addressing our shared priorities. We have got to ensure that the future of the U.S.-Mexico relationship continues to be grounded in shared prosperity and the protection of fundamental freedoms that are so important to both of our people. I will have a more formal and detailed statement on the bicentennial that I will have submitted for the Record.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, on December 12, 1822, Jose Manuel Zozaya y Bermudez presented his credentials as Mexico's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to U.S. President James Monroe, which established formal relations between our two countries. On December 12, 2022, the United States and Mexico celebrated the 200th anniversary of our bilateral relations. Our relations with Mexico remain strong and vital, based on mutual respect as sovereign states. Mexico remains one of the United States' closest and most valued partners. Our bilateral relationship directly benefits the lives and livelihoods of millions of Americans and Mexicans, whether the issue is trade and economic development, educational and cultural exchange, citizen security, control of illicit drugs, migration, human trafficking, entrepreneurship, innovation, environmental protection, climate change, or public health. The scope of relations between the United States and Mexico extends beyond diplomacy. It encompasses extensive commercial, cultural, educational, and familial ties. Our countries share a 2,000-mile border with 47 active land ports of entry. Hundreds of thousands of people cross the border legally each day, strengthening people-to-people ties and deepening our integration. In addition, an estimated 1.6 million U.S. citizens live in Mexico, and nearly 40 million persons of Mexican descent reside in the United States. The U.S.-Mexico Interparliamentary Group has been held regularly since 1961 to bring together legislators from both countries to discuss priority issues and identify ways to strengthen bilateral cooperation. Although our countries share a great number of ties, without a doubt, our peoples represent our strongest, deepest and most lasting bond, which will unite us forever. The bicentennial celebration serves as an opportunity to honor our personal ties and our shared history, while affirming our commitment to build a brighter future for our two nations. As the United States and Mexico reflect on 200 years of bilateral relations, we must celebrate the greatness of our peoples and commit to seize the opportunities ahead of us. The bicentennial allows us to reflect on our historical ties and grants us an opportunity to build on our shared priorities: economic prosperity, clean energy, security, migration, and our mutual understanding of one another. The United States and Mexico have enduring connections encompassing all aspects of life. As we address our shared challenges and work together for a prosperous future, we celebrate this era of cooperation and respect. This anniversary allows us to reflect on the past and more importantly, to chart a course for the future.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I was scheduled to come to the floor today to offer live UCs to bring up two Biden nominees--very important nominees--to assume diplomatic posts in the Western Hemisphere. Senator Scott of Florida was scheduled to be here to oppose my UCs and have a dialogue. The hurricane in Florida has pulled him away, and so he is unable to be here. I am left with the case where there is an objection, but the objector can't come for a reason that I understand. Senator Scott's team has indicated that he will likely be here tomorrow, and we might be able to repeat this tomorrow. What I thought I would do, having the floor, is say a little bit about these two countries and these two nominees because I hope Senator Scott might watch this or his staff might give him the transcript because I think, if he does, he will see that they are both highly qualified individuals. I want to talk about both, but I will not make the motion at the end of my comments with respect to unanimous consent. I would say that both Michelle Kwan, who was nominated by President Biden to be our Ambassador to Belize, and Mari Carmen Aponte, who was nominated to be our Ambassador to Panama, are both highly qualified individuals, as I will describe. But the countries are really important. Belize has not had an ambassador confirmed for more than 5 years. Panama has not had a confirmed ambassador for more than 4 years. And, sort of, the theme for both of these is, Why punish good behavior? These are great allies of the United States, both Belize and Panama. They are both doing some really important work with us right now, and they deserve to have confirmed ambassadors. If we won't confirm an ambassador for more than 4 years or more than 5 years, it has a way of sending a message to these countries like: Wow, we say you are great allies, but we clearly don't value you enough to have a confirmed ambassador. Let me talk about Michelle Kwan, the nominee to be our Ambassador in Belize. Belize is a critical partner in the Caribbean and Central America. This is a region of significant distress and instability. But Belize has been a bright spot in both relative stability and also closeness to the United States. As I mentioned, no U.S. ambassador has been confirmed there for more than 5 years. It is a stable democracy in a region facing significant threats from organized crime, irregular migration, human trafficking, as well as democratic backsliding in the region. We worked hard to deepen our relationship with Prime Minister Briceno, and bilateral cooperation between the nations are increasing. Our ability to engage with Belize at this most senior level is crucial right now. In particular with Belize, there is something fairly unique about this country. In this hemisphere that is very important to the United States, it is also of growing importance to China. We see Beijing active all over the Americas, often outstripping our efforts to pay attention to these countries. Belize has been willing to be a stalwart partner of Taiwan. There are only 11 nations in the world that recognize Taiwan, and China is going after each one of them, putting pressure on them to strip away their recognition of Taiwan. The United States is encouraging nations that have recognized Taiwan to continue to do so, but very few are able to hold out against the Chinese onslaught. Belize has been willing to do this. This is good behavior. We asked them to do it, and they have. By leaving this position vacant, even as Beijing aggressively builds more and more momentum in the region, it is nothing less than diplomatic malpractice. Having a sitting U.S. ambassador there is of utmost importance. Now, how about Michelle Kwan? Exceptionally qualified to take on this challenge. She has had an incredibly distinguished career in public service and diplomacy and especially sports. She is the most decorated figure skater in U.S. history, having won 43 championships, including 5 world championships, 9 national titles, and 2 Olympic medals. Michelle became the first-ever U.S. Public Diplomacy Envoy in 2006, 16 years ago. For the following decade and a half, under Presidents and Secretaries of State of both parties, she has traveled extensively on behalf of the State Department all around the world to engage youth and especially young girls on social and educational issues. She would be an extraordinary champion for the United States with this close neighbor, and her global profile will say to Belize: Hey, we value you because we are sending an accomplished and well-known athlete, inspiration, and diplomat to be our representative there. And so I was going to ask today that she be confirmed by unanimous consent, and I will return, hopefully, to successfully see her advanced by the Senate into this position. Now let me talk about Mari Carmen Aponte, who is President Biden's nominee to be Ambassador to Panama. First on Panama, Panama is one of our strongest partners in the Americas. It is a critical ally on a wide range of U.S. priorities. And, Madam President, you and I remember when we had major problems with Panama--major problems. It has been a success story of turning an adversary into a great ally and even partner, and yet Panama has now been without a U.S. ambassador for more than 4 years. My friends across the aisle frequently cite migration as a top foreign policy concern. They have a point. The Venezuelan refugee crisis is now the second largest displacement in the world. The size and scope of this crisis and the humanitarian impact on the region and the Venezuelan people is worsening by the day. I agree. This issue needs much more attention. Panama is on the frontline of this crisis. Their border with Colombia--the Darien Gap on that border is the primary route by which people migrate from South America, especially Venezuela, north. They have a crucial role to play in any cohesive regional response. Panama is also critical to narcotics interdiction efforts and in promoting democratic values that are increasingly under threat in the region. They are also the subject of intense Chinese investment in the Panama Canal. China has a new Embassy built right on the canal. We are not competing in a vacuum here. We are competing in a highly competitive world, where China is making more investments than we are, and yet Panama still desires to have a very close relationship with the United States. And there is more. Recently, Panama, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and Ecuador noticed democratic backsliding in the Americas and announced the formation of something called the Alliance for Democracy and Development. They want to band together, four democratic nations, and be proudly pro-democracy in a region where we see too much backsliding. They can punch above their weight. They can do work not only within their own nations but be an influence throughout the region--indeed, throughout the world. This is something that the United States has celebrated and recognized. So, again, why punish bad behavior? If they are doing these things to help us with migration, if they are stepping forward to be pro- democracy in a region that is backsliding, why wouldn't we want a confirmed U.S. ambassador? Let me tell