Tim Kaine

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add my colleague, Senator Brown from Ohio, as a cosponsor to S.J. Res. 68.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask permission to speak for up to the full 10 minutes.

Mr. KAINE. I rise to discuss the next steps the Senate should take in dealing with the COVID-19 global pandemic. I applaud the bipartisan result Congress has shown in passing four important pieces of legislation to provide trillions of dollars of aid to Americans in the midst of this catastrophe. My heart goes out to people who are suffering. When we were last here voting sort of near midnight on March 25 or early in the morning on March 26, 675 Americans had then died of coronavirus. Now, more than 72,000 have. In the few weeks we have been away, the number of deaths has increased by more than 70,000. Millions have been diagnosed. Those numbers are rising every day. The crisis has been the most severe economic shock our Nation has experienced in decades, even more severe than the economic collapse of 2008-2009. Madam President, just a personal privilege. I know four people who have died of coronavirus. Jeanette Galliano, my brother Steve's mother-in-law, died in a senior facility in New Orleans in the last few weeks. Lois Shaver. Lois is the mother of one of our closest friends, the godmother of our middle son. Lois died in a nursing home in Fairfax County in Northern Virginia in the last few weeks. Gerald Glenn was a minister, a bishop, and pillar of the Richmond faith community. He was somebody I appointed to boards when I was Governor. Senator Warner did the same. Bishop Glenn passed away of coronavirus right after Easter. Dolson Anderson was a longtime friend. His wife Linda was one of my agency heads when I was Governor. As Dolson was providing care for Linda after knee surgery, he contracted coronavirus, and after 16 days on a ventilator, he died. There are two other names. My next door neighbor, Dean DeForest. My wife Anne and I have lived next to Dean and Mary Ruth for 28 years. Dean died after 2 weeks, after a long battle with lung cancer, not coronavirus. But what coronavirus meant for Dean and so many like him was he couldn't have family with him in the normal way. He couldn't have a funeral or a memorial service or family gathered to grieve in the normal way because of people's worry about infection. Then there is Lorna Breen. Lorna was a Charlottesville native who was working as an emergency room physician in New York Presbyterian and was so stressed out by what she saw. She developed coronavirus. She went back to the hospital to work as soon as she could, and it was too much for her. She went home to be with her family in Charlottesville, and about 10 days ago, she died by suicide after facing the tremendous burden of being a first responder. I want to mention all of them. All of us--everyone in this Chamber, everyone who works here--have direct personal connections. The suffering is massive, and it is likely to continue. Because it is, Congress should do more. The American public expects us to, and we shouldn't let them down. What should be our next priorities? One way to look at the legislation we already passed is that Congress has provided aid to five basic pillars: aid to individuals and families; grants to small businesses and nonprofit organizations; loans to medium and large size businesses; aid to local and State governments; and aid to hospitals, healthcare providers, and the healthcare system. The three bills we passed in March made major investments in each of these five pillars. By April, we realized that the depth of the crisis was so great, we needed to do more. While we realized that our action was going to be partial rather than comprehensive, we did step up to do more to provide support for two of those five pillars--small businesses, hospitals and healthcare providers. After providing $350 billion in forgivable loans for small businesses under the CARES Act, we added another $370 billion in April for small businesses through additional loans, through the PPP program, SBA's EIDL grant-loan program, and a new set-aside directing resources to small businesses through smaller financial institutions. And, recognizing that this is fundamentally a public health emergency, we also added $100 billion in new health funds--$75 billion for healthcare providers and $25 billion to enable the United States to finally support development of a competent and comprehensive testing program. We did not hesitate to act in providing more resources to two key pillars--small businesses and our health system--and that tells me what our next step should be. We should show the same willingness to direct more resources to individuals and families, as well as State and local governments. Individuals and families are hurting. Thirty million Americans have filed for unemployment. People have lost jobs. Some have businesses that may never reopen, and they have seen other unplanned expenses for healthcare or childcare, as local schools have closed. Rent and mortgage payments, car payments, utility bills, food and medicine-- these expenses continue, and the pressure on working Americans is intense. When we passed the CARES Act in March, I was struck by the fact that the PPP program for small businesses was $350 billion, but the total direct payments for families was only $295 billion--about 85 percent of the business grant program. Given that we just added another $370 billion in aid for small businesses, I think we should add an equal amount for individuals and families. Whether this is a second round of direct payments or a combination of direct payments and other supports--childcare, rent and mortgage assistance--we should show the public that we value the needs of families and individuals as much as we value small businesses. And the second thing we should do is to provide more assistance and flexibility to State and local governments. The CARES Act provided $150 billion in block grant funding to States and localities, but this $150 billion was limited for use to only deal with unanticipated costs connected with COVID-19. Here is an odd thing. The funds for businesses were specifically designed to help them deal with revenue losses so that they could remain in operation and avoid layoffs. The hospital and healthcare provider funding was designed to help deal with revenue losses experienced as we postponed elective surgeries and clinical visits. The funds were designed to avoid layoffs. The aid to individuals was designed to help families cope with lost wages and lost salary. But the CARES bill would not allow State or local governments to use funds to backstop lost revenue, and that is having serious consequences. I was a mayor and a Governor. I know that 46 States have a fiscal year that starts on July 1, and that means that most States and local governments are working on their budgets right now. They have to project income and expenses for the next year and write their budgets accordingly. So what are State and local governments seeing? Massive declines in tax revenue. Sales taxes are declining. Meals taxes, lodging taxes, income taxes--all are declining. Jurisdictions are trying to figure out the extent of the likely decline, and though it is hard to know with certainty, the revenue drops are sizeable. In Virginia, the town of Abingdon is predicting a revenue loss of about 15 percent; Fredericksburg, more than 10 percent; Blacksburg, nearly 18 percent. The list goes on and on. The Commonwealth of Virginia is predicting revenue losses of $2 to $3 billion over the next 2 fiscal years. If cities, towns, counties, and States lose revenue, what are their options? Since most government costs are personnel, here is what they will be forced to cut--teachers, police officers, firefighters, EMTs. That is already happening in Virginia and all over the country. Staunton is proposing furlough days for all city employees, including first responders. Prince William County has removed 31 police, fire, and sheriff positions from their budget. Abingdon is laying off 13 full-time and 64 part-time employees. Every State, city, county, and town in this country is making the same decisions right now, and it shouldn't be this way. We provided funds to businesses to backstop revenue losses so they could avoid layoffs. We provided funds to hospitals to backstop revenue losses so they could avoid layoffs. We need to allow our State and local governments to backstop revenue losses so they can avoid layoffs. It is never a good time to lay off teachers, firefighters, police, sheriffs, EMTs--never. But I can tell you that the worst time to do it is a