Tim Kaine

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Too Narrow to Succeed Act with my colleagues Senators Booker, Murray, and Menendez. Enacting this bill would increase opportunities for women- and minority-owned asset management firms to direct investments and strengthen our Nation's retirement security. Women- and minority-owned firms are significantly underrepresented in asset management, managing just over 1 percent of the sector's assets under management. This severe underrepresentation also extends to employment within the industry. This is not due to a lack of diverse talent; women- and minority-owned asset management firms have consistently performed just as well as or better than other firms in terms of returns on investment. In fact, women- and minority-owned firms are overrepresented among top-performing firms. Having a diverse portfolio is a key part of having healthy finances because diversifying investments mitigates risk and improves long-term returns. Far too often, however, those making investment decisions at our Nation's financial firms are not diverse. If asset managers have too narrow a perspective, the/place the financial success of their clients at risk. This commonsense legislation supports asset managers' fiduciary responsibility to deliver returns to investors, and it will help ensure a safe financial future for workers and their families. I hope my colleagues will support this bill.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Too Narrow to Succeed Act with my colleagues Senators Booker, Murray, and Menendez. Enacting this bill would increase opportunities for women- and minority-owned asset management firms to direct investments and strengthen our Nation's retirement security. Women- and minority-owned firms are significantly underrepresented in asset management, managing just over 1 percent of the sector's assets under management. This severe underrepresentation also extends to employment within the industry. This is not due to a lack of diverse talent; women- and minority-owned asset management firms have consistently performed just as well as or better than other firms in terms of returns on investment. In fact, women- and minority-owned firms are overrepresented among top-performing firms. Having a diverse portfolio is a key part of having healthy finances because diversifying investments mitigates risk and improves long-term returns. Far too often, however, those making investment decisions at our Nation's financial firms are not diverse. If asset managers have too narrow a perspective, the/place the financial success of their clients at risk. This commonsense legislation supports asset managers' fiduciary responsibility to deliver returns to investors, and it will help ensure a safe financial future for workers and their families. I hope my colleagues will support this bill.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, the United States places special trust and confidence in the integrity, judgement, and abilities of those men and women chosen to represent the United States abroad as an Ambassador. The Constitution balances the President's need to have officials overseas able to execute U.S. foreign policy as directed by the President, with Congress' interest in ensuring that these officials will serve honorably and ably in the positions for which they are nominated. Apart from the Foreign Service Act of 1980, the Ambassador nomination process has changed very little since our Nation was founded. However, it is fair to say that Presidents of all parties have on occasion appointed individuals Ambassadors whose profiles indicate political closeness with the President more than deep substantive experience in a particular foreign country. Historically, the majority of Ambassadors are selected from the career ranks of the State Department. Roughly 30 percent of Ambassadors are typically selected outside of those ranks, including from among political supporters of the President. This is not categorically problematic--Ambassadors who are not professional diplomats have long served our country admirably, from Benjamin Franklin in France to former Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield in Japan. A foreign country may benefit from having a U.S. Ambassador who has a close relationship with the President and the ability to elevate issues to the highest levels or the independent gravitas to bring substantial public attention to that country's needs. That said, I do believe it is appropriate to ask Presidents and their Secretaries of State to explain their rationale for choosing Ambassador nominees outside of the Foreign and Civil Services so that the public can understand the rationale for these appointments. This would give both the U.S. public and foreign publics the assurance that the White House is not merely doling out political sinecures but is devoting meaningful thought to these selections. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Booker would not constrain the President's discretion to choose appointees but would require him or her to justify these selections and explain to Congress why someone from outside the State Department is the optimal choice to represent America's interests abroad. I am proud to introduce this bill to ensure that U.S. foreign policy and our national security interests are advanced by the most qualified Americans, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation is swiftly considered by the Senate.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, the United States places special trust and confidence in the integrity, judgement, and abilities of those men and women chosen to represent the United States abroad as an Ambassador. The Constitution balances the President's need to have officials overseas able to execute U.S. foreign policy as directed by the President, with Congress' interest in ensuring that these officials will serve honorably and ably in the positions for which they are nominated. Apart from the Foreign Service Act of 1980, the Ambassador nomination process has changed very little since our Nation was founded. However, it is fair to say that Presidents of all parties have on occasion appointed individuals Ambassadors whose profiles indicate political closeness with the President more than deep substantive experience in a particular foreign country. Historically, the majority of Ambassadors are selected from the career ranks of the State Department. Roughly 30 percent of Ambassadors are typically selected outside of those ranks, including from among political supporters of the President. This is not categorically problematic--Ambassadors who are not professional diplomats have long served our country admirably, from Benjamin Franklin in France to former Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield in Japan. A foreign country may benefit from having a U.S. Ambassador who has a close relationship with the President and the ability to elevate issues to the highest levels or the independent gravitas to bring substantial public attention to that country's needs. That said, I do believe it is appropriate to ask Presidents and their Secretaries of State to explain their rationale for choosing Ambassador nominees outside of the Foreign and Civil Services so that the public can understand the rationale for these appointments. This would give both the U.S. public and foreign publics the assurance that the White House is not merely doling out political sinecures but is devoting meaningful thought to these selections. The legislation I am introducing today with Senator Booker would not constrain the President's discretion to choose appointees but would require him or her to justify these selections and explain to Congress why someone from outside the State Department is the optimal choice to represent America's interests abroad. I am proud to introduce this bill to ensure that U.S. foreign policy and our national security interests are advanced by the most qualified Americans, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that this legislation is swiftly considered by the Senate.