you about Mari Carmen Aponte. She is a Puerto Rican native. She previously served with distinction as an ambassador to El Salvador during the Obama administration. She was confirmed in this body with bipartisan support. She has been the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere. It is hard to imagine a more qualified nominee. She will have impact from the moment she hits the ground. She was nominated for this role in October of 2021. Her Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing was in May, and she has been pending consideration by the entire Senate since June. Let's get a proven ambassador in the field and put her to work in a nation that is critical to the United States in the region. Finally, I will just note, Panama is the home of the Panama Canal. It is the world's second largest free-trade zone. It has a sophisticated logistics and financial operations hub. It attracts billions in direct foreign investment, and we need to be there, again, to counter the significant Chinese interest in this country. So, again, I had planned to make a motion on behalf of Mari Carmen Aponte. In deference to my colleague from Florida and the challenge there, I will not, but his team has committed to me that they will pay attention to my description of both the importance of these nations and the qualifications of these nominees. I will return in the hopes that we may soon be able to act as the Senate and forward these highly qualified nominees to the field where they can do their work as representatives of the United States. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to talk about a piece of legislation that was announced last night by a very close friend of mine, Senator Manchin of West Virginia--the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2022. Senator Manchin and I were Governors together, and we sit next to each other on the Senate floor. And we are often in agreement. And on this particular bill--it is 91 pages long, and there are 24 sections--we are in agreement on 23 of the 24 sections and 86 of the 91 pages. I want to talk about the permitting reform provisions in the bill that I support, but then I want to point out significant concerns with section 24 of the bill that is sort of an anti-permitting reform bill. It would take one project that is in my State, the Mountain Valley Pipeline, out of permitting processes, out of judicial review, and have Congress put our thumb on the scale, advancing the project immune from the normal permitting process and judicial review. I would like to start by saying I am a strong supporter of American energy independence, and I applaud the efforts of my colleague Senator Manchin to do the same. I voted with a number of Senators a few years ago to end the ban on export of crude oil from the United States. And I have strongly supported liquefied natural gas exports to help nations around the world wean themselves off of energy dependence on dictators like Vladimir Putin. I also firmly believe in the need for permitting reform. The heart of the Energy Independence and Security Act is a recognition that permitting for energy transmission and other projects in this country is essentially broken; that it takes too long. It is too inconsistent. I filed my first permitting reform bill in 2017 as a recognition of the fact that natural gas pipelines proposed in Virginia were running into very significant challenges, in particular. These pipeline programs require the use of eminent domain. So you are taking people's property to build these pipeline projects. And if the government is going to take people's property, we ought to have a process that is fair. But what I heard from my constituents in Virginia is that they were being ignored; that there was inadequate public hearing. The hearings were scheduled hundreds of miles apart, far away from the landowners themselves. They would get to the public hearings and people had presigned up, often encouraged by the pipeline proponent so that the actual landowners never got a chance to speak. And when they did get to speak, their input wasn't being taken seriously. So, in 2017, I introduced my first permitting reform bill to deal exactly with some of the same kinds of issues that Senator Manchin has included in the Energy Independence and Security Act. So I am here to say, I am all for permitting reform. I am all for permitting reform. And I believe that there is a bipartisan majority-- indeed, a supermajority in this body--that were we to undertake this in regular order, we could come up with a permitting reform bill that, together with the infrastructure bill that we did and the Inflation Reduction Act that we did, will help us power forward American innovation, especially in leading the world in clean energy. So that is 86 pages of the bill. And I strongly approve of the bill. The legislation that I introduced in 2017 isn't in it. I would like to get it added in. But even if it weren't added in, there is enough good in this bill for me to support it. But what I want to talk about with an equal degree of passion is my strong opposition to section 24 of the bill, dealing with the Mountain Valley Pipeline. The Mountain Valley Pipeline is a 304-mile natural gas pipeline in West Virginia and Virginia. About two-thirds of it is in West Virginia and one-third is in Virginia. The pipeline is proposed to withdraw natural gas from the Marcellus shale--one of the great American reserves of natural gas--and then transmit that gas first through West Virginia and then Virginia where it could hook up with other pipelines to be distributed around the country or to ports where it could be liquefied and potentially sold overseas. The Mountain Valley Pipeline has had a star-crossed history in recent years. It has had multiple Federal authorizations vacated. It has accrued over 350 violations of water quality-related protections, both in Virginia and in West Virginia. And it currently lacks several necessary Federal authorizations to continue construction. My constituents in Virginia have complained significantly about workmanship problems in the Mountain Valley Pipeline. And work on the pipeline has been stopped by State agencies because of slipshod quality that damages water and that damages people's property. I am not opposed to the Mountain Valley Pipeline. I don't think Congress should be in the business of approving pipelines or rejecting them. Madam President, you were an attorney general dealing with eminent domain. We generally don't let legislative bodies decide whose property is going to get taken. Eminent domain matters are usually for courts and administrative agencies. So as the Mountain Valley Pipeline has proceeded in recent years, I have had opponents of the pipeline come to say: Look, there have been water quality violations. You should stop the pipeline. I have had proponents of the pipeline come and say: We need this for America's energy security. You should put your thumb on the scale and make sure it gets approved. What I have told both the opponents and proponents of the Mountain Valley Pipeline is: You tell me how to fix the process--the permitting process--to make it fair, and I will do that. But then you should have to put your project through a fair permitting process and, if you can earn approval on the merits, then you can build the pipeline. But if you do poor work and can't, then you are not going to be able to build it. I deeply believe this is not Congress's job to make this determination. It is our job to make sure that permitting is fair. Section 24 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2022 would basically say that after 86 pages of improving permitting in this country, we will take one project in two States and take it completely out of all permitting. We will order the Biden administration to grant four permits that are currently in midstream. The company hasn't yet demonstrated that it should get these four permits. There is a Clean Water Act permit. There is a permit to cross the Jefferson National Forest. There is a permit to certify that this project will not harm endangered species. And, finally, there is a permit from FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The company is attempting to get these permits, but they haven't yet demonstrated that they are able to do it. But what section 24 of the bill would do, after doing this great work to establish this great permitting process, is that it would say: Forget all of that. The Biden administration must give these four permits to the Mountain Valley Pipeline owners right now, and, further, no one can seek any judicial review of these permits--highly unusual. These administrative permits are issued by administrative agencies with a capacity for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. But in this case, we would be forced to issue the permit, and then we would also immunize the permit from any person, landowner, effective party, or environmental group being able to challenge it in judicial review. In my view, that is highly inappropriate and virtually unprecedented. But to make matters worse, section 24 of the bill also does something that I believe is unprecedented and that would create a very, very dangerous precedent in this body. It would strip jurisdiction of any litigation in the future in this project from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, headquartered in Richmond, my hometown. Why? The owners of the Mountain Valley Pipeline have lost a case or two in the Fourth Circuit. I used to try cases, as did the Presiding Officer. I lost some cases, and I lost cases in the Fourth Circuit. If I represented a civil rights litigant and we lost a case in the Fourth Circuit, I had remedies. The first remedy was to try to get an en banc court to possibly reconsider the ruling of the panel. It is difficult to do, but that is a remedy you have. The second remedy you have is to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. I tried that too. Once, I got a case that I had lost in the Fourth Circuit taken by the U.S. Supreme Court, and I was able to be successful there in getting it reversed. But if you are a party that is unhappy, that is what your remedy is, to appeal. Whether you are rich or you are poor, whether you are a corporation or an individual, whether