national health emergency. The overwhelming majority of our first responders work for State and local governments. Why would we want to lay them off? President Trump has said he doesn't want to bail out States and local governments, and he has criticized them. He didn't name-call businesses that wanted help. He didn't say: We will not bail you out. Instead, he wanted to extend the helping hand. His attacks on State and local governments are particularly insulting since the American public is much more satisfied with how their State and local leaders are handling this crisis than how the administration is. Senator McConnell advanced the idea that States and local governments should consider bankruptcy. He didn't say that about businesses that wanted aid. Promoting bankruptcy, which would mean layoffs and broken promises to pensioners, is heartless. America needs its teachers and its first responders. This isn't a Democrat or Republican thing. There are as many Republican Governors as there are Democrats. There are as many cities and counties managed with Republican leadership as there are Democrats. The CARES Act had $150 billion for general State and local government relief, but we have now done over $1.2 trillion in relief for businesses. I am glad we are helping our businesses get through this, but don't the communities where we live and work, send our kids to school, pray and play deserve help to get through this crisis too? Does anyone really believe that we will be better off as a nation in fighting this emergency if teachers, firefighters, police, sheriffs, and EMTs are laid off all over this country? So I will close in just saying to my colleagues: We stepped up big to refill the tank for small businesses and hospitals. It is now time to step up for State and local governments and individuals and families. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I had not intended to speak today. Yet, in my office, as I was alternately talking to Virginians and colleagues about our goal to find an economic package that will backstop workers and the American economy, I had the TV on. I was watching what was happening on the floor, and I decided I would come and just speak for a few minutes. Frankly, I think that what has been happening on the floor today has sort of been artificial and hasn't really shown the American public what is truly going on. There were a lot of speeches that were taking place wherein it was sort of a blame game, and I don't think that is what Americans wanted to see today. Just as there was yesterday, there was another vote today that failed, a vote that was destined to fail. I don't think that is what Americans deserved to see today. What Americans didn't see yesterday and today is the intense dialogue and debate and discussion around the third coronavirus response bill--by far, the largest. It is important to get the details right. We spent time getting the details right, in a bipartisan way, to pass an $8 billion supplemental appropriation just 2 weeks ago. We spent time getting the details right to pass an extension of paid childcare and unemployment insurance that had a cost of about $100 billion. We are now talking about an economic stimulus package that could be as high as $2 trillion. The American public wants us to get the details right. As I look at the stimulus discussions, there are sort of five pillars, and this is the way I describe it to Virginians. It is the workers and their families; it is small business; it is the large business and industry sectors; it is State and local governments; and it is our healthcare network. As for the workers, we are all hearing from people in our States who are so significantly affected. They are without salaries and wages. How are they going to pay their rents or their mortgages? They are in danger of eviction and foreclosure. How are they going to pay childcare and other expenses? This has to be the heart of this bill. I think the White House accepts that and that we should too. This package has to be right for working people, and the details matter. Only about 26 percent of American workers are covered by the unemployment insurance system. We can't just rely on that old system if we really want to backstop all of the people who have lost income and be able to protect them and their families. I saw, over the week, that the Government of the United Kingdom decided to just make a guarantee to all working people that they will backstop you for 80 percent of your lost earnings during the time period of this national emergency. We should hold ourselves to that standard and try to provide a package that backstops workers and their families, those who are of low and middle income. That is pillar 1. Pillar 2 is small businesses, and I think there is huge agreement on this. Small businesses are the engine of the American economy, the employer of first resort for Americans. Yet those small businesses-- including nonprofits, cultural, and service organizations--have significant challenges, and we need to get them through this tough time. If we get them through the tough time, primarily with loans and then if we come out of this public health challenge into a challenged economy and they just have more debt on their books, we are not really going to help them. So the small business pillar of this is very important in order to get them through this challenging time and to do it in a way that does not just saddle these small businesses with more debt. The third is the large business and industry sectors. Of course, we need to provide protection for them. That is not the issue. Frankly, the issue is not even, really, the amount of the protection that must be provided. It must be significant. However, we learned through the stimulus package in 2009 and through the tax bill in 2017 that dollars given without conditions to many of the large businesses can be spent in very economically unproductive ways, so it is important to get those details right. There are limits on using these Federal funds for executive compensation. There are limits on using the funds for stock buybacks. We can get the details right so that the dollars that are provided to our large industry sectors and businesses are used to protect their employees. As for States and local governments, we are all on the phone with our Governors and with our mayors and with county health officials. We have all watched them close down school systems, close down universities, deal with extra healthcare challenges, and deal with skyrocketing unemployment insurance applications in every jurisdiction in the country. We should provide them with the resources to deal with those challenges. My hope as a former Governor--and we have other former Governors in the Chamber--is that, when we provide assistance to State and local governments, we will do it in a way with maximum flexibility so they can use those funds in ways they see fit to meet the local needs they have experienced. The last pillar is the key, important one--I will close here, and this is to continue my colleague from Colorado's passion and plea on behalf of our healthcare industry--which is the appropriate level of resources to our healthcare infrastructure. There won't be any amount of economic stimulus that will work if we don't handle the public health crisis in a very smart way going forward. We could make it $3 trillion, or we could make it $4 trillion, but we would be pouring the money away if we were not to get the public health crisis right. If we get it right, that will be the single most important thing toward restarting the economy. So the last pillar of the five pillars that we are spending time on is in the support for hospitals, community health centers, other health clinics, healthcare professionals, and supporting childcare for them. We have to keep our frontline healthcare workers at work, but many of them have children in schools that have now been closed. We don't want them having to stay home with their kids because there is no childcare when we want them at hospitals and clinics. So part of that fifth pillar has to be to protect these healthcare workers, not only their physical health but their ability to go to work every day. I believe we are close on the negotiation. I don't like watching stem-winding speeches from the floor, blaming who one thinks is responsible for not being able to pass a vote, when I know, 20 yards away, the White House is sitting down with the Democrats, and we are getting closer and closer and closer to coming up with a package that can gain bipartisan acceptance as it should. The American public needs action. The American public needs big action. But if we are going to spend $2 trillion and we spend it the wrong way, we will regret it for years. If we spend it the right way, we could get through this crisis in a way that will do minimum damage to our economy. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, like my colleague from Missouri, I also rise to address the Nation's response to the COVID-19 virus. In particular, I want to discuss the next steps we need to take at the Federal level to deal with this health emergency and the severe economic dislocation resulting from it. Before I offer my comments, I want to offer some thanks. I want to thank the Senate staff and all those in the Capitol who are working here under tough circumstances. I notice that the pages are not here, and that is because the Senate has wisely decided that, while we ought to be here doing the people's business, even at some risk to ourselves, the young people who would normally be here should be home with their families. I want to thank healthcare workers all across the United States. They are doing very difficult work right now, and they are doing it under very stressful circumstances. So many people who work at our healthcare facilities are there trying to protect patients. They have kids in schools that have been closed, and they are grappling with where their own children are during the day and whether they can find childcare during what would normally be the school day. I particularly want to thank them. Finally, I want to thank the American public. I will return to this point at the end of my comments. We are not an authoritarian nation. There are steps that other nations are taking with respect to this virus, where they can sort of order or quarantine in ways that we can't here. What we do here depends upon the consent of the governed, and the guidelines about social distancing, for example, require some significant sacrifice. Overwhelmingly, I see Americans taking steps to make that sacrifice, and I want to thank them. I applaud the bipartisan work that Congress has done with the White House in the past 2 weeks to pass two important laws. We passed the supplemental appropriations bill, providing more than $8 billion to invest in our public health response with resources for States, territories, and Tribes, investments in vaccine development and testing, and other key health priorities. Just yesterday, the Senate passed the second piece of legislation to provide emergency relief for workers and their families: paid sick leave, extended unemployment insurance, and other measures. But we still have so much more to do, and I am going to be very candid about this. I offer these thoughts as a former mayor and Governor who has overseen significant emergency response efforts in my city and in my State: hurricanes, floods, mass shootings, the H1N1 epidemic, and the economic collapse of 2008 and 2009. While those give me a perspective on what must be done, I have to acknowledge that the current challenge is a massive one, arguably bigger than any I have seen in my life. Because it is so big, it will require unusual degrees of innovation and cooperation, and the need for that innovation and cooperation is urgent. I got off a phone call this morning--and I am sure all 100 of my colleagues are making calls like this. I got on the phone with my fellow Virginia Senator, Mr. Warner, to talk to Virginia's hospitals. Now, Virginia is a State that, economically, is pretty well off. It generally tends to have top-quarter per-capita income for a significant metropolitan area, but the stories from my hospitals were just, frankly, shocking. They can't get tests to test patients who are presenting with symptoms of COVID-19. If they have tests, they don't have the swabs to administer the test or they don't have some of the chemical components needed so that once a swab is taken, they can run the test to determine whether somebody has the virus or not. They don't have masks. Hospitals were telling me that masks, which they would normally buy for about $1 apiece, are now being charged at $9 apiece with severely limited quantities. Major hospitals in a major metropolitan area like Northern Virginia, on the testing front--one of my hospitals said they got enough tests from their main supplier to test 40 people. That lasted for about 2 days. And when they said ``We need more tests,'' the supplier said ``Well, look, we only have so much that we can distribute. That is all you get.'' When I heard this story, one after the next--and I know I live in a nation with not only the best healthcare providers but the best healthcare institutions in the world--I had to ask myself: Where am I? Is this the United States of America, where a hospital treating people on a global pandemic cannot get a mask, cannot get a swab, cannot get a test? Why are nations like South Korea and Australia and the United Kingdom so much more able to do things this country should be able to do? I don't think we should become normalized or just accept that. I think this is so profound a question about why this Nation, with the best healthcare providers and the best healthcare institutions in the world, is so far behind other nations. So let me offer these recommendations--blunt recommendations--for the road ahead. First, in the words of the Hippocratic Oath, do no harm. The administration lost 6 to 8 weeks in responding to this crisis--critical time that was used productively by other nations--because the President continually downplayed the threat of COVID-19. No American has a louder microphone than he does, and again and again he downplayed the threat, suggested it was contained, suggested everyone would be tested, suggested it was a hoax, and suggested the Democrats or the Chinese or the media were blowing it out of proportion. Whether his comments were due to ignorance or a political desire to hide bad news is irrelevant. I was shocked that the President submitted a budget to Congress on February 10, when the virus's global spread was clear to all, that dramatically cut funding for key public health agencies--the NIH, CDC, HHS--and our investments in global partnerships like the World Health Organization. The White House foolishly eliminated the global health security team at the National Security Council that was set up after the Ebola crisis to practically deal with pandemics like COVID-19. I remain stunned--stunned--that the President's lawyers are still in court all over this country attempting to repeal the Affordable Care Act to take healthcare away from millions of Americans. There is never a good time--never--to take an ax to the public health infrastructure and scheme to take away people's health insurance, but there is surely no worse time to do it--to take an ax to the public health infrastructure and take away people's health insurance--than during a global pandemic. So my recommendations here are pretty simple. Quit lying and downplaying the threat. Let the trusted scientists and public health leaders in your administration take center stage. In recent days, the President seems to have adopted this approach, thank goodness, and it is long overdue. Congress should ignore the President's budget that urged foolish cuts to our public health infrastructure, and the administration should cease efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. One more thing: Quit the inflammatory China-bashing. Did this virus originate in China? Yes. But, Mr. President, that does not excuse your weeks and weeks of tweeting lies and misinformation about the virus, while the leaders of other nations were taking steps to make sure their populations could be safe. The fact that the virus originated in China does not excuse the massive missteps that have led to the United States being so far behind other nations in the world in the ability to provide testing--basic testing--to citizens, including citizens who have serious signs of illness. The President's decision to call this the China virus or Wuhan virus or other epithets that he and members of his team have used are a crass effort to deflect blame away from the acceptance of responsibility that a President should have. The buck stops with you, Mr. President. You cannot blame this on anyone else. You have to own responsibility. You should stop inflammatory China-bashing that is exposing Asian Americans in this country to prejudice. The second thing we need to do is continue to focus, first and foremost, on managing the public health crisis presented by COVID-19. The economic dislocation is significant. We are working on a package with respect to that now. I am going to talk about it in a minute, but no economic intervention will work if the American public continues