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I proudly rise to speak about the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. When I began law school in the fall of 1979, the only woman Justice at the Supreme Court was a white marble statue on the steps. There were no women members of the Court. There had never been women members of the Court. The motto engraved over the Court's entrance, ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' sounded great, but it also rang hollow for the more than half of the U.S. population that had never seen themselves represented on the U.S. Supreme Court. And it was more than just the absence of women on the Court. In 1868, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in core memorable phrase guaranteeing to all persons the equal protection of the law. But the Court, for more than 100 years, refused to extend equal protection to women. In one of the first cases testing the meaning of the phrase ``equal protection of the law to all persons,'' the Supreme Court considered an Illinois State law restricting the practice of law to men only. A dynamic, young, feminist activist, Myra Bradwell, passed the Illinois bar exam and applied for a law license to practice law in Illinois. She was turned down because she was a woman. She appealed her case to the Illinois Supreme Court, and they turned her down because she was a woman. And then she came to the U.S. Supreme Court and said: We have just changed the Constitution to guarantee equal protection of the law to all persons, surely, you cannot turn me down in my quest to practice law after I have passed the Illinois bar exam. The Supreme Court of the United States, in 1873, by a vote of 8 to 1, ruled that she was not entitled to an equal right to practice the profession of her choosing. Let me read you a key part of the decision in that case: The paramount destiny and mission of women are to fulfill the noble and benign office of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. So a wife and mother can't be a lawyer? So every woman must be a wife and mother? That is what the Supreme Court determined in analyzing the simple phrase ``all persons are entitled to equal protection of the law.'' Here is a great trivia question: When did the Supreme Court finally decide that equal protection of the law applied to women? 1971. It took 103 years after the 14th Amendment was adopted for the Supreme Court to say: Wait a minute, equal protection of the law to all persons, that means women. In the case of Reed v. Reed, the Court ruled that a State statute providing that males must be preferred to females in the administration of estates--it was an estate administration case--the Court ruled, wait a minute, that violates women's rights to equal protection. Who was the lawyer in that case? A dynamic, young civil rights lawyer with the ACLU named Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So within my career as a civil rights attorney, from when I started law school in 1979 to today--43 years later--I have seen great change in the law's treatment of women and in their representation on the U.S. Supreme Court. The nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will make history. She will be the first African-American woman on the Court. And she will move a Court that had never had a woman member when I started law school to a Court where four of the nine members are women. What powerful evidence of the capacity we have as a nation to come closer and closer to the equality ideal that was articulated as our moral North Star in the opening phrase of the Declaration of Independence drafted by a Virginian in 1776. So I celebrate the history-making nature of this appointment, but it is not the reason for my support. I support Judge Jackson's nomination because of her stellar academic credentials, her prestigious judicial clerkships, her dedicated service as an attorney and member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, her well- respected tenure as a Federal trial and appellate judge, and the multiple attestations that she has received attributing to her fairness and to her character. In particular--in particular--I think that her successful confirmation as a Justice will add two critical skill sets to this nine-member collegial body: first, that she is a public defender; and, second, that she has been a trial judge. That she was a public defender--so much of the Court's docket deals with issues that are at the heart of the American criminal justice system. There are currently members of the Court--Justice Sotomayor, Justice Alito--who had experience as prosecutors in both the State and Federal courts before they began their service in the judicial branch. That experience as prosecutor is really important experience, and it is an important expertise to have on the Supreme Court. But a Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will be the first public defender ever to sit on the Court. And for a Court of nine to share perspectives and grapple with resolution of questions involving the criminal justice system, for that Court only to have people who prosecuted cases and not have people who have defended, in particular, the most indigent criminal defendants--it is a Court that doesn't have the balanced 360- degree perspective that we would want in these important matters. So the fact that she served honorably as a Federal public defender, in my view, is a strong trait for her, but it is even a better trait if you think about what we would need in a nine-member Supreme Court. Second, she has been a trial judge, a Federal district court judge in the district court for the District of Columbia. And that is really, really important. There is only one other member of the Court now who was a trial judge, and that is Justice Sotomayor. Some of the members of the Court, as far as I know--I can find no evidence--not only were they not trial judges, some of them I am not sure ever tried cases. What does it mean to have a trial judge on the Court? Well, again, think about the docket of the Supreme Court. So much of the docket of the Supreme Court is ruling on questions and controversies, whose ultimate goal is to make the Nation's trials--civil and criminal trials--more fair: admissibility of evidence, sentencing standards, definitions of police misconduct that could either gain or shed sovereignty immunity in a trial going on in a trial court, how to impanel jurors, how to instruct jurors, when to strike a juror if there is evidence that the juror may have a bias or prejudice. These are all cases that come before the Supreme Court all the time. And these kinds of cases, it is particularly important to have a Court that is well- represented by people who have actually been in the courtroom and done it. What trial judges have to do is they have to figure out how to instruct and impanel jurors and deal with the juror who may have a bias question. They have to rule on evidentiary objections in a split second; dispose of discovery disputes; rule on dispositive motions like motions to dismiss or summary judgment motions; in bench trials, actually render judgments, which usually involves credibility determinations among competing witnesses. The judges in the Federal system are those with the power of sentencing, the most difficult power of all. If you have not been a trial lawyer or a trial judge, you might underestimate how difficult and challenging each of those tasks are. But if you have had the experience of being a trial lawyer or trial judge, you understand how important they are. I asked Judge Jackson as I interviewed her, tell me how you think that being a trial judge might help you on the Court. She said, so much of our opinions are essentially instructions to State and Federal trial courts, here is how to conduct a fair trial. I think my experience will enable me to write opinions that are more workable; that are more understandable; that are more practical; that are more likely to lead to a result that is fair to the parties, but also one that will increase the respect for the decision making in courts themselves. When I was Governor of Virginia, I did not have the power to put judges on the bench, except in rare instances. In the Virginia State system, I wouldn't even nominate judges. The legislature would choose the judges, and the Governor had no role, except--except--when the legislature would deadlock. If the house and senate couldn't agree on filling a position, then the Governor got to put in a judge or a justice until the legislature came back next year, and then they would have to vote on whether to ratify what the Governor had done. Three times, when I was Governor, my two Republican houses deadlocked on an appellate judge: one on the court of appeals and two on the Virginia Supreme Court. So I had this opportunity. As somebody who practiced civil rights law for 17 years, as somebody who was married to a juvenile court judge, I had the opportunity to consider and then nominate people to be appellate judges. I decided pretty quickly, as I analyzed who should be appellate judges--and I followed this rule in all three of my opportunities--that I would appoint a great trial judge. In each of the three instances, I appointed a great trial judge because I knew that that great trial judge would be able to sit on an appellate court and render rulings that weren't sort of philosopher, king-or-queen rulings that might sound good in a law review article or in a panel discussion, but they could render rulings that would be instantaneously understood in courtrooms all across the Commonwealth and be able to be implemented by the other trial judges, who were doing their best every day to conduct fair trials. So that is why I think the second factor that Judge Brown Jackson was a district court judge handling trials, multiple trials and motions every day, will put her in such good company as she joins Justice Sotomayor as the only other member with that experience. I will conclude and just say a Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will add depth and perspective to a Court that needs it. As we near the 150th anniversary of Myra Bradwell's quixotic case, the confirmation of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will make the statue of justice and the engraved phrase ``Equal Justice Under Law'' more accurate reflections of our Nation's highest Court. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to talk about one of the Senate's foremost constitutional duties, the advice and consent of executive nominations. The most senior nominees, like Cabinet Secretaries, go through a floor process that normally takes about 4 days, if you run through all the procedural steps by the book. Other nominees, typically people with highly specialized expertise, go through a rigorous committee process and are often confirmed by unanimous consent. Any Senator can object; that is the right of the Senator. If they feel that even one of hundreds of lower-level nominees should take up nearly a full week of the U.S. Senate's time, they can insist upon that. I think Presidents are due an appropriate level of discretion in picking their teams, and I believe this is true whether or not the President is one I support or oppose. I believe in having the executive branch staffed with qualified professionals. I do draw the line at three areas: if a nominee is totally unqualified for the job, if there is a well-justified reason to question a nominee's ethics or honesty or impartiality, and, finally, if a nominee is so outside the mainstream in ways that go beyond normal good-faith disagreement on matters of policy. I opposed a number of President Trump's nominees who met one or multiple of these criteria, but I also supported a larger percentage of President Trump's nominees. Even though these were not people I expected to agree with on policy, they did not fall afoul of the three criteria that I look at in a primary way. I am here today because of several nominees within the jurisdiction of multiple committees I sit on; they are being blockaded, and I would like to focus on one just now. Amy Loyd is nominated to be the Assistant Secretary of Education for Career, Technical, and Adult Education. Ms. Loyd designed and led programs across the United States in her prior role at the education think tank Jobs for the Future and the Native American educational advocacy group the Cook Inlet Tribal Council. She had a distinguished academic career, attending community college first in Santa Fe, prior to a doctorate in education leadership from Harvard Graduate School of Education. She is a lifelong professional in the field of career and technical education, and she brings personal life experience in the field, having begun her career at community college. I believe she is an outstanding point person for President Biden when it comes to matters of career and technical education. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions advanced her nomination by a voice vote, with no recorded opposition. I sit on the HELP Committee. I am the chairman of the bipartisan Senate Career and Technical Education Caucus. I was proud to support her. Although I do not know Ms. Loyd personally, I do have a personal connection to her nomination. My dad ran a welding and ironworking shop. I grew up working in that shop with my two brothers and my mother. I saw the power of career and technical education and the artistry of the ironworkers who worked in my dad's business. When I was in the middle of law school, I took a year off to go be a missionary in Honduras, and I ran a school that taught kids to be carpenters and welders, again seeing the power of career and technical education. And I think that there is a bipartisan understanding in this body and the House--really, in society at large--that we may have undervalued career and technical education in recent generations; and as we are contemplating things like an infrastructure bill or other important priorities to grow the economy, we need to put more stress, not less, on the value of career and technical education. So, as a Senator, I am proud to have made this one of my central policy fields: working on CTE bills with many, many colleagues on both sides of the aisle. There is a hold on Amy Loyd's nomination, and that is the right of those who would hold her. But I am here specifically because I would like to know why. I would ask my colleagues under which of the three buckets does Ms. Loyd's nomination fall short? Is there a perception that she is not qualified? Is there a perception that she is not ethical? Is there a perception that her views on career and technical education are outside the mainstream? You don't have to support President Biden's nominees. If she is confirmed, part of her job will be answering tough questions from colleagues. But I would ask my colleagues, if you are voting against nominees of any President from the other party not because of flaws of the kinds that I have described, what does that get us? The American people put Democrats for a period of time in charge of both the executive and the legislative branches. The American public often vote for divided government. Does that mean that any time the White House and the Senate are controlled by different parties, the parties just won't have anybody in their administration? What does that get our country? I think we know the answer: dysfunction. Clearly, Madam President, as I conclude, there are nominees who engender significant controversy, either because of the peculiar nature of the post to which they have been nominated or because of aspects of their background or character. I know of no such controversy with this nominee, either about the position or about the individual herself. And I think if we are to succeed in the necessary project of elevating the importance of career and technical education, we need to have Ms. Loyd confirmed in her position. For that reason, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination; Calendar No. 669, Amy Loyd, to be Assistant Secretary for Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record.

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I respect my colleague's right to object, obviously. But I would say that while the Senator from Missouri raises very valid concerns, none of those concern this nominee, Christopher Lowman, and none of his concerns are addressed or enhanced by leaving the Pentagon without an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment during a war in Europe where the U.S. military is playing a very important role. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I have eight requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on armed services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on energy and natural resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on foreign relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a business meeting. committee on health, education, labor, and pensions The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on the judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. committee on veterans' affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 3:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing. select committee on intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to do a couple of things. I am awaiting the arrival of the Senator from Missouri. I am going to make a UC motion to bring up a very important nominee in the Secretary of Defense Department, but before I do, I want to comment on a UC that I made 2 hours ago. I stood here in this spot, and I sought unanimous consent to bring forward the nomination of Amy Loyd, who is the nominee to be Assistant Secretary of Education for Career and Technical Education. She passed out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee unanimously. We knew there was a hold on her nomination. We didn't know why. So I sought to bring forward her nomination, and the Senator from Utah, Mr. Lee, appeared, and I asked him why he was objecting to Amy Loyd. The good news was, he answered. He didn't have to, but he gave me an answer, and he said that her work indicated an attachment to critical race theory. That was his response, and he cited an article. I went up to him after, and I asked him what the article was, and he referred me to an article dated August 2020, titled ``Diversifying Apprenticeship: Acknowledging Unconscious Bias to Improve Employee Access.'' That was the reason he and, he said, on behalf of others were opposing Ms. Loyd's nomination for a really important position focusing on career and technical education in the country. I went back to my office, and I got the article. The article is seven pages long, August 2020--it is actually six pages long. It is entirely uncontroversial. Listen to this. There is a block that says ``What Is Unconscious Bias?'' Talk about fair and balanced language: Unconscious biases are social stereotypes about certain groups of people that individuals form outside their conscious awareness. Is that controversial? Is that controversial? There are recommendations for diversifying apprenticeships because, as we know, there are a