Tim Kaine

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce the Fair and Equal Housing Act of 2019, legislation to ensure equal housing opportunities for all Americans. This bipartisan bill would protect Americans from housing discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. No American should be turned away from a home they love because of who they love. I began my career as a civil rights attorney. My initial focus was on fair housing, and I learned early on that a home is more than just structure or a shelter. A home plays an integral role in one's identity, and it is central to the life of every American. Housing discrimination nevertheless continues to plague many Americans. And it is a reality for LGBT Americans because of incomplete protections in the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the landmark Federal housing law. The FHA prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability. It does not, however, protect against discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender. More than 20 states and over 200 localities safeguard sexual orientation and gender identify in their housing discrimination laws. That's telling. It's time for the federal government to do the same. A study released this month analyzed national mortgage data from 1990 to 2015. It found that same-sex applicants were 73 percent more likely to be denied approval for a mortgage than opposite-sex couples. The study also found that same-sex couples often pay more for their loans in interest and fees. This despite the fact that the study found no evidence that same-sex couples carried a higher default risk. In fact, the study's findings suggest that same-sex borrowers may perform better. The analysis indicated that, on average, same-sex couples paid 0.2 percent more in interest and fees, which adds up to as much as $86 million per year. These findings confirm the need to include gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes under federal housing laws. Loan decisions should be based on fundamental economic considerations, not race, religion, sexual orientation or gender. The job of perfecting our Union is an ongoing quest requiring continued stewardship. Our history is replete with examples of manifest action from the Bill of Rights, to the 14th Amendment, to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Fair and Equal Housing Act of 2019 is one more step in our longer journey to perfect our Union and to extinguish discrimination in places which call for our leadership. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to speak today about the vote we cast earlier confirming GEN John Abizaid, Retired, to be U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. I was proud to vote for him. I think he is very well qualified for that position. The position has been vacant since 2017. Other critical countries in this most important region are without Ambassadors--Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan. General Abizaid has his work cut out for him, and I want to speak specifically about some of the challenges in Saudi Arabia now. I believe there is a great day of reckoning that is now pending in the U.S.-Saudi relationship. Last week, the House of Representatives passed a Senate resolution ordering the President to stop U.S. military action in support of Saudi Arabia's intervention in Yemen's civil war. The Senate had earlier acted on that bill in 2018. It went to the House and died. The Senate took up the bill again recently, and the House passed it. The bill is now on its way to the President's desk. The President has indicated that he is likely to veto the bill, to continue U.S. support for Saudi military activity in Yemen. If that happens, the bill will come back to the Senate, and the Senate will then have the opportunity to vote on whether that veto should be overridden. The House vote to withdraw U.S. support for this military activity was 247 to 175. The Senate vote was 54 to 46. The Yemen civil war has been a humanitarian disaster. Many of my colleagues have spoken at length about this, so I will not speak at length. Just to underline key points, it has been a humanitarian disaster, and the United States should not be involved. Saudi intervention has made it worse. As of November 2018, nearly 7,000 civilians have been killed, nearly 11,000 had been wounded--the majority by Saudi Arabia-led coalition airstrikes, many of which are targeted and prosecuted in amateurish ways. Those statistics are according to the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights. The actual human casualties are actually much higher because the war has led to famine and disease outbreaks that have killed many more. Thousands have been displaced by fighting, and millions are suffering from shortages of food and medical care, with the country on the brink of famine. There are 12 to 13 million civilians at risk of starvation largely because of the effects of this civil war. In addition to the poor prosecution of this military activity by Saudi Arabia, there are other issues we have to grapple with. A Virginia resident who is a Saudi citizen, Jamal Khashoggi, who was a journalist for the Washington Post, criticized the Saudi policy in Yemen. For his advocacy against the war, the Government of Saudi Arabia lured him into their consulate in Istanbul and then tortured and assassinated him, dismembering his body with a bone saw. Then the Saudi Government engaged in a massive misinformation and disinformation campaign, lying to the United States and to the world about what had happened, saying that he had left the Embassy on his own, saying that it had been an accident, coming up with all manner of excuses before the even cursory investigation demonstrated that he had been assassinated. The U.S. intelligence community is