to lack confidence in our public health response. And a strong public health response that will effectively manage the spread of this virus and coordinate medical care for those affected will be the single best strategy for enabling the economy to get back on track. To accomplish this public health goal, we need to have strong policy at the Federal level to make--continue to make--science-based recommendations on the extent and timing of social distancing guidelines. We need to overcome the shockingly poor start to testing Americans for the virus. Testing helps us flatten the curve of the infection so that our health system is not overwhelmed, and it also helps reduce anxiety by giving people information about their status so they know what to do. Americans are used to being tested. If we feel ill, we go to a doctor. We get a test to see if we have a flu. We get a test to see if we have pneumonia. We get our children tested to see if they have strep throat. We are used to this, and when we see it happening around the globe, and when we hear the President and Vice President say that everybody will get tested, but when people call their healthcare providers and are told that there are no tests or see drive-thru testing sites, such as ones we had in Hampton Roads, shut down after a day and a half because they ran out of tests, it tremendously raises their anxiety. We need to continue the good work that is already being done to accelerate the development of a safe and effective vaccine. We need to make sure that our hospitals and healthcare providers have the resources they need to treat sick people and protect their frontline health workers. Finally, this is looking down the road a bit, but I think it is important that we think about it now. Policymakers should try to develop the science-based criteria that will enable them to confidently tell Americans when it is time to return to normal social and economic activity. I remember President Bush doing that at some point after 9/ 11. He said: It is now safe. It is time for Americans to go back to normal, everyday activity. A strong signal of that type, when it is warranted by science, will be critical--critical--to our recovery. That day may be weeks or months away, but developing the criteria that we can agree on that should be the signal for a return to relevant normalcy is something we should all be working on right now. Third, we should make full use of State and local governments. Polling shows that Americans are skeptical about what they hear about this virus from President Trump and, indeed, Washington. But the same poll shows that they do have trust in how State and local officials are handling this crisis. Use the network of State and local officials to communicate clear messages. Continuously seek their input on how their schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and local economies are affected. That is what I am doing every day, and I suspect every Member of the Senate is doing the same thing--conference calls with leaders around my State to make sure that we are doing the things that are most helpful. And we should reality test any legislation, especially an economic package, with these leaders to make sure it is responsive to the real needs they are seeing on the ground. Fourth, Congress needs to move promptly to pass this strong economic package, backstopping the American economy from being ravaged by COVID- 19. In 2008, structural issues like the accumulation of debt, bad public policy leaving huge swaths of economic transactions unregulated, and predatory mortgage practices helped bring down not only the American but the global financial system. Today, the American economy has been performing relatively well, and it now labors under a severe healthcare shock. There is reason to believe that, once we get the healthcare strategy right, we will be poised for the economy to resume its upward trajectory. But we must provide protection and support in the meantime. I believe that the focus of an economic package should be workers and small businesses. They are the most vulnerable to the current challenge and most in need of intervention. This is the message that I am hearing again and again as I talk to Virginia residents and business leaders. I had a wonderful conversation with the president of my statewide chamber of commerce the other day, and he said candidly: Look, more of our members are actually medium and large businesses, but the most important thing you can do is focus on the needs of small businesses and their employees. I appreciated that he was advocating even for a business sector that isn't the core of his membership, but this is what he was hearing and what I think most of us are hearing. I support direct cash payments to low- and middle-income Americans and their dependents to help them through this crisis, and it is nice to hear there may be some agreement on that. I support strategies to provide grants and loans to small businesses, particularly if they use those resources to keep employees on the payroll. I hope direct support to individuals and small businesses will be the heart of the economic package that the Senate, the White House, and the House put together. Now, for the larger businesses and industry sectors who need Federal help, we have to stand ready to assist, but if we are to invest in these businesses yet again, a few years after providing them with massive and--in my view--unnecessary tax breaks, we must not simply rescue them but demand that they reform, and our investments must be designed to keep workers on payrolls to the maximum extent possible. The Business Roundtable, an influential voice for the business community, said last year that businesses need to expand their priorities beyond shareholder concerns and invest in employees by compensating them fairly, providing important benefits, and supporting communities they work in. I couldn't agree more. These businesses employ many Americans and deliver us important goods and services, but if American taxpayers are stepping in to cover their losses, I think it is fair to expect and, indeed, require that these businesses channel the benefits toward people who are on their payroll, who work for wages and salaries, not those who live off investment income. I will do all I can in the coming days to help shape our economic package to make it responsive to these goals. Fifth--and in this I echo some of the comments made by my colleague from Missouri--the crisis does raise long-term questions that must be addressed going forward. We have to have real discussions about the virtues and disadvantages of global interconnectedness. Better travel leads to economic growth and a better understanding of the world, and it also facilitates the spread of viruses. Instantaneous global communication networks are an economic plus but increase vulnerability to cyber attack. How do we increase American resilience to these threats without inhibiting our economic prospects? There are elements of our supply chains--pharmaceuticals and medical products and supplies in particular--that must be viewed through a national security lens and progressively brought back to this country to enhance safety and an adequate supply of supplies in times like this. A second long-term question that has been raised for years by my Virginia colleague Senator Warner deals with the new reality of how Americans work. Many of the people most affected by this shock would be part-time and gig workers. The safety-net mechanisms that our policies provide for full-time workers who get a W-2 every year are not as available to the increasing percentage of the American workforce who are in multiple part-time jobs without benefits or who work as independent contractors or are otherwise self-employed. In addition to making sure that the economic relief package provides assistance to this large group of Americans, we have to examine our workforce policies so that these workers also have a social safety net to fall back on during times of crisis. Finally, every American needs to do their part to confront this crisis. The best way to slow the spread of COVID-19 and minimize its impact to individuals, to our healthcare system, and to our economy is to adhere to science-based social distancing and personal hygiene recommendations in our everyday lives. Because America is not an authoritarian nation, there are some options used by other nations that will not likely be used here. Our public health measures will depend upon the cooperation and adherence of every single person. Sacrifice is hard, but a modest sacrifice in the near term can help save the lives of people we love. So I