lot of apprenticeships where there are not many women in apprenticeships. Ms. Loyd is a woman. She wants to diversify apprenticeships. That doesn't seem that unusual. The recommendations for diversifying apprenticeships in this controversial article where the phrase ``critical race theory'' is never mentioned are widen the selection pool; seek out workers across skill levels; develop transparent, detailed, and uniform criteria; get multiple perspectives; complement selection processes with program designs that increase access. This is just basic human resources. There is nothing in this document about critical race theory. When I read it thinking I was going to find some real reason to oppose Ms. Loyd, I found this basic human resources 101--nothing about critical race theory. But then I realized something even more amazing. I looked at the author of the article. This was being held against Ms. Loyd's confirmation. The author of the article is Jessica Toglia, senior program manager of JFF. Unless this is a nom de plume, Amy Loyd had nothing to do with the article that was cited to block her confirmation for this position. So then I looked further. There are acknowledgements on page 7. Ms. Toglia thanks 10 different people who gave her ideas and thoughts that she put into these six pages. Amy Loyd's name isn't among the 10. There are then 28 footnotes and references citing articles and other pieces of scholarship that were written. None of them are by Amy Loyd-- none. So in response to my request as the son of a welder that we ought to have somebody at the Department of Education who values career and technical education, this well-qualified individual, who got out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee by unanimous vote, is now being sort of tarred with the ``critical race theory'' label based upon an article that she had nothing to do with--nothing to do with. I knew if I came back and stated this, like, well, who would listen, and who would care? You can assert a reason. But the reason for opposition to her nomination has nothing to do with her.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused extraordinary challenges for our Nation's public health system and put a spotlight on longstanding gaps in public health preparedness. Our Nation's public health system needs accurate, timely, and high-quality data to protect the public from emerging health threats and to respond to existing public health emergencies. For far too long, gaps in data infrastructure have prevented policymakers and public health officials from quickly translating public health data into their decisionmaking. Outdated and inconsistent public health data systems have made it hard for Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments to get a full picture of the COVID-19 crisis. In turn, these data gaps have made it difficult for public health departments to tailor their responses. Specifically, inconsistent definitions of data, ambiguous reporting requirements, and data accessibility issues have hindered the U.S. response to the COVID- 19 pandemic and prevented the timely communication of public health data. We know that effective pandemic prevention and response requires coordinated efforts between public health officials across all levels of government. Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues, Senators Baldwin, Smith, and Murphy, the Improving Data Accessibility Through Advancements in Public Health Act, or the Improving DATA in Public Health Act, to use the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure that our Nation's public health system has the data capabilities to address and prevent future pandemics. The Improving DATA in Public Health Act amends public health data systems' modernization provisions in current law by establishing a timeline for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to disseminate data standards to improve the exchange of electronic public health data. The bill also directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to expand the access, exchange, and use of public health data by improving data sharing between Federal Agencies and State and local public health systems when preparing for, identifying, monitoring, and responding to public health emergencies. The Improving DATA in Public Health Act also expands upon existing data modernization efforts by commissioning a study on improving electronic data standards and reporting between laboratories and public health data systems. Finally, the legislation calls for the development of best practices to improve the quality and completeness of demographic data to support equitable public health responses. The Improving DATA in Public Health Act will strengthen our public health data systems and take commonsense steps to improve our ability to prevent and respond to future pandemics.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused extraordinary challenges for our Nation's public health system and put a spotlight on longstanding gaps in public health preparedness. Our Nation's public health system needs accurate, timely, and high-quality data to protect the public from emerging health threats and to respond to existing public health emergencies. For far too long, gaps in data infrastructure have prevented policymakers and public health officials from quickly translating public health data into their decisionmaking. Outdated and inconsistent public health data systems have made it hard for Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments to get a full picture of the COVID-19 crisis. In turn, these data gaps have made it difficult for public health departments to tailor their responses. Specifically, inconsistent definitions of data, ambiguous reporting requirements, and data accessibility issues have hindered the U.S. response to the COVID- 19 pandemic and prevented the timely communication of public health data. We know that effective pandemic prevention and response requires coordinated efforts between public health officials across all levels of government. Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues, Senators Baldwin, Smith, and Murphy, the Improving Data Accessibility Through Advancements in Public Health Act, or the Improving DATA in Public Health Act, to use the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure that our Nation's public health system has the data capabilities to address and prevent future pandemics. The Improving DATA in Public Health Act amends public health data systems' modernization provisions in current law by establishing a timeline for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to disseminate data standards to improve the exchange of electronic public health data. The bill also directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to expand the access, exchange, and use of public health data by improving data sharing between Federal Agencies and State and local public health systems when preparing for, identifying, monitoring, and responding to public health emergencies. The Improving DATA in Public Health Act also expands upon existing data modernization efforts by commissioning a study on improving electronic data standards and reporting between laboratories and public health data systems. Finally, the legislation calls for the development of best practices to improve the quality and completeness of demographic data to support equitable public health responses. The Improving DATA in Public Health Act will strengthen our public health data systems and take commonsense steps to improve our ability to prevent and respond to future pandemics.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Military Spouse Hiring Act with my colleagues Senators Boozman, Hassan, and Rounds. Enacting this bill would improve financial stability for Blue Star families across the country. The families of America's servicemembers make sacrifices that often go unrecognized. Among them is packing up and moving frequently, with military spouses regularly having to leave stable employment to move to a new area and start over. This is compounded by the complex system of State licensing and certification requirements, which can prevent these spouses from taking jobs that utilize their expertise and experience. Because of this, military spouses have unemployment rates substantially higher than the national average, and they are often underemployed when they do have jobs. Adding to the financial struggles caused by frequent periods of unemployment and underemployment, the rising cost of child care puts a substantial burden on many military families. The Military Spouse Hiring Act would help these families by making military spouses an eligible population for the work opportunity tax credit. This tax credit has proven effective in improving employment prospects for other groups. Extending it to military spouses would help them find employment more easily after moving to new areas. I hope my colleagues will support this bill to help families who have made the greatest sacrifice for our nation.