unified in their assessment of what happened to this Virginia resident--a gross violation of human rights to assassinate a journalist, especially in a safe haven, which is what a consulate is supposed to be. In addition to the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, Saudi Arabia has been arresting civil rights activists for years, including, recently, two Virginia residents--Aziza al-Youssef, who is a Saudi citizen who studied at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond and then went to back to Saudi Arabia to teach women computer science. Her son, Salah al-Haidar, also has been arrested for advocating for women's rights. What rights are they advocating for? The right of women to drive. The right of women to make some of their own decisions under Saudi law. Decisions by women cannot be made independently but must generally be agreed to by a father or a husband. Simply for advocating that women be treated as equal, with equal rights, these Virginia residents and many others have been jailed and tortured. One would think that the United States would be up in arms about the assassination of a U.S. resident journalist, about the arrest of U.S. residents, including U.S. citizens advocating for women's rights, but that is not the case. The President refuses to submit a report determining whether Jamal Khashoggi's murder was a human rights violation. The Magnitsky Act was designed to promote cooperation between the legislative and the executive branches. When Congress has information that suggests there is a significant human rights violation by a foreign government, we write a letter to the President. The President has 120 days to investigate and then offer a determination as to whether there was a human rights violation. It is a cooperative dialogue. We wrote the letter, 120 days passed, and President Trump and the administration will not answer it. They will not say there was a human rights violation. They will not say there wasn't a human rights violation. I am not aware of their doing this for any other nation. For Saudi Arabia, they are ignoring the clear requirements of the Magnitsky Act. President Trump said: ``It could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this event--maybe he did and maybe he didn't.'' That comment is at odds with the assessment of the U.S. intelligence community that this assassination was an official act of the Saudi Arabian Government that would not have happened without the knowledge of the Crown Prince, M.B.S. The relationship following these arrests and this assassination has not been downgraded or suffered repercussions within this administration--in fact, to the contrary. Two weeks ago, right before an Armed Services Committee hearing where Secretary of Energy Rick Perry was testifying, we learned that the Trump administration has approved secret transfers of nuclear technical information from American companies to Saudi Arabia on seven occasions since 2017. These transfers are called Part 810 authorizations. They require an approval of the Department of Energy. Under my cross-examination, Secretary Perry was forced to confirm that, yes, the administration has authorized on seven occasions transfers of this nuclear know-how to Saudi Arabia. In the past, when these transfers were approved, they were made public so that the American public and Congress could exercise oversight on which nations in the world are being given nuclear technology, but in this instance and possibly others in this administration, the approvals were kept secret. Why are they secret now? We know that Saudi Arabia is intent on building a nuclear program. That is well covered. But they haven't agreed to the nonproliferation rules that would prevent the development of nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty is a bedrock principle of international law that the United States has supported for a very long time. The principle is simple. We would not want countries to get nuclear technology unless they give us guarantees that technology is only for peaceful use, medical research, power production but not to produce nuclear weapons. We are transferring this technical know-how to the Saudi Arabian Government secretly, without yet requiring that they sign on to the important safety protections in the NPT. It is only logical that Congress would want to know more about these approvals to make sure they don't spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In the recent hearing, I asked Secretary Perry about whether the secret approvals of nuclear information transfer occurred before or after the October 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi. He claimed not to know. He has indicated he would provide that information in response to written questions. I submitted the written questions. He has still not provided the information. It is wrong to do these transfers without letting Congress know; it is wrong to do these transfers when Saudi Arabia has not yet agreed to the principles that would disallow nuclear proliferation; and it would certainly be wrong to agree to transfers of this kind of information after the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, but as of yet the administration hasn't given us the data. Beyond just the timing, who is getting these secret approvals? Secretary Perry said the approvals were secret because there is proprietary information. Companies might not want to have information that they have developed through their own research available to all, but that doesn't explain it. You don't have to give the proprietary information to indicate what company has gotten an approval on what day to do the transfer. Who is getting these secret approvals? One major nuclear firm, Westinghouse, has been reported as a frontrunner in the competitive effort to do nuclear reactor