implore every Virginian and every American to follow the recommendations we get from our public health officials and find ways to safely reach out and connect with friends and family during this challenging time. To my colleagues: We must rise to meet this challenge. This is one of the moments for which we were destined to be in the Senate. The people we serve are relying on us to calmly and promptly address a grave health crisis with the tools needed to keep families safe and protect the American economy. It is a serious responsibility. May we all live up to it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, our Nation's continued progress and the socioeconomic mobility of our citizens are contingent on the education and skills of the American workforce and its ability to adjust to and fulfill the needs of the 21st-century economy. Career and technical education, CTE, programs are essential to every student's education, providing them access to the important knowledge, skills, and credentials needed to obtain careers in rapidly growing, high-demand industries. Today, approximately 11.8 million students across the Nation are enrolled in CTE programs offered by thousands of career academies, comprehensive high schools, CTE high schools, community colleges, and CTE centers. Through applied learning, these students obtain workplace skills and technical training that mirror in-demand positions in the workforce. In the next decade, nearly 3 million skilled workers will be needed to fill infrastructure positions in the United States, including jobs related to designing, building, and operating transportation, housing, telecommunication, and utilities facilities. CTE programs intentionally match skills with workforce demands, lowering the probability of high school dropout and increasing the likelihood of graduating on time. These skills-based training programs will help fill the estimated 30 million U.S. jobs available with an average income annual income of $55,000 that do not require a bachelor's degree yet necessitate some level of postsecondary education. Across Virginia, I hear from manufacturers frustrated by the shortage of qualified skilled production employees--roles that require the training and instruction provided by CTE. It is essential that we highlight the important role of CTE in the country's ability to meet the challenges we face in economic development, student achievement, and global competitiveness. In 2018, Congress affirmed the importance of CTE by passing the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act which supports CTE programs in secondary and postsecondary education. Today, with my Senate CTE Caucus cochairs Senator Portman, Senator Baldwin, and Senator Young and more than half of my colleagues in the Senate, I am pleased to introduce a bipartisan resolution to designate February as Career and Technical Education, CTE, Month. CTE Month encourages students, parents, counselors, educators, and school leaders to learn more about the diverse educational opportunities offered in their communities and recognize the valuable role of CTE in developing a well-educated and highly skilled workforce in the United States. By formally recognizing CTE Month through this resolution, it is our aim to raise greater awareness of the importance of improving access to high-quality CTE for millions of America's students and our Nation's ongoing economic competitiveness.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment and will be making a motion to table it following Senator Cotton's presentation. The Cotton amendment would establish a very dangerous precedent. I say that with all respect. It would basically allow military action against actors on the designated list of foreign terrorist organizations without there being a declaration of war against them. There are currently 69 FTOs on the list, including the Basque Fatherland and Liberty, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Irish Republican Army, and the Communist Party of the Philippines. The FTO list has never been a war authorization. The FTO list is created by the administration. It adds the names to it. This would suggest that, by being on the FTO, the U.S. military could take action against you even without there being congressional authorization. The list is so long, and it can be added to by a President. This would basically destroy the underlying bill by allowing a President to add to the FTO list rather than coming to Congress and then taking military action. I know the speaker's intention is that this goes to the IRGC. If we need to defend ourselves under article II, we can or we can declare war.

Mr. KAINE. Madam President.

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Cruz amendment. The Cruz amendment is contrary to the purpose of the resolution before the body. The resolution before the body is to make sure that Congress is involved in decisions about war. The Cruz amendment is contrary to that purpose by praising the President for a military action taken not only without congressional approval but without notification to Congress. Second, we are all glad General Soleimani is dead. That is good for the world. But there are legitimate questions about the mission-- particularly, should it have been taken out on Iraqi soil over the objection of the Iraqi Government? That has now led the Iraqi Parliament to ask U.S. troops to withdraw from the region, which would empower Iran and empower ISIS. Finally, the Cruz amendment talks about President Trump. This resolution is not about President Trump. I had an original version of it that referenced activities of the administration, but my Republican colleagues----

Mr. KAINE. Asked me to remove those. I ask for a vote against the amendment.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I move to table Cotton amendment No. 1305, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, though my friend from Idaho opposes my resolution, I do not oppose his amendment. I view the Risch amendment as a basic restatement of constitutional law, and it is essentially the same concept as the rules of construction in the resolution, so I do not oppose it.

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask my colleagues to vote to table the Rubio amendment No. 1320. Let me explain why. The gist of the amendment is basically to say that we are not in hostilities with Iran. If you read the newspaper, we now see that 100 American troops are suffering from concussions--closed-head injuries--that could potentially lead to other significant consequences because of the Iranian attack on the Al- Asad Air Base. The United States sent the military strike that killed Iran's key military leader and Iraqi militia leader. The United States took a previous strike a week before that killed 25 Iranian-connected militia members in 5 sites in Iraq and Syria. The War Powers Act has a definition of what armed conflict and hostilities are, and it is clear that Congress was meant to be able to file this exact motion either during armed conflict or even before armed conflict if it were imminent. I would argue that the 100 servicemembers who are suffering from head injuries and the American contractor who was killed is definitely proof that there are hostilities. I ask to table. I now move that Rubio amendment No. 1320 be tabled, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak with respect to final passage of S.J. Res. 68, which will be the next item of business before us. I will speak briefly because I have been on the floor about this a few times in the last week or two. First, I want to thank my colleagues for this process, including the President. It has been a very collaborative process, with a lot of dialogue, a lot of listening, a lot of changes in amendments, and back and forth since early January. My colleagues, however they voted on things that I hoped they might support me on, were very willing to dialogue and ask hard questions. I understood why people were where they were. I just want to thank the body for it. I also note what a cool thing it is to actually have a bunch of amendment votes on the floor. I hope we might do more on other items. This is an issue that is extremely important to this body, and it is extremely important to me. Of the variety of issues--I didn't serve in the military--why would it be important to me? Having a child in the military and coming from a State that is so connected to the military, I have been nearly obsessed with this issue since about 2002. I never knew I would have an opportunity to work on it as a U.S. Senator, but when I came here in 2012, I started to look for colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses who would stand for the proposition that war is the most solemn responsibility we have, and it cannot be outsourced to anyone. I was willing to stand up to a friend--a Democratic President--and challenge him when he was undertaking military action without coming to Congress. I have done the same with President Trump, but with no disrespect to the office. I want an article II President who will inhabit fully the article II powers of the office of Commander in Chief. But what I have hoped for since I came is an article I branch that would fully inhabit the article I powers that are vested only in Congress. For that reason, I put the resolution forward and worked with you and others to make sure the resolution was bipartisan. It is not only bipartisan, but folks from different parts of the political spectrum and from different parts of the country and new Members and veteran Members have come together to say--after many decades of abdicating responsibility, under Presidents of both parties and under majorities of both parties in both Houses--it is time for Congress to take this very seriously. That is why I will be voting in favor of the resolution and encouraging other colleagues to do the same. The last thing I want to say is this. I talked about these two young men briefly yesterday on the floor. I am struck by their stories. The last two men who were killed in combat for the United States in the 19- yearlong war against terrorists that was sparked by America's righteous outrage over the attack of 9/11 were two sergeants first class, Javier Gutierrez and Antonio Rodriguez. They are both from the Southwest, one from San Antonio and one from Las Cruces, NM. They were both killed last week in Afghanistan by an insider attack. It was somebody who was wearing a uniform--potentially, a member of the Afghan National Security Forces or posing as one. These are the security forces that we have invested billions and billions of dollars in training and equipping--$45 billion this year alone. Someone wearing that uniform of an ally of the United States turned a weapon on these two gentlemen and killed them. I read their bios, and I was just so struck by their stories. They were 28 years old, which means they were 9 years old when 9/11 happened and when Congress passed the war authorization under whose terms they were then serving when they lost their lives in Afghanistan. They really never knew in their life anything but war. By the time they were 9 years old the Nation was at war. Nineteen years later, we are still in the same war, and that authorization has been used now all over the globe to engage in military activity virtually in so many countries and so many continents. They never knew anything but war. I just want to say a word about each of them. Sergeant Gutierrez was a young man, a 28-year-old from San Antonio. Sergeant Gutierrez's grandfather was an aviator in World War II who was shot down and imprisoned in a POW camp in Germany. His name was Mr. Ortiz. He was then liberated when the Russians liberated that POW camp. That was the grandfather. Sergeant Gutierrez's dad was a marine during the Vietnam era. Sergeant Gutierrez was born in Jacksonville, NC, near the Lejeune base in North Carolina. All he wanted to do was serve his country. He joined the Junior ROTC Program at his local high school because, he said, ``I want to be like my grandfather and I want to be like my dad.'' By all accounts, he served in such a wonderful way. This was his third deployment. He had one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan previously. This was his third deployment. He leaves behind a wife, Gabby, and four children ages 2 to 7. Sergeant Rodriguez was from Las Cruces, NM. He also leaves behind a wife, Ronaleen, no children, but a lot of devoted family. When I read this in the news, I thought it was a misprint. This was Sergeant Rodriguez's 11th deployment to Afghanistan. He was only 28 years old. He probably didn't go into the military until he was 18, but he was Special Forces. Those deployments tend to be often, more frequent and maybe not as long in duration. But think about it--10 times in Afghanistan, and on the 11th deployment, he gave his life. The sacrifices are just kind of staggering for me to contemplate. I will just conclude and say this: I know that everybody in this Chamber goes to VA hospitals to visit. I have three VA hospitals in Virginia. I was in one in Hampton last Friday. We do this because we want to see our great care providers. We talk to our veterans. We get inspired by stories of resilience and see cutting-edge treatments and technologies. Often, those visits are empowering and inspiring. One thing you will always feel when you leave after a visit to a VA hospital--and I felt this way when I left the VA in Hampton last Friday afternoon--is the enduring consequences of war. When I was visiting a mental health unit, when I was visiting the women's clinic that now deals with the increasing number of women veterans, what you grapple with are the enduring consequences of war. Under the best of circumstances, when we get it right and we win, there are still horrible consequences of war--people's health and people's lives and then the lives and health of the caregivers and friends of those who serve. Because those consequences are so momentous and so enduring, those of us in this body--and maybe especially those of us in this body who didn't wear the uniform and didn't serve--we have a special obligation to make sure that we deliberate and deliberate carefully before we send troops into harm's way. The President of the United States--this President and every President--always needs the ability to defend the United States against imminent attack without asking for anybody's permission. I think the world knows we will do that. This body, though, is a body that needs to decide if we go on offense and engage in military action. Guess what. The world knows we will do that too. We took that vote on the war authorization in 2001, and 18 years later, we have tens of thousands of troops deployed and people still losing their lives. We are spending $45 billion a year in Afghanistan to preserve the gains that we won. No one can question America's resolve. But this resolution is about a level of deliberation to match the sacrifice that we expect. The sacrifice is momentous, so our deliberation should be careful. That is what this bill is designed to do. That is why I am so proud to have worked on it with my colleagues. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, finally, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 2 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I now rise to speak to the body in favor of the bipartisan War Powers Resolution, S.J. Res. 68, which is now pending before the Senate. Before I address the resolution, I want to acknowledge the combat deaths of SFC Javier Gutierrez and SFC Antonio Rodriguez. Both of these Army sergeants, sergeants first class, were 28-year-olds who were killed last week in Afghanistan. While the incident is still under investigation, it appears that they were killed by a member of the Afghan security forces or somebody posing as a member of the Afghan security forces. As we know well, this is a security force that the United States has armed, equipped, and trained for 19 years. Sergeant Gutierrez leaves behind a wife, Gabby, and four children, ages 2 through 7. His grandfather was a POW during World War II, and his father was a marine. He had previously deployed both to Iraq and Afghanistan. Sergeant Rodriguez leaves behind a wife, Ronaleen. He had previously deployed to Afghanistan 10 times. I thought that was a misprint when I read it--a 28-year-old who had previously deployed to Afghanistan 10 times before he was killed. We honor their memories and send our condolences to their families as well. The resolution before the body today is about Congress reclaiming its rightful role in decisions about war. The resolution is pretty simple: We should not be at war with Iran unless Congress votes to authorize such a war. While the President does and must always have the ability to defend the United States from imminent attack, the Executive power to initiate war stops there. An offensive war requires a congressional debate and vote. This should not be a controversial proposition. It is clearly stated in the Constitution we pledge to support and defend. The principle is established there for a most important reason. If we are to order our men and women, like Sergeants Rodriguez and Gutierrez, to risk their lives and health in war, it should be on the basis of careful deliberation