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Military Spouse Hiring Act with my colleagues Senators Boozman, Hassan, and Rounds. Enacting this bill would improve financial stability for Blue Star families across the country. The families of America's servicemembers make sacrifices that often go unrecognized. Among them is packing up and moving frequently, with military spouses regularly having to leave stable employment to move to a new area and start over. This is compounded by the complex system of State licensing and certification requirements, which can prevent these spouses from taking jobs that utilize their expertise and experience. Because of this, military spouses have unemployment rates substantially higher than the national average, and they are often underemployed when they do have jobs. Adding to the financial struggles caused by frequent periods of unemployment and underemployment, the rising cost of child care puts a substantial burden on many military families. The Military Spouse Hiring Act would help these families by making military spouses an eligible population for the work opportunity tax credit. This tax credit has proven effective in improving employment prospects for other groups. Extending it to military spouses would help them find employment more easily after moving to new areas. I hope my colleagues will support this bill to help families who have made the greatest sacrifice for our nation.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that is the product of 18 years of collaborative work from a diverse group of stakeholders in Virginia, including local recreation groups, conservationists, timber industry representatives, and sportsmen. The Shenandoah Mountain Act of 2022 would designate more than 92,000 acres of the George Washington National Forest in Virginia as the Shenandoah Mountain National Scenic Area, SMNSA. Congress designates national scenic areas to protect the natural and scenic value of lands that are also compatible with recreational uses such as hiking, fishing, hunting, camping, mountain biking, among others. The SMNSA encompasses four wilderness areas: Skidmore Fork, Little River, Ramsey's Draft, and Lynn Hollow, which in total include 10 peaks above 4,000 feet and 150 miles of trails to attract campers, hikers, mountain bikers, fishermen, birders, and equestrians. The legislation also establishes a 5,764 acre wilderness area at Beech Lick Knob, located 10 miles to the north. The SMNSA will protect important water resources, as it contains headwaters for the Potomac and James Rivers and watersheds that provide drinking water sources for Harrisonburg, Staunton, and communities farther downstream, such as Washington, DC, and Richmond. It is also a hotspot for biodiversity. Cold mountain streams in the area are also a stronghold for native brook trout. Today's legislation would permanently protect those rivers and streams from industrial development, and it would also help safeguard plant and wildlife habitat for black bears, wild turkeys, more than 250 species of birds, and at-risk species like the Cow Knob and Shenandoah Mountain salamanders. The Shenandoah Mountain National Scenic Area will provide a boost to the region's growing tourism industry. In 2019, the tourism economy directly employed 5,365 people and generated $601 million in Augusta, Rockingham, and Highland Counties, as well as Harrisonburg and Staunton. Designation of the SMNSA would further grow this value. These challenging past 2 years have underscored that getting out into nature is critical to our health and well-being. I am proud that the Shenandoah Mountain Act will expand these opportunities within the George Washington National Forest for visitors near and far, while also boosting our local economies, protecting drinking water sources, and preserving the wildlife that makes this area so special. The local governments of Staunton, Augusta, Rockingham, and Harrisonburg, along with over 400 businesses and organizations, have endorsed the new designation for the vast benefits it will have on the surrounding communities. I thank my colleague Senator Mark Warner for joining me in introducing this legislation. I also commend our local stakeholders for working on this proposal for so many years.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that is the product of 18 years of collaborative work from a diverse group of stakeholders in Virginia, including local recreation groups, conservationists, timber industry representatives, and sportsmen. The Shenandoah Mountain Act of 2022 would designate more than 92,000 acres of the George Washington National Forest in Virginia as the Shenandoah Mountain National Scenic Area, SMNSA. Congress designates national scenic areas to protect the natural and scenic value of lands that are also compatible with recreational uses such as hiking, fishing, hunting, camping, mountain biking, among others. The SMNSA encompasses four wilderness areas: Skidmore Fork, Little River, Ramsey's Draft, and Lynn Hollow, which in total include 10 peaks above 4,000 feet and 150 miles of trails to attract campers, hikers, mountain bikers, fishermen, birders, and equestrians. The legislation also establishes a 5,764 acre wilderness area at Beech Lick Knob, located 10 miles to the north. The SMNSA will protect important water resources, as it contains headwaters for the Potomac and James Rivers and watersheds that provide drinking water sources for Harrisonburg, Staunton, and communities farther downstream, such as Washington, DC, and Richmond. It is also a hotspot for biodiversity. Cold mountain streams in the area are also a stronghold for native brook trout. Today's legislation would permanently protect those rivers and streams from industrial development, and it would also help safeguard plant and wildlife habitat for black bears, wild turkeys, more than 250 species of birds, and at-risk species like the Cow Knob and Shenandoah Mountain salamanders. The Shenandoah Mountain National Scenic Area will provide a boost to the region's growing tourism industry. In 2019, the tourism economy directly employed 5,365 people and generated $601 million in Augusta, Rockingham, and Highland Counties, as well as Harrisonburg and Staunton. Designation of the SMNSA would further grow this value. These challenging past 2 years have underscored that getting out into nature is critical to our health and well-being. I am proud that the Shenandoah Mountain Act will expand these opportunities within the George Washington National Forest for visitors near and far, while also boosting our local economies, protecting drinking water sources, and preserving the wildlife that makes this area so special. The local governments of Staunton, Augusta, Rockingham, and Harrisonburg, along with over 400 businesses and organizations, have endorsed the new designation for the vast benefits it will have on the surrounding communities. I thank my colleague Senator Mark Warner for joining me in introducing this legislation. I also commend our local stakeholders for working on this proposal for so many years.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 2:15 p.m.

Mr. KAINE

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

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellows Nathan Lee, Laura Mosqueda, Sean Philbin, and Montreal Tennessee be granted floor privileges for the duration of their fellowships in my office.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise today to speak about a really important victory in Virginia yesterday--a victory for the Monacan Indian Nation, and it is a victory that I have had a hand in over the course of many years. I want to describe it and celebrate it. When the English came to Virginia first in 1607, there were thriving Virginia Native populations. The populations east--in eastern Virginia, east of Richmond--were part of a larger confederacy called the Powhatan Confederacy, and they spoke an Algonquian-based language. There were Tribes in the southern part of Virginia that spoke an Iroquois-based language, and Tribes in the western part of Virginia spoke a Sioux- based language. One of these Tribes was the Monacan Tribe. John Smith, in 1607, 1608, and 1609, traveled all around the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries and did some very detailed mapmaking of the area, including a town that he called the chief Monacan town named Rassawek. Rassawek is on a point of land in what is now Fluvanna County, VA, where the Rivanna River and the James River combine. Rassawek was the headquarters, or the chief administrative town, of the Monacan Tribal Nation. The story of the Virginia Tribes is one of triumph, but also one of tragedy. Many of the Tribes made peace treaties with the English in the 1670s. All of these Tribes were discriminated against, and some were driven far from their homes. The Monacan Tribe was driven by the English settlers from Rassawek, further west into Amherst County, and then many of them were driven even further west into the middle west end and other places. But Rassawek maintained its sacred status to the Monacan Nation for many reasons, including the fact