it is a criminal case or a civil case, if you don't like the ruling of a district court, you appeal to an appellate court. If you don't like the ruling of an appellate court, you try to take it en banc or go to the Supreme Court. And that is a rule that should apply to all litigants. In this case, what the Mountain Valley Pipeline is asking is, in my view, an egregious and dramatic overreach. They don't like the rulings of the Fourth Circuit. They haven't been able to get the Fourth Circuit to take the case en banc. They haven't been able to convince the U.S. Supreme Court that the Fourth Circuit was wrong. So what the Mountain Valley Pipeline owners are asking the Senate to do and what this bill proposes is that we would take jurisdiction away from the Fourth Circuit and mandate that any future case not go to the Fourth Circuit but instead come to the DC Court of Appeals. What ground would there be for such a historic rebuke of my hometown Federal circuit court, to say that just because they ruled against a powerful energy corporation, we will, in an unprecedented way, strip jurisdiction away from them in a pending case that is midstream and not allow them to hear it? The Fourth Circuit is my hometown circuit court. I tried cases in the district courts there. I had appeals in that court. I won some; I lost some. I was often unhappy with the ruling, but never would I have believed, if a ruling went against me, that the resolution was to punish the court by stripping jurisdiction away from them. Yet that is what the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2022 would do. It would force the issuance of permits that have not yet been justified, deny the possibility of judicial review of those permits and, in particular, in an unprecedented way, strip jurisdiction away from one circuit court in the middle of a case by taking it away from them. Why? Because the big energy company that wants these permits is unhappy that they have lost a case there. As I conclude, I just want to point out, if we go down this path, in my view, it could open the door to serious abuse and even corruption. Imagine if the Senate of the United States starts stripping jurisdiction away from courts because we don't like their ruling. So midstream, we will take it away. A corporation is unhappy that they are getting sued in shareholder derivative suits in the Second Circuit, for example, and somebody comes to the Senate and says: Let's just take jurisdiction away from the Second Circuit dealing with this particular company. Somebody in a complicated criminal case doesn't like the rulings of a circuit court on procedural matters and tries to get this body, the Senate of the United States, to strip jurisdiction away from the court. I am proud of the Fourth Circuit--the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. I have been involved with my colleague Senator Warner in recommending to Presidents and then advocating for people to be nominated and eventually confirmed in this court. The Fourth Circuit is no more perfect than any court is. I can tell you, as somebody who has practiced in this court for my entire professional career, they do not deserve to be rebuked in a historic way and have jurisdiction stripped away from them in a case like this just because they have had the temerity to rule against an energy company on a pipeline project. We can do a permitting reform bill that will advance the goals of the first 86 pages of the Energy Independence and Security Act. We can do a bill that will include 23 of the 24 sections of the Energy Independence and Security Act and have a much better permitting process that the Mountain Valley Pipeline and anyone else wanting to do a project can then go through. If they demonstrate on the merits that they should be entitled to build a pipeline or an electricity transmission, then build it, by all means. But don't embrace the need for permitting reform and then choose one project in the entire United States, affecting my State, and pull it out of permitting reform, insulating it from the normal processes of administrative permitting issuance and insulating it from judicial review. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to seek consent to advance the nomination of a Virginian and friend, Leopoldo Martinez, to be Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank. The IDB is the largest source of development financing for Latin America and the Caribbean. It is a critical part of the ability of the United States to engage diplomatically with our American partners to counter a growing influence of Russia and China and Iran and other nations in the Americas. And it is very much in the national interest of the United States to build up economic prosperity of countries in the Western Hemisphere. We have seen over and over that when countries have troubled economies, it is not a distant or faraway problem. It drives government corruption; it drives organized crime; it drives drug abuse and drug trafficking. And then it expands migration that could start as a country's problems but very quickly become our country's problems as well. When we don't step up, we see that other nations--China and Russia, in particular--in the Americas fill the vacuum. As Latin America and the Caribbean countries continue to face challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic--where the region has had the highest global per capita infection and death rates in the world and is experiencing the largest economic contraction of any region in the world--the IDB has a key role to play in improving economic outcomes for the region. But the problem is the IDB is without an executive director. It is without leadership confirmed by the Senate at this critical moment in time. Leopoldo Martinez brings decades of experience in the public and private sectors, as well as academia. He has extensive experience advising Fortune 500 companies, private equity funds, international businesses, and nongovernmental organizations. He is the CEO for the Center for Democracy and Development of the Americas, as well as a commissioner for small business in the Commonwealth of Virginia. He is on the board of one of our public universities, the University of Mary Washington. And as I have said, he is not just a constituent; he is also a friend. And in all respect, he is outstandingly qualified for this position. Now, I understand that there are differences of opinion in the Senate about the success, or lack thereof, about the Biden administration's policies in Latin America. Earlier this week or late last week, some of my Republicans challenged the Biden administration as being too soft on corruption issues in the Americas. I was asked about my Republican colleagues' critiques, and I would say: Well, I got a critique, too. I wouldn't say they are too soft, but I would say they are too inattentive. I don't think we have, under this administration or the previous administration or the previous administration--going back nearly to the beginning of this country, I don't think we paid the attention to the Americas that we should. And when we only pay episodic attention to the Americas, a lot of bad things happen in Western Hemisphere countries that end up making things worse for us. But if there is a critique to be laid against the Biden administration, or any administration in the Americas, we don't solve the critique by leaving key positions vacant that could be used to strengthen our activities in the hemisphere. I understand that some of my colleagues have objected--and this was raised in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--to some, frankly, partisan tweets--some annoying and nasty tweets--that my friend Leo Martinez put on his social media accounts. I want to say to pages: You might want to think about this now because in 10 or 30 years when you are running for the Senate or you are up for a position that is a Senate-confirmed position, anything you tweet is going to be held against you. But I do think they have to be put into context. My friend Mr. Martinez is a Democrat. And no surprise, he is being nominated by a Democratic administration. He has let his tongue race ahead of his brain on a couple of occasions. But I think all 100 of us have seen this pretty often in the last 10 years, and we have learned to apply a little bit of a discounting to it. I have voted for many Trump administration nominees who had some negative tweets and even said negative things about me. I didn't like them and I wouldn't have nominated them, but I would acknowledge that they are qualified for the job. And I believe that Mr. Martinez is more than that. Finally, I want to speak, in particular, to my colleague from Texas, who is here. My colleague from Texas serves with me on the Foreign Relations Committee. I believe I am going to be accurate about this, but I will be corrected if I get any details wrong. He asked Mr. Martinez in some written questions about working together with faith- based organizations in his role in the IDB should he be confirmed because throughout the region and throughout the world, sometimes faith-based organizations are some of the most effective in, for example, providing humanitarian aid, working with refugees, et cetera. The initial responses from Mr. Martinez, I believe, were not satisfactory to my colleague, and maybe other colleagues as well, but I do believe that Mr. Martinez has tried to amplify those and meet and discuss this issue. I worked as a missionary in Honduras. I know very powerfully the role that religious organizations do in the region. I know how important it is for us, whether it is USAID or State Department or IDP, to work in tandem with some of these faith-based organizations who do such a powerful job. And everything I know about my friend Mr. Martinez suggests that he would see the value of those partnerships as well. So with that, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the Committee on Senate Foreign Relations be discharged and the Senate proceed to the following nomination: PN1028, Leopoldo Martinez Nucete, to be Executive Director of the Inter- American Development Bank; that the Senate vote on the nomination, with no intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that no further motions be in order as to this nomination.