by the people's elected legislature and not on the say-so of any one person. Congressional deliberation educates the American public about what are the stakes, what are the stakes involved in any proposed war. Congressional deliberation allows Members of Congress to ask tough questions about the need for war, about the path to victory, and about how a victory can be sustained. And if following that public deliberation, there is a vote of Congress for war, it represents a clear statement that a war is in the national interest and that the efforts of our troops are supported by a clear political consensus. We should not allow this important process to be short-circuited. Our Framers believed that the congressional deliberation would be the best antidote to unnecessary escalation. I have spoken often about this topic on the floor during the 7 years I have been in the Senate, and I don't want to repeat arguments that I have made dozens and dozens of times here, but I do want to address at least three objections that I have made to this resolution. First, there is an objection that says the bipartisan resolution is ``an effort to restrain President Trump's powers.'' This is not a resolution about the President. The resolution does not say anything about President Trump or any President. It is a resolution about Congress. I want a President that will fully inhabit the article II powers of Commander in Chief, but as a Member of the Article I branch, I want an article I branch that would fully inhabit the article I powers, including the sole power to declare war. This is not an effort to restrain President Trump or some other President. This is not an effort by a Democrat to point a finger or to restrain Republicans. No. In the history of this country, even in recent history, I believe we have often gotten it wrong with respect to the initiation of war, whether the President was a Democrat or Republican or whether the majority in Congress was Democratic or Republican. The legislative branch, article I, has allowed too much power to devolve to the Executive in this fundamental question of whether the Nation should be at war. This is not directed toward President Trump. It would apply equally to any President. It is fundamentally about Congress owning up to and taking responsibility for the most significant decisions that we should ever have to make. A second argument against the bill that I have heard made on the floor in recent days is that it would send a message of weakness to Iran or to other adversaries. I have to admit, I am more interested in the message that we send to the American public and to our troops and to our families. That is the message I am most interested in. As a father of a marine and as a Senator from a State that is just chock-full of Active-Duty Guard and Reserve veterans, DOD civilian and DOD contractor military families, this bill sends a very strong and powerful message to our public and to our troops and their families that before we get into a war, there will be a careful deliberation about whether it is necessary. That is a message of comfort. That is a message that can give our own public and our troops confidence, but to the extent that we want to consider the message this might send to Iran and adversaries, I do not think that America sends a message of weakness when we proudly hold ourselves up as a nation of laws, and we pledge to follow the law when it comes to the monumental question about whether or not we should be at war. In fact, I believe we are most effective in countering our adversaries--and, face it, most of our adversaries are authoritarian states which do not honor the rule of war--when we send a clear message that, in this country, we will stand for democratic principles, such as the rule of law, and we will follow those principles when we are making momentous decisions, such as whether or not we should be at war. A third objection I have heard is this: It sends a message that America is not likely to use military force, a message that, thereby, might embolden bad actors. I find this argument bewildering. I don't think anyone in the world questions whether America will use military force. We have been engaged in a war against nonstate terrorism now for 19 years. The pages in this body have known nothing but war. These two 28-year-olds who were just killed last year, they virtually knew nothing other than war during their whole lives. Is America willing to use military action? We have been in a war for 19 years. We are losing troops on the battlefield--like Sergeants Rodriguez and Gutierrez--to this very day. We have tens and thousands of troops deployed around the world to fight a war against terrorism, and the current President is increasing the total footprint of those troops in the Middle East to prosecute this fight. In Afghanistan alone, where these two sergeants were killed, we are spending $45 billion a year. It is 19 years later, and we are still spending $45 billion a year to prosecute this fight. No one can question whether the United States will protect itself or our allies, but the choice of when to fight wars and when to use other available tools is always a question of such importance that the most careful deliberation is warranted. As I conclude, I just want to say this. I went and visited the Hampton veterans hospital last Friday as part of just, sort of, a regular visit maybe once a year just to check in with the Hampton VA, which is one of three VAs in Virginia, to see what they are doing. I know every Member of the Senate does the same thing, visiting VA hospitals in their States and elsewhere--going to see our veterans at Walter Reed, for example, or going to see wounded warriors who are at the hospital at Fort Belvoir in Virginia. Any visit of that kind produces a million emotions: pride in service providers, pride in resilience of our veterans as they are grappling with challenging illnesses and disabilities in their lives, often long after they have served. The one impression that is always vivid when you visit a veterans hospital is this: the enduring consequences of war. As I visited the Hampton VA, I spent time in, sort of, two particular units. One is a women's clinic. We have so many more women veterans, and a number of VAs that were not set up very well to deal with women are now having to really build out the capacity to deal with the growing number of women veterans and the issues that they are bringing to the table. I applaud what I saw in Hampton at the women's clinic. I also spent time in the mental health unit that is trying to pioneer new technologies, magnetic imaging, to help people deal with some of the signature wounds of the Iraq and Afghanistan war: traumatic brain injury and PTSD. We make a promise to these veterans that we will be there for them, even when we don't fully know the consequences of the promise we make because they don't know the consequences of what they will experience and suffer. A signature aspect of the Iraq and Afghan wars that really doesn't have an earlier precedent is the 10-deployments phenomena. In what earlier war that this country fought do we have 28-year-old sergeants who are serving their 11th deployment in a theater of war? Those repeated deployments have a long consequence in the life of a person and in the life of those close to that person. Madam President knows this from her own service: When you go to the VA and you grapple with the long consequences of war, it has to make an impression upon those of us in this body charged with the sole responsibility for declaring war that, if and when we do so, we owe it the most careful deliberation that we bring to any question that would ever result in the loss of lives. That is not too much to ask for us to deliberate carefully when what is at risk for those who serve, who depend upon us to make the best possible decision, are consequences that will last their own lifetimes and affect the lives of so many others. That is what this resolution is about. I don't believe it should be controversial. It is certainly bipartisan, and I hope we will stand up for this important proposition that the careful deliberation of the Senate is the most necessary thing we can do and what we owe to our troops and their families. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I move to proceed to S.J. Res. 68.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, pursuant to section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 and in accordance with the provisions of section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976, I move to discharge the Foreign Relations Committee from further consideration of S.J. Res. 68.