that so many of Monacan families were buried there and their remains are still there. An aspect of the tragedy of the Virginia Tribes is that: When I was elected to be a Senator in 2012, none of the Virginia Tribes had ever been recognized, even though many still live intact in communities in Virginia. There were over 500 Tribes that had been federally recognized. The Virginia Tribes are part of exhibits at the Smithsonian Museum at the foot of Capitol Hill; and yet they had never been recognized. And they had never been recognized for three reasons. One, they made peace treaties with the English rather than with the United States. Often, recognition begins with the treaty entered into with the United States. Second, often, recognition is determined by extensive submission of land records and other records. Many Virginia courthouses were burned during the Civil War, and so records establishing Tribal lands, for example, were destroyed. But, finally, and most cruelly, Virginia had an official named Walter Plecker who served as the State's director of the Department of Vital Statistics from 1920 until the 1960s. And he was a eugenicist. He believed there was no such thing as Indians, that they were all color. And, systemically, he determined to take every record he could find of Tribal communities in Virginia and change the racial designation of those records--birth certificates, marriage licenses, death notices--of Indian members to ``color,'' even to the point of disinterring Indians who had been buried in cemeteries that were primarily cemeteries for Caucasians. This made it, again, very difficult for these Tribes. They refer to this as the ``paper genocide'' for them to assert their claim for Tribal recognition. I started working with the Monacan and six other Tribes when I was mayor of Richmond on this issue because I became friends with a guy named Steve Adkins, who is the chief of one of these Tribes, the Chickahominy Tribe. We worked over the course of many, many years--these Tribes coming to Congress and asking for Federal recognition. And when I came into office in January of 2013, this was very, very high on my to-do list, to finally right this historic wrong and correct an injustice and allow these Virginia Tribes--whose stories are so well known and still live in these communities--to finally be recognized. Now, we have gotten seven Tribes recognized--one through the Bureau of Indian Affairs process, the Pamunkey Tribe, and six through an act of Congress. I thank the Presiding Officer because all of my colleagues joined together at the end of 2018 and, in a unanimous vote, finally did justice by the Virginia Tribes, including the Monacan Tribe. Now onto Rassawek. The Monacans were driven further west and now have their, sort of, Tribal headquarters in a place called Bear Mountain in Amherst County. The chief of the Tribe is a man named Ken Branham. Ken is a good friend. In 2014, a local authority, the James River Water Authority in Fluvanna County, decided that strategic location at the merger of two rivers would be a perfect place to build big water treatment intake and treatment facility. It is a growing community. There are more water needs in the community. The facility was needed, but the site they chose for the construction of the facility was Rassawek. The authority proceeded forward to purchase the land and then undertake engineering studies to build this water treatment facility. At the time, 2014, the Monacans had not yet been federally recognized. They could complain, and they could argue, but they didn't have the clout that Federal recognition would eventually give them. Yet many people rallied to the Monacans' cause and said, ``Look, we preserve other sites all the time.'' Virginia is first in the Nation in preserving, for example, Civil War battlefield sites, and we preserved the ancestral home of the Powhatan of Werowocomoco on the York River, which is soon to be a national park. Should we allow Rassawek to be essentially destroyed and the remains of Monacans buried there for generations to be disturbed? Armed with Federal recognition, the Monacans attracted even more support. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, in 2020, named Rassawek as one of the most 11 endangered sites in the country. A huge grassroots effort developed because of the hard work of the Tribe that assembled thousands and thousands of supporting individuals--some very nearby Rassawek, but some very far away--to advocate that there has to be a better solution for this water treatment need in Fluvanna County than to disturb and destroy Rassawek. Yesterday, the James River Water Authority, in a unanimous vote, decided to set aside their plan to do the water intake facility in Rassawek and to donate the land that they have purchased for that facility to the Monacan Tribe. The Monacan Nation, in gratitude, pledges to work together with the James River Water Authority to find a more acceptable site. A number of alternatives have already been identified. This summer, I was canoeing on the James River. I canoed the entire James River from where it starts, the Allegheny Mountains, to Fort Monroe in Chesapeake Bay--350 miles. It took me 26 days that I spread over the spring, summer, and fall. One day in August, I was canoeing from a town called New Kent to Columbia, passing Rassawek, which was on river left as I went downstream. So I reached out to Chief Branham, knowing that the fight about the future of Rassawek was underway. I said: Could you and Tribal leaders meet me? I will pull my canoe onshore when I pass by. Meet me and talk to me about the status of this fight and why it is so important to the Monacan Nation to win. So coming down the river with a friend, my former State director who used to work on this Tribal recognition issue, John Knapp--I want to thank him, as well as other staffers, Evan and Nick and Tyee and Mary and other staffers in my office, who worked on this. John and I pulled our canoe over on the shore in this beautiful spot in rural Virginia where the two rivers come together. We beached the canoe on a sand point, climbed a bluff, and met Chief Branham and other members of Monacan leadership to see the beauty of the site and to share a meal but also to talk to them about the importance of Rassawek and why they really, really needed to win this battle. They don't have a plan to develop Rassawek. They are not going to build anything there. They just want it to be preserved in its natural beauty out of respect for Monacan people who have lived there for nearly 5,000 years. Yesterday, this unanimous vote by the local water authority--a vote of respect, a vote of acknowledgment--recognized that this is a sacred site. We in Virginia, we love our history. We love our history, and we don't want to lose it. The history of the Monacan Nation, the history of all of our Tribes is worthy of battling. You don't win every battle. The Monacan Nation won a really important one yesterday, and it might not have happened. Ninety-nine of my colleagues joined with me to make sure that the Monacan Nation and the other Virginia Tribes were finally, after hundreds of years, given Federal recognition. I just wanted to express my congratulations to the Monacan Nation and my appreciation to my colleagues for helping me do something good. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 37, which we are now considering and which we will vote on at 5:30. This is a resolution that would use the CRA process to undo the CDC guidance requiring use of masks on transportation: planes, buses, trains, and some transportation hubs. I think this is an issue that should be discussed, and, possibly, to use a medical metaphor, a scalpel should be used to make it just right. Unfortunately, the CRA process is a meat cleaver, and this is not the kind of thing we should be using a meat cleaver against. If S.J. Res. 37 passes, it could lead us to be extremely vulnerable if there were a resurge in coronavirus cases, as we are seeing in other nations like Germany. Let me explain. The CDC imposed a mandate to wear masks on transportation in February of 2021--again, planes, buses, trains, and train and bus stations, as well as airports. We all know that the CDC has recently examined the caseload of COVID- 19 in the country and dropped their mask recommendations for most of the Nation. About 98 percent of the American population now live in communities where there is no mask recommendation, thank goodness--not even indoors. That is great. But in some parts of the country, some parts of my Commonwealth, infection rates are still so high that the mask recommendation for wearing indoors is still one that the CDC strongly recommends. The CDC mandate, with respect to masks on transportation, was set to expire on March 18, Friday. On Friday, March 18, it was set to expire. After the CDC dropped the recommendation about wearing masks indoors, the CDC decided to extend the mask requirement on transportation for 1 month, from March 18 to April 18. Why did they do that when they were dropping the mask recommendation indoors for much of the