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

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, just a brief response. I will not respond to Senator Cruz's representation of Mr. Martinez's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has his opinion about what those words mean, and I think he quoted them accurately. But I would just say for anyone, you can go and look at that quote and decide for yourself whether you think that was a statement that was hostile to faith or whether that was a statement by a bank or business guy financier about what he thought were the most important issues that an international development bank should be focused on. I read those same comments as not hostile or antipathetic to faith; I view them as comments of an individual who has been in the finance industry who knows what the remit of the international development bank is and is talking about his own priorities in terms of how that bank should program their work. But I do want to respond to the first point. Senator Cruz is correct about Mr. Martinez's past. He grew up in Venezuela. He was initially in a government that apparently had a lot of promise to offer to Venezuelans because Mr. Chavez was elected by Venezuelans in a democratic election overwhelmingly. But my colleague didn't tell you the rest of the story. Mr. Martinez is now a political exile from Venezuela who was part of the Venezuelan opposition, who has been strong in critiquing the human rights' record of both the Chavez and Maduro regimes, and I think that is actually one of the reasons that President Biden nominated him for this position. If anyone knows the danger of authoritarian governments, including authoritarian governments from the left in the Americas, and knows what it will take for America to counter that with smart strategies, it is somebody who grew up in that culture and came to realize the dangerous path that his country was on. I think whoever is the IDB President is going to have an awful lot of work to do, but the single largest challenge in the Americas right now, at least in terms of pushing refugees out of the country, is in Venezuela. And who better than someone who knows it firsthand and, after seeing it, decided to become a dedicated member of the Venezuelan opposition in exile in the United States--who better to counter that influence? I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. 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, which is an update to a version we introduced in the 116th Congress. 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. Mr. 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, which is an update to a version we introduced in the 116th Congress. 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, the last thing I want to say is a thank- you. I have a staffer in the room, Karishma Merchant, who has staffed me on the HELP Committee since before I was on the HELP Committee, and she is leaving me to take a wonderful job at Jobs for the Future to continue her passion for workforce and education. She has helped me on childcare, on issues battling campus sexual assault, career and technical education, and teacher training. Everything I have done in the education and workforce space and on the committee has been because I had a fantastic staffer pointing me in the right direction. She is here in the Chamber, and I want to finish by expressing my thanks to her. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to speak about a very important provision in the Inflation Reduction Act that combines the three pillars of the act: healthcare, energy, and tax reform. That provision is a permanent funding fix for the Black Lung Benefits Program. And I dedicate this floor speech to all my friends who are Virginia coal miners, to their retirees, to their families. And I especially dedicate it to my friends at the United Mine Workers, including a dear friend, President Cecil Roberts. I came to Virginia in 1984, never having been in Virginia. I grew up in Kansas, and I didn't really know too much about the coal industry. But I married my wife Anne 38 years ago, and part of her family is from Big Stone Gap, VA, in the heart of Appalachia--those counties in Southwestern Virginia--Wise, Lee, Dickenson, Russell, Buchanan, Scott-- that have coal mining as the very heart of their economies. And it is not only coal mines, but it is the miners themselves--many of whom drive across State lines to work in West Virginia or Kentucky--and their families. And they have done it for generations. And long before I got into politics, once I married my wife from Appalachia, I got to know these miners. It is a tough job. It is a scary job. It is a dangerous job. But these miners do it every day because the Nation needs power, because our steel mills need steel to build aircraft carriers and submarines and skyscrapers. And they do this, and many of them have done it for generations. I also, in coming to know these miners--long before I got into politics--on family visits, realized what a patriotic bunch of people they are. They have a disproportionately high rate of service in the military when they are young, before they undertake this dangerous, dangerous job. I had been in Virginia for about 5 years, and there was a major strike of these miners, the Pittston strike, in Southwest Virginia, 1989. It actually was from April of 1989 all the way until February of 1990. And it was a strike that was driven because the Pittston Coal Company wanted to take health benefits away from retirees and widows and disabled miners. And what the mineworkers realized is if they allowed this to happen, then every other mining company in the country would do exactly the same thing. And so they went out on a strike, and they struck for 10 months. And their salaries were down to nothing, but they weren't going to give up until they got these healthcare benefits. There was a famous moment about 5 months into the strike when the then-president of the UMW, Rich Trumka, who got to be a great friend of ours--sadly, he passed in the last year. At that point, he was the president of the mineworkers. He got asked by the New York Times: Your people are suffering striking. They are earning some benefits through the union, but it is a fraction of their salaries. How long can the mine workers hold out? And he gave one of the best answers ever: 1 day longer than the Pittston Coal Company. That is how long we can hold out. That is what they did. In February of 1990, they reached a deal, and the healthcare benefits of these folks were saved. Getting into politics, first at the local level, but especially when I ran for Lieutenant Governor in 2001, I was kind of the big city mayor, but people down there gave me a chance because they knew I had family ties in Appalachia. I had gotten to know them before I was in politics. The mine workers were so helpful to me. I tried, over my time in political life, to be helpful to them. I put a union president in my cabinet as a Governor, whom they knew very, very well, who had struck with them in 1989. No Governor had ever done that. I appointed a miner, a UMW member to run my State mining safety agency. That agency had always been run by folks from the management side or sometimes by hard- working, you know, kind of professional scientists and bureaucrats. But there had never been a miner running the mining safety agency until I became Governor. I worked with mine workers to build a powerplant in Virginia City, in Southwest Virginia, to try to show that coal can be done and used much more cleaner than it had been in the past. When I came to the Senate in 2013, the economics of mining had changed a lot. Natural gas, being so much cheaper, had hurt mines. Mechanization of mining reduced the job numbers. We mine about the same amount of coal in Virginia today as we did 50 years ago. We just do it with one-tenth of the miners because of mechanization. The need to bring down our carbon usage to save the planet has definitely been a factor. I am proud to say that my miners and their leaders understand this. They understand the need for an energy transition, and they embrace it. They just ask that, as we do it, we don't leave them behind. That leads me to this bill. We have made promises to our miners that we will protect their health insurance, that we will protect their pensions, and that we will have a full-funded Black Lung Benefits Program to help the many miners--about one in five in Central Appalachia, whose day in and day out job, inhaling coal dust and silica dust, exposes them to a horrible pulmonary disease, black lung disease. We told them we will have a program for them to take care of their needs should they come down with black lung. You will remember, Madam President, in 2017, because of bankruptcies of coal companies, that many were setting up shell corporations to evade their responsibilities to their retirees--just like in Pittston, taking health insurance away from retirees, widows, and disabled miners. Many companies have schemed with the Bankruptcy Code to do that. In 2017, the miners healthcare program for these retirees was on death's door. I cosponsored legislation with many colleagues, and we saved their healthcare program. I will never forget one of the toughest meetings I had in public life was going into a mining contact office in Castlewood, VA, and sitting down in a room of very nervous people who thought their healthcare benefits were going to expire within a matter of weeks. But we made a promise to them. And because of Democrats here--and we did get some Republican votes on this, as well--we saved healthcare for retirees, widows, and disabled miners. A couple of years later, in 2019, the same features of these companies--artificially, in many instances, going bankrupt--was now not just threatening healthcare but was also threatening pensions. People who had worked their whole lives in these dangerous jobs at risk to their health were going to lose their pensions. But in 2019, the American Miners Act, which was also bipartisan, passed this body, and we fixed the nationwide pension program for miners. It helped more than 6,000 Virginians. It helped more than 100,000 miners around the country. That is two. Well, with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, we can go three for three. We can meet all the promises we made to these miners and their families by fixing the Black Lung Benefits Program. The preceding speaker talked about raising taxes on mines, but he didn't tell the public what this is for. We are raising the excise tax on coal so that we can have a program that will help miners who get black lung disease. And is this just a horribly confiscatory tax? No. Let me tell you what this tax will be. We will raise the coal excise tax for coal mined underground to $1.10 a ton. For these hard-working miners who are underground, exposing themselves to life-risking pulmonary disease, we will raise the tax to $1.10 a ton. And for coal that is mined on the surface, we will raise it to 55 cents a ton to meet the promise that we made to these hard-working people. This will provide permanent sufficient funding to maintain the solvency of the fund, and our miners can be assured that the program will be--as they are going underground every day and doing that tough job, they can be assured that the program will be there for them should they get black lung disease. I have been proud to cosponsor all three of these bills--promise made, promise kept. I want to thank Virginia's coal miners for their friendship, for their patriotism, for their determination, and for never giving up, including never giving up on us. And when we pass the IRA, we will be able to say: Your faith was justified. We got it done. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous order be extended for 15 minutes and the majority leader be recognized at that time.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I am so pleased to be on the floor today to join with Senator Murray, Senator Schumer, and Senator Blumenthal to talk about the critical importance of childcare. I will speak in about 40 minutes about a piece of this bill, the black lung program, which is really important to the State of Virginia, but, like Senator Murray, I share a sadness that childcare is not included in this bill because this is what I am hearing from Virginians: Even before the pandemic, there was an inadequate supply. People working in this field weren't being paid enough. Parents are having to pay too much. It is a market failure, and we have to fix it. This bill doesn't, and so we will need to continue it. There has never been anyone in the history of the U.S. Senate who has been as passionate an advocate for childcare as the senior Senator from Washington, Senator Murray. She sort of swallowed a lead, because she is a modest person, when she said: I cared about this from before I got here. Her colleagues know and Washingtonians know, but all Americans might not know, that Senator Murray was an early childhood educator before she came to the U.S. Senate. So this is a passion that drove her career before she was here, and she hasn't left it behind, not for one second. So when she says she is going to stay on this until it gets done, she will. I am very, very pleased to be a HELP Committee member under her leadership and to help her on this, and I have a personal interest in this too. I have three children. My middle son, Lin, went to Carleton College, Phi Beta Kappa graduate, and he works as a pre-K classroom aide in Minneapolis. This is how he has chosen to make a difference in the world around him, by working as a classroom aide in a prekindergarten program. And I know from my discussions with my son, who just turned 30 a couple of weeks ago, how important the work is and how poorly paid it is, and how parents struggle even to afford sending kids to a childcare program, where the workers don't get paid very much. So this really is a classic market failure, and I think about Lin as I advocate for this. And I also had a chance to think anew, Senator Murray, about the importance of a priority. A good news story the other day was that the American unemployment rate is the lowest that it has ever been in 50 years at 3.5 percent, and we all are hearing employers saying: But I can't hire people. I can't hire people. There are millions of Americans who could be in the workforce, filling up these jobs that employers are looking to fill, but are not in the workforce because of a lack of affordable childcare. So it is important for kids, it is important for families' pocketbooks, and it is important for the providers themselves. But our economy does not work in the way that it should if we don't have affordable childcare options. So I pledge to work together with my chair on this issue until we get it done.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, my remarks are coming about 6 minutes after I was intending to start. I would ask for permission to complete my remarks before the vote begins.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I have one request 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 fo11owing committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, for nearly half a century, the Supreme Court held that the right to make reproductive decisions was protected by the 14th Amendment. Generations of women have relied on the freedom to make reproductive health decisions as a matter of fundamental personal rights. In particular, seminal cases such as Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and Carey v. Population Services International established basic rights to obtain abortion services and access contraception. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the landmark decisions holding that a woman's right to a pre-viability abortion is constitutionally protected. As the dissenters in Dobbs observed, this right is ``embedded in core constitutional concepts of individual freedom, and of the equal rights of citizens to decide on the shape of their lives.'' The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs resulted in immediate abortion bans in several States and means that millions of women, particularly women who live in the South, parts of the Midwest, and the West, will live hundreds of miles from the nearest abortion clinic. In fact, approximately 17 million women could be forced to travel more than 200 miles in order to obtain abortion care. Not only does the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs upset decades of precedent protecting the right of Americans to make personal decisions about abortion, but it also places in jeopardy many other important 14th Amendment rights, including the right to access birth control. Because the Supreme Court has abandoned constitutional protection of reproductive rights, it is the responsibility of Congress to act. That is why Senators Murkowski, Sinema, Collins, and I are introducing the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, bipartisan legislation to guarantee protections for reproductive and contraceptive care by enacting the essential holdings of the landmark cases Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and Carey v. Population Services International. The Reproductive Freedom for All Act returns Federal law to its pre-Dobbs status by allowing pre-viability abortions, prohibiting States from banning post- viability abortions necessary to protect the life and health of the mother, and protecting access to contraception. The Reproductive Freedom for All Act creates a minimum Federal standard which states must follow. The bill also ensures that the U.S. Department of Justice or individuals adversely affected by a State abortion restriction can challenge any State restriction on reproductive freedom in court. The Supreme Court's overturning of Roe and Casey goes directly against the will of the people. More than 60 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Support for reproductive freedom transcends regional, political, ethnic, and religious differences. Since support for reproductive freedom is nonpartisan among the public, it is important to have a legislative vehicle protecting that freedom that can gain bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the Reproductive Freedom for All Act. It is imperative that Congress come together to ensure that decisions as fundamental as reproductive choice are not determined by the State or ZIP Code where someone lives. I thank my colleagues for standing together in support of a bipartisan solution to the crisis created by Dobbs. I also acknowledge the work of advocates supporting Michigan's Reproductive Freedom for All ballot initiative, which informed my work on this bill and which I hope will inspire similar efforts in other States. We must come together to pass the Reproductive Freedom for All Act now. Mr. President, I rise to essentially do a part two of a talk that I gave on the Senate floor about 2 weeks ago. The first part of my talk was my analysis of the Dobbs decision of the Supreme Court, expressing my deep disillusionment with the Court's decision to cast aside a century of precedent under the 14th Amendment due process clause and, in particular, casting aside 50 years of using the 14th Amendment to protect women's rights to make reproductive decisions with regard to contraception and abortion. I analyzed the Court's opinion and precedents at that time, but I sort of left it hanging what needs to be done because while we can critique the Court decision, and I do view it as completely ahistorical and not understanding the purpose of the 14th Amendment, nevertheless, the Court's majority ruling was the protection of reproductive freedom was now no longer a matter for constitutional protection but was, instead, for legislatures. The majority seemed to assume that that would be State legislatures, but at least one of the concurring opinions acknowledged legislatures could include Congress. And I take the floor today in the second part of this talk to discuss a bill that I have today introduced with three other Senate colleagues--Senator Sinema, Senator Collins, and Senator Murkowski--the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, taking the Supreme Court up on the challenge that what we need to do to protect reproductive freedom is to legislate to do so. Let me describe the origin of the bill. Beginning in February, the Senate has had two votes on a bill that I have cosponsored--the Women's Health Protection Act, which was designed--written before the Dobbs case but designed to protect reproductive freedom by disabling State legislatures from putting schemes and obstacles in the way of women making reproductive decisions. The first time we had a vote on that bill, I voted yes. It was in February. It received 49 votes. We were scheduled to have a second vote on the Women's Health Protection Act in May. And it occurred to me that we would likely have the same result; we would get 49 votes. And I had a strong feeling before that vote that if that was the case, we would be leaving votes on the table. By that, I understood from talking to my colleagues that there were more than 49 Members of this Chamber who wanted to codify Roe and related cases and protect women's rights to access contraception and abortion services but that it wouldn't be ideal to send a message that less than a majority of the Senate was committed to reproductive freedom. And so I began efforts in May to find additional votes beyond the 49 that I knew would vote yes on the WHPA. And I began discussions with colleagues, including Republican colleagues, to look for a way to codify Roe that, yes, might be different in wording from the Women's Health Protection Act but would accomplish the same goal of providing a Federal guarantee that would operate in every ZIP Code in this country to protect women's rights to make decisions about contraception and abortion. And today we have introduced that bill, the Reproductive Freedom for All Act. The name of it is a tribute to a ballot initiative that is currently under debate in Michigan and scheduled for a vote to be added to the Michigan Constitution in November, the Reproductive Freedom for All initiative. And the bill that we have put together fairly closely tracks--not identically but fairly closely tracks the language of the ballot referendum in Michigan. What does the bill do? We worked on the bill between the leak of the Dobbs opinion and when Dobbs was decided by the Supreme Court right before our July Fourth recess. And we worked to make the bill as strong as we could. But then we set it aside because we knew the Dobbs decision might change from the leaked opinion, and we wanted to see what was actually in the opinion before we finalized the bill. And it is good that we waited because there were some aspects of the Dobbs opinion that were a bit different. They took some sandpaper to some controversial