construction in Saudi Arabia. Westinghouse is owned by the same investors who bailed White House adviser Jared Kushner out of a bad real estate deal. Remember, Jared Kushner was originally denied a security clearance in the White House due to concerns about foreign influence and personal financial conflicts. Additional reporting connects disgraced National Security Advisor Michael Flynn--who has been convicted for lying about his ties to and communication with foreign governments--to the push for the Saudi nuclear deal. Finally, earlier today, I asked Secretary Pompeo in a Foreign Relations Committee hearing about public reports in The National Interest, in September of 2018, that say the Saudis have a robust anti- ballistic missile program that has been largely built on Chinese missiles--missiles from China that were constructed originally to carry nuclear warheads--but that the Saudis have apparently used with nonnuclear payloads or outfitted with nonnuclear payloads. The National Interest article that I entered into the Record, dated September 21, 2018, indicated that, in Saudi Arabia, these missiles have been arranged so some of them would be directed toward Tehran and others would be directed toward Israel. All of these issues are on the table: poor prosecution of a civil war leading to humanitarian disaster, the murder of a U.S. resident journalist, the arrest of U.S. residents for women's rights activism, secret transfers of nuclear technology without letting Congress know, and then the story I asked Secretary Pompeo about today. The buildup of an anti-ballistic missile program based significantly on Chinese missiles leads me to ask: Why would we help Saudi Arabia in a disastrous war in Yemen? Why would we turn a blind eye to Saudi human rights abuses? Why would we transfer nuclear know-how and plan for a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia when they haven't agreed to nonproliferation rules that we expect other Nations to agree to in a way that would possibly spark an arms race in the Middle East? My final question is, who in the United States is benefiting from this? When I asked the Secretary of State this morning, again, on the dates of the nuclear approvals and did they occur before or after the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, I am sure he knew I was going to ask him that question. I asked Secretary Perry the question 2 weeks ago. I submitted that question for the record. He knew I was going to ask him that question, and he said he couldn't give me any information about the approvals; he would have to get back to me about them. Congress is not a student government. Congress is supposed to, as the article I branch, exercise oversight over important matters. There is hardly anything more important than the spread of nuclear technologies that could be used to proliferate weapons of mass destruction anywhere in the world, especially in a region as dangerous as the Middle East. These are the items that Ambassador Abizaid will need to deal with in his new role, but we need to exercise proper congressional oversight of this relationship because there are so many problems with it right now that are not being addressed by this administration. I think only Congress can address them. I hope my colleagues will join me with that oversight. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, investing in the development of a robust, well-trained, and stable child welfare workforce is central to improving outcomes for children and families across the United States. The existence of such a workforce is essential to a child welfare agency's ability to carry out the responsibilities with which they have been entrusted. Child welfare work has been shown to be physically and emotionally challenging, as demonstrated by recent studies into the impact of secondary traumatic stress (STS) on child welfare professionals. The multitude of challenges inherent in child welfare work, combined with relatively low compensation and work benefits, make these careers difficult to sustain, resulting in high rates of turnover. Studies conducted over the last 15 years estimate the national rate of turnover of child welfare workers to be 20-40 percent annually. In 2017, Virginia reported a turnover rate of 30%, while Washington State reported a turnover rate of 20% and Georgia reported a turnover rate of 32%. These high rates of turnover detract from the quality of services delivered to children and families and result in an estimated cost of $54,000 per worker leaving an agency. Greater action is needed to ensure that individuals pursuing child welfare careers receive appropriate training and support to improve the sustainability of their important, yet demanding work. Higher rates of retention for child welfare workers translates to greater stability for families and improved services for vulnerable youth. Existing research provides a number of evidenced-based and promising practices for improving recruitment and retention in the child welfare workforce. This is why I am pleased to introduce today the Child Welfare Workforce Support Act. This bill directs the Secretary to conduct a five-year demonstration program for child welfare service providers to implement targeted interventions to recruit, select, and retain child welfare workers. This demonstration program will focus on building an evidence base of best practices for reducing barriers to the recruitment, development, and retention of individuals providing direct services to children and families. Funds will also be used to provide ongoing professional development to assist child welfare workers in meeting the diverse needs of families with infants and children with the goal of improving both the quality of services provided and the sustainability of such careers. Investing resources in determining what practices have the greatest impact on the successful recruitment and retention of child welfare workers will assist in developing an evidence-base for future federal investment in this space. I hope that as the Senate begins to discuss reauthorizing the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act that we consider the Child Welfare Workforce Support Act and recognize the important role that child welfare workers make to improve outcomes for vulnerable infants and children.