country? Well, the reason was pretty obvious, and they explained it. Here is the problem with transportation: You might board a bus, plane, or train in an area with low infection but pass through areas of high infection and end up in an area of high infection. So transportation is a little bit different than what should the rules be in an indoor venue in my hometown of Richmond or in communities in Connecticut, where the Presiding Officer lives. So what the CDC said is, we are going to take an additional month, and we are going to analyze the science around closed spaces-- transportation venues--and we are going to look at this issue of traveling from one community to another, and then we will come up with a best recommendation and best guidance with respect to mask mandates in transportation. That sounds very reasonable to me, very reasonable to extend the mask requirement by 1 month. I would argue to my colleague Senator Paul--this is his resolution-- we should be weighing in with the CDC and giving them best guidance-- and, obviously, they are considering what science is recommending; they are in dialogue with the transportation industry that has strong feelings about that--and then seeing what guidance the CDC comes up with in April before the April 18 deadline, to which they have extended. That would be reasonable, but what this resolution does is not reasonable. It not only wipes out the mask requirement; it wipes it out forever. It states that the CDC no longer will have the authority to impose a mask requirement in transportation unless or until this body passes new legislation allowing them to do so. That legislation in the Senate would require 60 votes. I would venture to argue that there is no way, in the politicization of COVID, that a piece of legislation giving the CDC the power to do mask mandates in transportation would get 60 votes in this Chamber. So if S.J. Res. 37 passes, we will have taken away from our premier health authorization the ability to impose a mask mandate if it is necessary. Now, I pray that it is not necessary. I am happy to see the reduction in COVID caseloads in Virginia and across much of the Nation. But there are parts of Virginia where the caseloads are still high and where masks are still recommended. And there are parts of every one of our States or Commonwealths where the infection rates are still high, and masks are still recommended. So it is fine to wish that COVID is going away. I mean, Lord, do we all wish that it is going away, but we know that in some parts of the country it isn't. And we also know, if we are looking at the data internationally, that China is experiencing a significant upsurge; Germany is experiencing a significant upsurge. So what if--what if--we face a new COVID variant that starts to wreak havoc on us, just as Delta did when we thought we were in a decline, just like Omicron did when we thought we were in a decline? What if there is a new variant that comes and starts to wreak havoc more broadly across the country? Wouldn't we want the CDC to have the power immediately, upon an upsurge of COVID nationally, to impose a mask requirement on transportation? If S.J. Res. 37 passes, they will not have the ability to do that. And what might be the consequences of that? The consequences could be very severe in terms of people's health. We know that. We have experienced now close to a million deaths to COVID. But it also could have severe economic consequences. Our transportation infrastructure--public transit and buses and trains and planes--is a critical backbone of the American economy, which is now starting to grow and add jobs, thank goodness. But if COVID hits again, and CDC does not have power to impose a mask mandate, many people who use transportation to get to work or to travel to places where they can do their work will no longer feel confident in their ability to do so. Many employees who work in the transportation sector will worry about being exposed to rising COVID case levels and may choose not to work. So the consequences of another COVID surge in this country are not only health consequences, but they are critical potential consequences to our economy at a time, after 2 years, when, finally, we are seeing some significant GDP growth and job growth and wage and salary growth. So I would urge my colleagues, don't use a meat cleaver, when this mask mandate is set to expire on April 18. It is barely more than a month away. Don't use the meat cleaver to bar the CDC from taking necessary public health action should there be a resurgence in COVID. Instead, let's work with the CDC and see what guidance they come up with for this April 18 deadline. That would be much better for our public health and much better for our economy. So for those reasons, I would urge my colleagues strongly to stand with smart economic policy and wise public health policy and not eliminate the ability of the Nation's premier public health Agency from imposing a transportation mask requirement should public health demand it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, some studies have shown that upwards of 50 percent of people who have had COVID-19 will experience some form of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 infection PASC, 6 months after infection, including neurological, cardiovascular, respiratory, and mental health symptoms. To date, there have been over 78 million cases of COVID-19 in the United State and an untold number who were infected but did not have access to testing to confirm their diagnosis. PASC, commonly known as long COVID, is a growing public health crisis in this country. I myself have experienced these symptoms and know firsthand the importance of increasing our understanding of the causes and possible treatments for long COVID. Given the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on communities of color, persons with disabilities, seniors, and first responders, we must ensure that there is equity in our work to address the needs of individuals with long COVID. That is why Senators Markey, Duckworth, and I are introducing the Comprehensive Access to Resources and Education for Long COVID Act, or the CARE for Long COVID Act, legislation that would expand our knowledge of the symptoms of long COVID, barriers to care, and disparities in diagnosis and treatment. This bill would synthesize data on patients' experience with long COVID, compiling information crucial for further research and improved policy and treatment. Additionally, this bill would encourage research and recommendations around the health system's response to long COVID, with an emphasis on reducing disparities in communities that have experienced disproportionate harm during the pandemic. To ensure actionable research, this bill would require dissemination of findings to healthcare providers, patients, Federal Agencies, and other key stakeholders in a manner that is accessible. This bill would also ensure that adults and children with long COVID have the resources they need to navigate workplaces and schools, building on efforts by the Biden administration to recognize long COVID as a disability. Specifically, this bill would facilitate interagency coordination to educate the public on the impact of long COVID and the rights associated with employment, disability status, and education for individuals with long COVID. To ensure that individuals with long COVID can access existing resources, this bill would fund grants for medical- legal partnerships and other collaborations between healthcare providers, community-based organizations, and legal services. Recipients would be able to use grant funds to support cooperative efforts, provide technical assistance, or hire staff in order to help individuals with long COVID access healthcare, social services, or legal services. Robust response to the long COVID crisis will continue our efforts to address the equity and well-being of historically marginalized communities. We cannot afford to let the needs of individuals with long COVID go unmet any longer. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the CARE for Long COVID Act so that we can take necessary steps towards meeting the needs of diverse communities with long COVID.