parts of the case, and they extended other arguments in the case that needed a response. And so what we have done since Dobbs is analyzed the opinion but also, more importantly, looked at life in the United States since that decision was rendered. I could give many examples, even in the month since that decision has been rendered, of the tragedy of what I believe is now post-Dobbs America. In particular, when a 10-year-old child has to be smuggled across State lines to receive care following her rape, that is gruesome. That is not what this country should expect, nor, indeed, what we should tolerate. And yet that is not an accidental byproduct of the Dobbs decision. That was a completely foreseeable and even foreseen consequence of the Dobbs decision that turning it over to 50 States would lead to a patchwork of horrible examples one after the next. I have spoken about another example in Virginia. An individual who was living in Kentucky got a breast cancer diagnosis on the day the Dobbs opinion was leaked, went to her doctor and found out that her contraception could potentially cause accelerated growth of cancer cells. And so she needed to come off contraception to get cancer treatment. She has two young children. She is worrying about her own cancer. She is trying to keep herself healthy for herself but also for her young children. If she were to come off contraception, there would be the chance of an unwanted pregnancy. The cancer treatments also would significantly degrade the possibility for a healthy pregnancy, but she was now living in a State that, post-Dobbs, would not allow her to have an abortion. She wrote a piece about this in NBC News. She was fortunate enough to be able to move and get a new job in Virginia, where she would be able to make these choices, but these are the kinds of choices, post-Dobbs, people have to make every day: Do we smuggle a youngster across State lines or does someone move from one State to the next? Every person in this country, no matter what ZIP Code they live in, should have a basic Federal guarantee about contraception and availability of abortion services. What the Reproductive Freedom for All Act would do would be, essentially--we tried to put ourselves in a time machine after Dobbs and travel back to the day before the Dobbs decision. It was a very narrow focus. You can look at this in other ways. Some folks didn't like what the law was the day before the Dobbs decision. But in order to find some bipartisanship--because, truly, the American public, on a bipartisan basis, wants to preserve reproductive rights--we looked at could we come up with a Federal statutory guarantee that would match the state of constitutional law that existed the day before the Dobbs decision and protect the rights of all to contraception access and also protect the rights of all to abortion access as it existed before Dobbs. Simply put, that is this; that prior to fetal viability, no State can pass any statute regulating abortion that imposes an undue burden on a woman seeking to exercise that right. And post-viability, while a State can more significantly regulate abortion, no State can deprive any woman of the right to receive an abortion should she and her health providers determine that it is necessary to protect her life or health. That is the bill that I have introduced today with Senators Collins, Murkowski, and Sinema. I thank them for working to try to show--because now we have shown that there is not a minority of the U.S. Senate, but there is actually a majority that wants to codify Roe and related cases; that we might have some differences of opinion about the right language to use to do that, but there is a difference between a Senate where that is only a minority sentiment and a Senate where, like in the rest of the American public, that is a majority sentiment. The last thing I will say is this. I am very well aware, as are my cosponsors in introducing that bill, that we do not have the votes today, should it be put up, to get 60 votes in the Senate for it. We don't. Yet I am given some inspiration by the fact that we recently passed a gun safety bill where 2 months before there were not 60 votes either. In fact, for the 10 years I have been in the Senate, we have been trying to pass legislation in this Chamber to deal with the scourge of gun violence and again and again and again have fallen short of 60 votes even to proceed to legislation. But in the aftermath of tragedies in Buffalo and Texas, a decision was made by the Members of this deliberative body that inaction was no longer an option and resolute action to protect people's rights and safety was a mandate. I believe the Dobbs decision and what we have seen since is a catastrophe that, as it plays out over time in State after State, will also change the dynamic in the article I branch and demonstrate the need for a national protection for reproductive rights rather than a 50-State free-for-all in a race to the bottom. It is in that spirit my colleagues and I have introduced this bipartisan bill today demonstrating that there is now bipartisan support and majority support in the U.S. Senate to protect reproductive freedom for all.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, for nearly half a century, the Supreme Court held that the right to make reproductive decisions was protected by the 14th Amendment. Generations of women have relied on the freedom to make reproductive health decisions as a matter of fundamental personal rights. In particular, seminal cases such as Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and Carey v. Population Services International established basic rights to obtain abortion services and access contraception. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the landmark decisions holding that a woman's right to a pre-viability abortion is constitutionally protected. As the dissenters in Dobbs observed, this right is ``embedded in core constitutional concepts of individual freedom, and of the equal rights of citizens to decide on the shape of their lives.'' The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs resulted in immediate abortion bans in several States and means that millions of women, particularly women who live in the South, parts of the Midwest, and the West, will live hundreds of miles from the nearest abortion clinic. In fact, approximately 17 million women could be forced to travel more than 200 miles in order to obtain abortion care. Not only does the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs upset decades of precedent protecting the right of Americans to make personal decisions about abortion, but it also places in jeopardy many other important 14th Amendment rights, including the right to access birth control. Because the Supreme Court has abandoned constitutional protection of reproductive rights, it is the responsibility of Congress to act. That is why Senators Murkowski, Sinema, Collins, and I are introducing the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, bipartisan legislation to guarantee protections for reproductive and contraceptive care by enacting the essential holdings of the landmark cases Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, and Carey v. Population Services International. The Reproductive Freedom for All Act returns Federal law to its pre-Dobbs status by allowing pre-viability abortions, prohibiting States from banning post- viability abortions necessary to protect the life and health of the mother, and protecting access to contraception. The Reproductive Freedom for All Act creates a minimum Federal standard which states must follow. The bill also ensures that the U.S. Department of Justice or individuals adversely affected by a State abortion restriction can challenge any State restriction on reproductive freedom in court. The Supreme Court's overturning of Roe and Casey goes directly against the will of the people. More than 60 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Support for reproductive freedom transcends regional, political, ethnic, and religious differences. Since support for reproductive freedom is nonpartisan among the public, it is important to have a legislative vehicle protecting that freedom that can gain bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the Reproductive Freedom for All Act. It is imperative that Congress come together to ensure that decisions as fundamental as reproductive choice are not determined by the State or ZIP Code where someone lives. I thank my colleagues for standing together in support of a bipartisan solution to the crisis created by Dobbs. I also acknowledge the work of advocates supporting Michigan's Reproductive Freedom for All ballot initiative, which informed my work on this bill and which I hope will inspire similar efforts in other States. We must come together to pass the Reproductive Freedom for All Act now. Mr. President, I rise to essentially do a part two of a talk that I gave on the Senate floor about 2 weeks ago. The first part of my talk was my analysis of the Dobbs decision of the Supreme Court, expressing my deep disillusionment with the Court's decision to cast aside a century of precedent under the 14th Amendment due process clause and, in particular, casting aside 50 years of using the 14th Amendment to protect women's rights to make reproductive decisions with regard to contraception and abortion. I analyzed the Court's opinion and precedents at that time, but I sort of left it hanging what needs to be done because while we can critique the Court decision, and I do view it as completely ahistorical and not understanding the purpose of the 14th Amendment, nevertheless, the Court's majority ruling was the protection of reproductive freedom was now no longer a matter for constitutional protection but was, instead, for legislatures. The majority seemed to assume that that would be State legislatures, but at least one of the concurring opinions acknowledged legislatures could include Congress. And I take the floor today in the second part of this talk to discuss a bill that I have today introduced with three other Senate colleagues--Senator Sinema, Senator Collins, and Senator Murkowski--the Reproductive Freedom for All Act, taking the Supreme Court up on the challenge that what we need to do to protect reproductive freedom is to legislate to do so. Let me describe the origin of the bill. Beginning in February, the Senate has had two votes on a bill that I have cosponsored--the Women's Health Protection Act, which was designed--written before the Dobbs case but designed to protect reproductive freedom by disabling State legislatures from putting schemes and obstacles in the way of women making reproductive decisions. The first time we had a vote on that bill, I voted yes. It was in February. It received 49 votes. We were scheduled to have a second vote on the Women's Health Protection Act in May. And it occurred to me that we would likely have the same result; we would get 49 votes. And I had a strong feeling before that vote that if that was the case, we would be leaving votes on the table. By that, I understood from talking to my colleagues that there were more than 49 Members of this Chamber who wanted to codify Roe and related cases and protect women's rights to access contraception and abortion services but that it wouldn't be ideal to send a message that less than a majority of the Senate was committed to reproductive freedom. And so I began efforts in May to find