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, according to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) youth are at an increased risk for experiencing maltreatment compared to non-LGB youth. A 2011 meta-analysis of 37 school-based studies found that LGB adolescents were 3.8 times more likely to experience childhood sexual abuse and 1.2 times more likely to experience physical abuse by a parent or guardian when compared to their heterosexual peers. Additional studies have demonstrated that gender nonconformity during childhood may increase the risk for child maltreatment. Unfortunately, there is not enough research and data available to identify the risk of child maltreatment for individuals who identify as transgender. These risks for maltreatment often times result in LGBTQ youth entering the child welfare system. Studies have found that, ``LGBT young people are overrepresented in child welfare systems, despite the fact that they are likely to be underreported because they risk harassment and abuse if their LGBT identity is disclosed.'' This overrepresentation of LGBTQ youth in the foster care system raises concerns about issues in the child abuse and prevention space. Additional research is needed to understand the risk of maltreatment among LGBTQ youth, particularly those identifying as transgender. These studies will yield invaluable information to be used in developing targeted prevention strategies to reduce the rates of adverse childhood experiences of LGBTQ individuals. This is why I am pleased to introduce the Protecting LGBTQ Youth Act, which calls for HHS and other federal agencies to carry out an interdisciplinary research program to protect LGBTQ youth from child abuse and neglect and improve the well-being of victims of child abuse or neglect. This legislation also expands current practices around demographic information collection and reporting on incidences and prevalence of child maltreatment to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Additionally, the bill opens existing grant funding opportunities to invest in the training of personnel in best practices to meet the unique needs of LGBTQ youth and calls for the inclusion of individuals experienced in working with LGBTQ youth and families in state task forces. Improving data collection and disaggregation will provide greater insight into the circumstances LGBTQ youth face in the home that, when left unaddressed, lead to entry into the child welfare system. This improved data-driven understanding can then be used to develop appropriate and effective primary prevention practices to decrease the risks faced by LGTBQ youth. I hope that as the Senate begins to discuss the reauthorization of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act we consider the Protecting LGBTQ Youth Act to better inform our collective understanding of the risks faced by LGBTQ youth and the best ways to address them.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, investing in the development of a robust, well-trained, and stable child welfare workforce is central to improving outcomes for children and families across the United States. The existence of such a workforce is essential to a child welfare agency's ability to carry out the responsibilities with which they have been entrusted. Child welfare work has been shown to be physically and emotionally challenging, as demonstrated by recent studies into the impact of secondary traumatic stress (STS) on child welfare professionals. The multitude of challenges inherent in child welfare work, combined with relatively low compensation and work benefits, make these careers difficult to sustain, resulting in high rates of turnover. Studies conducted over the last 15 years estimate the national rate of turnover of child welfare workers to be 20-40 percent annually. In 2017, Virginia reported a turnover rate of 30%, while Washington State reported a turnover rate of 20% and Georgia reported a turnover rate of 32%. These high rates of turnover detract from the quality of services delivered to children and families and result in an estimated cost of $54,000 per worker leaving an agency. Greater action is needed to ensure that individuals pursuing child welfare careers receive appropriate training and support to improve the sustainability of their important, yet demanding work. Higher rates of retention for child welfare workers translates to greater stability for families and improved services for vulnerable youth. Existing research provides a number of evidenced-based and promising practices for improving recruitment and retention in the child welfare workforce. This is why I am pleased to introduce today the Child Welfare Workforce Support Act. This bill directs the Secretary to conduct a five-year demonstration program for child welfare service providers to implement targeted interventions to recruit, select, and retain child welfare workers. This demonstration program will focus on building an evidence base of best practices for reducing barriers to the recruitment, development, and retention of individuals providing direct services to children and families. Funds will also be used to provide ongoing professional development to assist child welfare workers in meeting the diverse needs of families with infants and children with the goal of improving both the quality of services provided and the sustainability of such careers. Investing resources in determining what practices have the greatest impact on the successful recruitment and retention of child welfare workers will assist in developing an evidence-base for future federal investment in this space. I hope that as the Senate begins to discuss reauthorizing the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act that we consider the Child Welfare Workforce Support Act and recognize the important role that child welfare workers make to improve outcomes for vulnerable infants and children.