Mr. KAINE. I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time on the motion to discharge.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise briefly to thank my colleague. I am actually scheduled to talk on this topic later this afternoon, but I wanted to come and hear Senator Durbin today. I appreciate his effort. He has been a powerful advocate of this principle that we don't stand in contradiction of this President or any President when we stand for the proposition that Congress should do its job under article I of the Constitution, and I applaud my colleague for his strong support. I will take the floor later today to talk about the bipartisan resolution he has just described. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, approximately 80 percent of jobs in today's workforce require some form of postsecondary education or training beyond the high school level. While the number of students pursing postsecondary education is growing, the supply of middle-skilled workers, whose work requires more than a high school diploma but not a four-year degree, falls short of industry demand. According to the National Skills Coalition, 53 percent of all jobs in today's labor market are middle skill, but only 43 percent of U.S. workers are trained at this level. Education is failing to meet the needs of critical industries, including manufacturing, construction, energy, health care, information technology, transportation, and business management and administration. For many people seeking a job, attending a community college is the most affordable and accessible pathway to higher paying employment opportunities. In Virginia, we have 23 community colleges that serve an estimated 400,000 people across the State, providing them opportunities to earn an associate's degree, certifications or licensures in some of the most cutting-edge and in-demand fields in our workforce. The impact of community colleges nationwide is even greater, and our rapidly changing economy demands increased investment in the pathways these institutions provide to keep up with changing skill demands. Today, I am proud to introduce the Assisting Community Colleges in Educating Skilled Students (ACCESS) to Careers Act with Senator Young. Inspired by the success of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training grant program, this bill provides grants to states and community colleges to scale evidence-based strategies that will help prepare our students with the skills necessary to succeed in our in-demand industry sectors and occupations. These grants can be used to expand dual enrollment, work-based learning opportunities, apprenticeships, and other pathways to best meet the skill needs of students and employers in our evolving workforce. The bill also emphasizes the importance of student services to ensure that students have the support they need to complete their programs. The bill also allows grants to be used for developing partnerships between community colleges and other private and public sector entities, creating innovative career pathways directly between two-year institutions and employers. In Virginia, we've already started to see the success of these community college partnerships as part of a strategy to address the growing workforce shortages in rural areas and in-demand industries. When we invest in our community colleges, they become hubs of innovation, finding pathways to train our next generation in the skills our rapidly evolving workforce needs. The ACCESS to Careers Act represents a necessary step to take the evidence-based innovations we've seen on the local level to scale in order to fill jobs in high- needs industries. I strongly encourage my colleagues in the Senate to consider this commonsense, bipartisan legislation as we move towards reauthorizing the Higher Education Act.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise also to discuss the pending matter, the serious matter of impeachment. President Trump schemed to get Ukraine to help him win the 2020 election by strong-arming its new President to announce a bogus investigation against a political opponent. To carry out his scheme, he smeared, fired, and threatened a dedicated career ambassador, thwarted Congress by secretly withholding appropriated military aid over the advice of his national security team, violated two laws in order to hide his actions, outsourced critical foreign policy to a rogue private attorney, hurt an American ally, gratified an adversary, and overturned longstanding precedent regarding the relationship between the executive and legislative branches. The scheme was so repellant that numerous members of his own administration fought against it, and then, when they could not stop it themselves, courageously brought it to light. The House managers have proven both Articles of Impeachment. But I have struggled during the Senate process--which cannot be called a trial due to the shocking refusal to allow key witnesses and documents--with a basic question: Is it an abuse of trust for a President to behave exactly as expected? President Trump's behavior has been appalling, but it has not been a surprise. The American people knew that Donald Trump would seek foreign help to win an election. He publicly did so in 2016 by appealing to Russia for help at the same time as our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Russia was America's chief adversary. That he is doing so again is no surprise. The American public knew that Donald Trump would target political opponents with false attacks. He publicly did so in 2016 by leading crowds in chants of ``Lock her up.'' That he will again target perceived opponents, Democrats or Republicans, Ambassadors or whistleblowers, Representatives or Senators, war heros or teenage environmental activists, is no surprise. The American public knew that Donald Trump would obstruct the release of information. He publicly did so in 2016, when he violated longstanding practice by refusing to release his tax returns. That he will continue to obstruct Congress, the media, and the American public is no surprise. His bigotry is no surprise. His lying is no surprise. His lack of ethics is no surprise. His xenophobia is no surprise. His misogyny is no surprise. His obsessive selfishness is no surprise. His hateful, divisive, and ignorant rhetoric is no surprise. But Presidential impeachment was not designed to remove an amoral leader that the Nation had knowingly and willingly elected. It was designed to rescue the Nation from a leader who abuses the public trust. Can one abuse the public trust by behaving exactly as expected? The Senate impeachment process answered my question. In 1974, Senators of both parties were willing to condemn extreme Presidential misconduct. In 1999, Senators of both parties were able to distinguish between unacceptable personal behavior and ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' But in 2020, the Senate majority engineered an effort to conceal the truth rather than find the truth. Some described their motives as ``let the people decide,'' even as they voted to hide critical evidence from the American people. While the President's actions have not been surprising, the Senate's capitulation has surprised me. And last Friday, as the majority repeatedly blocked the effort to consider witnesses and documents, I had a sad epiphany. Unchallenged evil spreads like a virus. We have allowed a toxic President to infect the Senate and warp its behavior, and now the Senate's refusal to allow a fair trial threatens to spread a broader anxiety about whether ``impartial justice'' is a hollow fiction. An acquittal will lead to worse conduct. I will not be part of this continual degradation of public trust; thus, I will vote to convict. An acquittal will, however, underscore a higher principle. The removal of a man will not remove the moral void he exemplifies. Instead, every day, people of good will must engage as never before and show to ourselves and to the world that Americans still have the capacity to choose right over wrong, service over self, fact over fiction, and decency over malice. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk for the House managers.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. Physicians at the Department of Veterans Affairs depend on Therapeutic Medical Physicists to help plan and deliver critical radiation treatment to patients. Inadequate support from these medical professionals can place veterans at risk for radiation injury or inappropriate treatment. As radiation therapy has become more sophisticated and more common over the past fifteen years, the Department has struggled to recruit and retain Therapeutic Medical Physicists. The average salary in the private sector for a PhD board certified Therapeutic Medical Physicists with ten to fourteen years of work experience is approximately $190,000, but current law limits salaries for these employees at the Department to $166,500, inhibiting the Department's ability to recruit qualified individuals to fill these positions. When faced with Therapeutic Medical Physicist shortages, the Department outsources this work to expensive contractors. Consequently, the Department substantially overspends on these services, which could be done more reliably in-house and at a much lower cost. Furthermore, contracts for TMP services are awarded for a short period, which results in frequent turnover that can be potentially dangerous from the perspective of quality care and patient safety. Today, I am pleased to introduce the Department of Veterans Affairs Therapeutic Medical Physicist Pay Cap Relief Act with my colleague Senator Murkowski. This legislation would improve the recruitment and retention of Therapeutic Medical Physicists by allowing the Department to pay these professionals at rates competitive with the private sector. This bill would also improve the quality of care for veterans by reducing the turnover of Therapeutic Medical Physicists, and lead to lower total costs for the Department by eliminating the use of expensive contractors. With these savings, the Department could raise salaries and hire more Therapeutic Medical Physicists. This commonsense, bipartisan legislation is an opportunity to invest in professionals who treat those who have sacrificed for our nation, and improve the standard of care we provide to our veterans. I look forward to working with my colleagues to swiftly implementing the provisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs Therapeutic Medical Physicist Pay Cap Relief Act. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.