additional votes beyond the 49 that I knew would vote yes on the WHPA. And I began discussions with colleagues, including Republican colleagues, to look for a way to codify Roe that, yes, might be different in wording from the Women's Health Protection Act but would accomplish the same goal of providing a Federal guarantee that would operate in every ZIP Code in this country to protect women's rights to make decisions about contraception and abortion. And today we have introduced that bill, the Reproductive Freedom for All Act. The name of it is a tribute to a ballot initiative that is currently under debate in Michigan and scheduled for a vote to be added to the Michigan Constitution in November, the Reproductive Freedom for All initiative. And the bill that we have put together fairly closely tracks--not identically but fairly closely tracks the language of the ballot referendum in Michigan. What does the bill do? We worked on the bill between the leak of the Dobbs opinion and when Dobbs was decided by the Supreme Court right before our July Fourth recess. And we worked to make the bill as strong as we could. But then we set it aside because we knew the Dobbs decision might change from the leaked opinion, and we wanted to see what was actually in the opinion before we finalized the bill. And it is good that we waited because there were some aspects of the Dobbs opinion that were a bit different. They took some sandpaper to some controversial parts of the case, and they extended other arguments in the case that needed a response. And so what we have done since Dobbs is analyzed the opinion but also, more importantly, looked at life in the United States since that decision was rendered. I could give many examples, even in the month since that decision has been rendered, of the tragedy of what I believe is now post-Dobbs America. In particular, when a 10-year-old child has to be smuggled across State lines to receive care following her rape, that is gruesome. That is not what this country should expect, nor, indeed, what we should tolerate. And yet that is not an accidental byproduct of the Dobbs decision. That was a completely foreseeable and even foreseen consequence of the Dobbs decision that turning it over to 50 States would lead to a patchwork of horrible examples one after the next. I have spoken about another example in Virginia. An individual who was living in Kentucky got a breast cancer diagnosis on the day the Dobbs opinion was leaked, went to her doctor and found out that her contraception could potentially cause accelerated growth of cancer cells. And so she needed to come off contraception to get cancer treatment. She has two young children. She is worrying about her own cancer. She is trying to keep herself healthy for herself but also for her young children. If she were to come off contraception, there would be the chance of an unwanted pregnancy. The cancer treatments also would significantly degrade the possibility for a healthy pregnancy, but she was now living in a State that, post-Dobbs, would not allow her to have an abortion. She wrote a piece about this in NBC News. She was fortunate enough to be able to move and get a new job in Virginia, where she would be able to make these choices, but these are the kinds of choices, post-Dobbs, people have to make every day: Do we smuggle a youngster across State lines or does someone move from one State to the next? Every person in this country, no matter what ZIP Code they live in, should have a basic Federal guarantee about contraception and availability of abortion services. What the Reproductive Freedom for All Act would do would be, essentially--we tried to put ourselves in a time machine after Dobbs and travel back to the day before the Dobbs decision. It was a very narrow focus. You can look at this in other ways. Some folks didn't like what the law was the day before the Dobbs decision. But in order to find some bipartisanship--because, truly, the American public, on a bipartisan basis, wants to preserve reproductive rights--we looked at could we come up with a Federal statutory guarantee that would match the state of constitutional law that existed the day before the Dobbs decision and protect the rights of all to contraception access and also protect the rights of all to abortion access as it existed before Dobbs. Simply put, that is this; that prior to fetal viability, no State can pass any statute regulating abortion that imposes an undue burden on a woman seeking to exercise that right. And post-viability, while a State can more significantly regulate abortion, no State can deprive any woman of the right to receive an abortion should she and her health providers determine that it is necessary to protect her life or health. That is the bill that I have introduced today with Senators Collins, Murkowski, and Sinema. I thank them for working to try to show--because now we have shown that there is not a minority of the U.S. Senate, but there is actually a majority that wants to codify Roe and related cases; that we might have some differences of opinion about the right language to use to do that, but there is a difference between a Senate where that is only a minority sentiment and a Senate where, like in the rest of the American public, that is a majority sentiment. The last thing I will say is this. I am very well aware, as are my cosponsors in introducing that bill, that we do not have the votes today, should it be put up, to get 60 votes in the Senate for it. We don't. Yet I am given some inspiration by the fact that we recently passed a gun safety bill where 2 months before there were not 60 votes either. In fact, for the 10 years I have been in the Senate, we have been trying to pass legislation in this Chamber to deal with the scourge of gun violence and again and again and again have fallen short of 60 votes even to proceed to legislation. But in the aftermath of tragedies in Buffalo and Texas, a decision was made by the Members of this deliberative body that inaction was no longer an option and resolute action to protect people's rights and safety was a mandate. I believe the Dobbs decision and what we have seen since is a catastrophe that, as it plays out over time in State after State, will also change the dynamic in the article I branch and demonstrate the need for a national protection for reproductive rights rather than a 50-State free-for-all in a race to the bottom. It is in that spirit my colleagues and I have introduced this bipartisan bill today demonstrating that there is now bipartisan support and majority support in the U.S. Senate to protect reproductive freedom for all.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. 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 also 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. During that period, the site was chosen to serve as a national military cemetery in part to prevent Lee from returning. Congress passed legislation in 1955 designating the house the ``Custis-Lee Mansion'' to memorialize Lee and subsequently amended the official title to ``Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial.'' The legislation would remove the latter part of that name and return the house to its original name, ``Arlington House.'' 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, 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 also 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. During that period, the site was chosen to serve as a national military cemetery in part to prevent Lee from returning. Congress passed legislation in 1955 designating the house the ``Custis-Lee Mansion'' to memorialize Lee and subsequently amended the official title to ``Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial.'' The legislation would remove the latter part of that name and return the house to its original name, ``Arlington House.'' 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 to offer my own thoughts on the Dobbs decision that the Supreme Court rendered a couple of weeks back right after we went into a July Fourth recess. My colleagues were on the floor earlier advocating for a bill that would go after the pernicious practice of States in trying to penalize women from traveling to seek reproductive healthcare. I am a strong supporter of that legislation. I understand it will be proposed for floor action later today. I wanted to focus on two particular elements of the Dobbs decision that, as a former civil rights lawyer, struck me very, very deeply. Never in my life--I am 64 years old--has the Supreme Court taken away constitutional rights that had been counted on by generations of Americans. The Court has narrowed rights, redefined rights, articulated new standards for judging rights, but they have not taken rights away. In this instance, the Supreme Court took away rights that had been established in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. They took away those rights for women to make reproductive healthcare decisions and ruled that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution--which protects citizens' ability to enjoy privileges and immunities of other States and persons' abilities to be treated equally under the law and not have life, liberty, or property--be taken from them without due process. The Court ruled that the 14th Amendment, the Constitution, had nothing to do with women's reproductive rights. In my view, that is a horrible misreading of the history of the 14th Amendment. Further, the Court went on to say, in sort of a sunny way, but no worries. You can now rely on State legislatures to solve these issues. What I want to do is address how wrong the Court is about the 14th Amendment and how their belief that reliance on State legislatures is somehow a substitute for constitutional protection is so fundamentally wrongheaded. What is the 14th Amendment? Before the 14th Amendment was passed-- this is hard to believe--the Constitution had no definition of what it was to be a U.S. citizen, none. And the pre-14th Amendment Constitution also established a system of laws in this country where you were primarily subject to the laws of your State. The 50 States could have very different laws. A person from Virginia visiting Maine, for example, could be treated by Maine laws in a harsh and punitive way just because they happen to live in Virginia. That was the way the Nation used to be. We were more citizens of States than citizens of the United States of America. The pre-14th Amendment Constitution led to one of the seminal decisions in the history of the Court: Dred Scott v. Sandford, in 1856, where the Court ruled that no person of African descent, even a free person, could be considered a U.S. citizen. Even if their families had been in the country for more than 200 years, they could not be a citizen. In the aftermath of the Civil War, this Congress, this Senate, the States of this Nation banded together to pass three very critical amendments, the first, the 13th Amendment banned slavery. The 15th Amendment banned States from blocking people from voting based on the color of their skin. But what the 14th Amendment did, finally, after 90 years from the beginning of the Nation, the Declaration of Independence, what the 14th Amendment did was define what it is to be a citizen of the United States. There was a definition, for the first time, if you were born here or naturalized, you are a citizen of the United States. And citizens of the country were given rights to not be discriminated against because of moving into other States, privileges and immunities accorded to all citizens. No person shall be deprived of equal protection of the law. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. For the first time in the Constitution, we began to not just be a collection of people living in 50 States but actually have a definition of what it is to be an American. I don't have enough time to go over the whole history of the 14th Amendment, but where it really begins is in World War I. In World War I, many States, including the State of Nebraska, made it illegal for parents to teach their children German. Some even made it illegal to learn other languages. We were in the midst of the First World War, and so States made it a criminal offense for teachers and parents to teach their children German. The case of Meyer v. Nebraska came to the Supreme Court in the early 1920s, a family and an instructor challenging this State law. And under the 14th Amendment due process clause, the Court unanimously, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, said: Wait a minute. What is it to be an American? Well, the 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about language instruction. It doesn't say anything about education, but the 14th Amendment created a national identity, and clearly being an American must involve the ability of a family to decide if they want to teach the children their native language or practice an occupation, elicit a whole series of things that were naturally connected with what it was to be an American citizen. That was the first use of the 14th Amendment, to basically say: Clearly, if you live in this country, you get a zone of protection to make decisions that the criminal law of States and the Federal Government cannot intrude upon. A few years later, hard to believe, during massive Ku Klux Klan activities the State of Oregon made it a criminal offense to send your children to parochial schools. There was anti-Catholic sentiment that was being drummed up by the Klan in Oregon and elsewhere, and so now the criminal law of Oregon was marshaled against parents who wanted to send their kids to Catholic schools. And, once again, a unanimous Supreme Court said: Hold on a second. The 14th Amendment says nothing about education, but this is a deprivation of liberty in such an extreme way. To be a citizen of this country means you should have the ability to make decisions about the education of your children and no State can use the criminal law to deprive a parent or child of that liberty. And just as in Meyer v. Nebraska, when the 14th Amendment was used to strike down prohibition on foreign language instruction, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the 14th Amendment was used to strike down a bar on attending parochial schools. Fifteen or 20 years later, the State of Oklahoma had a statute that said if you get convicted of a crime three times, you will be sterilized. Passing a check, making a false statement on a loan application--habitual criminal law, you would be sterilized. That was the law that was passed. And it was a law that was pretty common in other States. In Virginia, for years, people were sterilized if the State judged that they were ``feebleminded.'' In Skinner v. Oklahoma, the Court said: Under the 14th Amendment, it says nothing about procreation and nothing about sterilization, but could there be a deprivation of liberty more severe than being sterilized so that you can't have children for life if you were in prison for an offense that might be just an offense that would have you there for a few years? And so even though the 14th Amendment didn't specifically discuss sterilization, the Court's rule was this comes with being an American that you have some zone where you are protected to make decisions in your own life without the long arm of the criminal law putting you in prison or, even worse, maiming your body and making you unable to have descendants forever. An important case in Virginia, 1966, Loving v. Virginia, Virginia like many States made it illegal by the criminal law to marry someone whose skin color was different. Richard and Mildred Loving got married in Caroline County, and the police broke into their bedroom hoping to find them having sex. They pointed to their marriage certificate on the wall. They were arrested and jailed. The judge said that your only path out of jail is to move out of Virginia. They moved to DC, but they couldn't come back and visit their families, their mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers. And eventually, they challenged the Virginia law, and it went up to the Supreme Court. And under the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court said, Well, yes, the 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about marriage, but there is something about being an American that gives you the right to marry whom you choose without the long arm of the criminal law forcing you to leave the State of your birth and exile yourself from your own family. And so in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court struck down anti miscegenation bans, which still existed in Virginia and many other States. A few years later, Griswold v. Connecticut, the State made it a criminal offense to use contraception. The Supreme Court: Well, there is nothing in the 14th Amendment about contraception, but clearly, there is this zone where Americans can make decisions without the long arm of the government throwing them in jail, and contraception is one of those areas. Roe v. Wade, a few years later, the State of Texas criminalizing women and providers for seeking an abortion. The Court used the same rationale. Well, the 14th Amendment, the word ``abortion'' isn't in it, we will grant you that, but all the way back to the passage of the 14th Amendment and certainly back to the Meyer v. Nebraska case, we have said that being a citizen of this country gives you some rights that the government can't, by criminal law, take away from you. Since Roe, there has been Casey reaffirming that right. Since Roe, there has been Lawrence v. Texas saying a State can't make it a crime to have sex with a same sex partner when they don't make it a crime to have sex with a partner of an opposite sex. Again, the 14th Amendment says zero about intimacy or sexual relations or reproduction, but there is a zone of decisions we are entitled to make as citizens of this country that the criminal law cannot intrude upon. Obergefell, you can marry someone of the same sex, same rationale. So when the Supreme Court said: Well, there is nothing about abortion in the 14th Amendment, well, they are right. The word ``abortion'' is not in the 14th Amendment. But it has been clear now for more than 100 years, and it was really clear when the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution that we are no longer just citizens of 50 States; we are citizens of a country that believes individuals have decision making power and autonomy, and the criminal law of this country can't reach in and throw you in jail for making decisions about how you operate the most intimate areas of your life. That is why the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs is so destructive. It is as if they do not understand the history of this country before the 14th Amendment, when there was no definition of citizenship, and it is as if they do not understand what the 14th Amendment was designed to do. I will conclude by making one other comment. The Court sort of sunnily suggests that, well, no worries; abortion now gets no constitutional protection, but this can be resolved by State legislatures. It was State legislatures that were the problem that the 14th Amendment was designed to address. It was State legislatures that passed the laws about slavery. It was State legislatures that prohibited women in the State of Illinois from taking the bar exam. It was State legislatures that imposed all kinds of restrictions upon the right to vote. So the notion that, OK, there is no constitutional protection for privacy anymore, but State legislatures will take care of it is a fundamental misunderstanding. And why weren't State legislatures sufficient? It was because slaves weren't represented in State legislatures, and women, at the time, weren't represented in State legislatures. And so we needed a zone of protection for decision making because people who have traditionally not been represented in State legislatures or this Congress can hardly look with confidence on the ability of a majority that does not include them to protect their interests. One example, Congress today, the U.S. Congress today is about 26 percent women. That is our North Star in our history. That is the best we have ever been. Guess what. That ranks us in the world, if you look at national parliamentary bodies that ranks us about 75th, below the global average, below nations like Mexico, below Iraq and Afghanistan, far below leading nations like Rwanda, where more than 50 percent of the legislature is women. To say to the women of this country: We are taking away rights you have relied upon for more than 50 years but no worry, no worry; you can go to the State legislature, where you are dramatically underrepresented, which is the case in most of our State legislative houses, you can go there, and they will give you a fair shake, is to put on blinders instead of looking at reality. The 14th Amendment was put in the Constitution for a reason. It was to give a right for individual decision making to every citizen in this country, no matter whether they were politically powerful or not, no matter whether there was anybody in the legislative body who looked like them or not, and to say that being an American gave you those rights and those rights couldn't be taken away couldn't be taken away by the long arm of the criminal law in statutes that were elected, enacted by State legislatures where you were not represented, that is why this ruling is so destructive. And that is why my colleagues and I must work so hard to make sure that we don't devolve back to a pre-14th Amendment society, where your ability to exercise fundamental decisions depends upon the ZIP Code you were born or live in, but that instead we accord the right to make fundamental personal decisions equally to everyone who is an American. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise and thank my colleague from Hawaii for stating plainly the qualifications of these candidates. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have had a chance to review their qualifications. And as the father of a U.S. marine, I agree wholeheartedly with the Senator's contention that these three positions would be very important to fill at a time when the United States has so many security challenges. Anticipating a productive dialogue with my colleague from Missouri, I would like to ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 779, 780, 781; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. KAINE. I will yield for a response, yes.

Mr. KAINE. Is it the Senator's position today that you do not object to them individually but there are other Members of your caucus who individually object to them?

Mr. KAINE. I will rephrase the question. Do you object to having a vote on them? So, for example, I can modify the motion to suggest to seek unanimous consent that we schedule a vote on these three nominees instead of trying to move them en bloc.