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, some studies have shown that upwards of 50 percent of people who have had COVID-19 will experience some form of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 infection PASC, 6 months after infection, including neurological, cardiovascular, respiratory, and mental health symptoms. To date, there have been over 78 million cases of COVID-19 in the United State and an untold number who were infected but did not have access to testing to confirm their diagnosis. PASC, commonly known as long COVID, is a growing public health crisis in this country. I myself have experienced these symptoms and know firsthand the importance of increasing our understanding of the causes and possible treatments for long COVID. Given the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on communities of color, persons with disabilities, seniors, and first responders, we must ensure that there is equity in our work to address the needs of individuals with long COVID. That is why Senators Markey, Duckworth, and I are introducing the Comprehensive Access to Resources and Education for Long COVID Act, or the CARE for Long COVID Act, legislation that would expand our knowledge of the symptoms of long COVID, barriers to care, and disparities in diagnosis and treatment. This bill would synthesize data on patients' experience with long COVID, compiling information crucial for further research and improved policy and treatment. Additionally, this bill would encourage research and recommendations around the health system's response to long COVID, with an emphasis on reducing disparities in communities that have experienced disproportionate harm during the pandemic. To ensure actionable research, this bill would require dissemination of findings to healthcare providers, patients, Federal Agencies, and other key stakeholders in a manner that is accessible. This bill would also ensure that adults and children with long COVID have the resources they need to navigate workplaces and schools, building on efforts by the Biden administration to recognize long COVID as a disability. Specifically, this bill would facilitate interagency coordination to educate the public on the impact of long COVID and the rights associated with employment, disability status, and education for individuals with long COVID. To ensure that individuals with long COVID can access existing resources, this bill would fund grants for medical- legal partnerships and other collaborations between healthcare providers, community-based organizations, and legal services. Recipients would be able to use grant funds to support cooperative efforts, provide technical assistance, or hire staff in order to help individuals with long COVID access healthcare, social services, or legal services. Robust response to the long COVID crisis will continue our efforts to address the equity and well-being of historically marginalized communities. We cannot afford to let the needs of individuals with long COVID go unmet any longer. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the CARE for Long COVID Act so that we can take necessary steps towards meeting the needs of diverse communities with long COVID.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I have 6 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I was not intending to speak. As the Presiding Officer knows, I was presiding, and she was kind to spell me. Yet, as I was hearing colleagues talk on the floor about the state of our country, what I was hearing from my Republican colleagues were words like ``malaise,'' ``funk,'' ``disaster,'' and I was seeing visuals of a house on fire. So I was compelled to stand and just offer a few extemporaneous remarks. I don't think America is a disaster. I don't think America is on fire. I don't think America is in a deep, unyielding malaise. I have heard colleagues talk about the situation in the world and use the ``appeasement'' word. I have heard language, both in committee hearings this morning and here on the floor, that I would characterize as a kind of a ``blame America first'' attitude. If something is going on--if a dictator like Vladimir Putin acts in a horrific way--it has got to be America's fault. It has got to be Joe Biden's fault. I don't think our instinct should be to blame America first when dictators in the world undertake despicable actions. What I have noticed in these comments today in trashing our President and in trashing the country--sort of a cherry-picking of evidence--is that my colleagues have brought up some things that are really very legitimate concerns. Inflation is a very, very legitimate concern that has to be addressed. Yet I have listened to these speeches, and not one has talked about record job growth. Not one has talked about strong GDP growth. Not one has talked about dramatic increases in the wages and salaries of low- and moderate-income people. Is that because my colleagues are unaware of those things? No. They know these things. They are just choosing not to discuss them because what they want to do is to paint a picture of an American malaise, an American funk, an American disaster. That is not what this country is. Yet my colleagues are very willing to paint a false picture by omitting key evidence. I listened to the speeches this morning, and not one mentioned that COVID deaths and hospitalizations are coming down dramatically and that the CDC now has said, in most of my Commonwealth and in most of the country, you needn't wear masks indoors. I would think they might have mentioned that because part of the reason for this recent progress is the vaccinations; it is the vaccines that were developed in the previous administration. They could have taken a little credit for it, but, no, they didn't mention it at all. COVID is coming down. There is strong economic growth, strong job growth, strong wage and salary growth. Around the world, a NATO that the previous President trashed when he was cozying up to the dictator Vladimir Putin is demonstrating to the entire world that, when it is resolved to unify, the power of American- led alliances is a huge force for good in this world. So I am just trying to grapple with the one-sided presentation of American disaster, American malaise, American funk. Here is the way I understand it. The last 2 years have been brutal. The death toll due to COVID is now nearly 950,000. It will eclipse a million. I am 64 years old as of a couple of days ago. It has been the hardest 2 years in my life and for our country with the death, the illness, the economic devastation, the job loss. It has been brutal here, and it has been brutal all around the world, and it is not completely in the rearview mirror yet. I suspect what you are going to hear President Biden say tonight-- this is my intuition; I don't have knowledge. He is going to acknowledge the incredible pain we have been living under in this country and around the world for the last 2 years--nearly unprecedented in a century. He is going to point out that there are still significant challenges and that there is still too high a percentage of Americans who haven't taken advantage of these vaccines. Yes, inflation is a problem, and there are problems that we have to deal with, but when you look at strong job growth and strong wage growth and strong GDP growth and when you look at declining case numbers, I will tell you what I see. I see the beginnings of something that we often see in American life--an American comeback. We are comeback people. We are comeback people. A friend of mine once said: Tough times don't last. Tough people do. We are tough, tough people. As I travel around Virginia--and I was traveling around Virginia last week--I don't fundamentally see funk or malaise or ``poor, poor, pitiful me'' or blaming America for the woes of the world or blaming Joe Biden for the reality of a tough situation we have been living through. I see people with their chins up and their heads held high, who will acknowledge that we have challenges and that we have got problems to solve but who believe that we are on our way to a better chapter after a very difficult last couple of years. That is the can-do spirit I see around Virginia. That is the can-do spirit, I believe, that has always characterized Americans, not a ``we are on fire''; ``it is a malaise time''; ``it is a funk time.'' No. I see a can-do spirit and the beginnings of an American comeback underway after what has been the most painful 2 years during my 64 here on the planet. I don't know, if I am right, whether that is good news or bad news for my colleagues who are here on the floor, painting the negative picture. I would think it would be good news. But if it were good news, why wouldn't I have heard some acknowledgment of job growth or wage growth or GDP growth? Why wouldn't I have heard acknowledgment about COVID cases coming down? We do need to work together. The Presiding Officer inspired all of us with her work on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which, as I was traveling around Virginia last week--and I am sure most of us were doing this in our States--my mayors and my State officials and my local economic development officials were talking with excitement about what this will mean in terms of the rebuilding of American communities where we haven't invested in infrastructure for a very long time. I don't think this is a moment when the leadership class of this country should be amplifying pessimism about this country. I think it is a moment when the leadership class of this country should be amplifying an optimistic, can-do message that I think is in accord with the values of Virginians and the values of Americans. I suspect that that kind of a message--the acknowledgment of the difficult reality but the foundation being laid for the beginnings of an American comeback after 2 tough years--is the message that we are going to hear from President Biden tonight. With that, I yield the floor.