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, according to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) youth are at an increased risk for experiencing maltreatment compared to non-LGB youth. A 2011 meta-analysis of 37 school-based studies found that LGB adolescents were 3.8 times more likely to experience childhood sexual abuse and 1.2 times more likely to experience physical abuse by a parent or guardian when compared to their heterosexual peers. Additional studies have demonstrated that gender nonconformity during childhood may increase the risk for child maltreatment. Unfortunately, there is not enough research and data available to identify the risk of child maltreatment for individuals who identify as transgender. These risks for maltreatment often times result in LGBTQ youth entering the child welfare system. Studies have found that, ``LGBT young people are overrepresented in child welfare systems, despite the fact that they are likely to be underreported because they risk harassment and abuse if their LGBT identity is disclosed.'' This overrepresentation of LGBTQ youth in the foster care system raises concerns about issues in the child abuse and prevention space. Additional research is needed to understand the risk of maltreatment among LGBTQ youth, particularly those identifying as transgender. These studies will yield invaluable information to be used in developing targeted prevention strategies to reduce the rates of adverse childhood experiences of LGBTQ individuals. This is why I am pleased to introduce the Protecting LGBTQ Youth Act, which calls for HHS and other federal agencies to carry out an interdisciplinary research program to protect LGBTQ youth from child abuse and neglect and improve the well-being of victims of child abuse or neglect. This legislation also expands current practices around demographic information collection and reporting on incidences and prevalence of child maltreatment to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Additionally, the bill opens existing grant funding opportunities to invest in the training of personnel in best practices to meet the unique needs of LGBTQ youth and calls for the inclusion of individuals experienced in working with LGBTQ youth and families in state task forces. Improving data collection and disaggregation will provide greater insight into the circumstances LGBTQ youth face in the home that, when left unaddressed, lead to entry into the child welfare system. This improved data-driven understanding can then be used to develop appropriate and effective primary prevention practices to decrease the risks faced by LGTBQ youth. I hope that as the Senate begins to discuss the reauthorization of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act we consider the Protecting LGBTQ Youth Act to better inform our collective understanding of the risks faced by LGBTQ youth and the best ways to address them.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. I thank the Senator from Texas. Continuing: In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: ``All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth.'' Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity. You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect in the sense of ``somebodiness'' that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible ``devil.'' I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the ``do nothingism'' of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as ``rabble rousers'' and ``outside agitators'' those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare. Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides--and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people, ``Get rid of your discontent.'' Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled through into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: ``Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.'' Was not Amos an extremist for justice: ``Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream.'' Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: ``I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.'' Was not Martin Luther an extremist: ``Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God.'' And John Bunyan: ``I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.'' And Abraham Lincoln: ``This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.'' And Thomas Jefferson: ``We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . .'' So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists. I yield to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today Senator Carper and I introduced the Reclaiming Congressional Trade Authority Act of 2019. Enacting this bill would restore the role on Congress in overseeing international trade matters. I have been outspoken against the abuse of executive authorities that have been delegated to the President. Congress has a Constitutional power to oversee international trade. We have recently seen an abuse of this power, as with other executive authorities. This bill would mandate expanded Congressional involvement in international trade decisions by requiring the Trump Administration--and future Administrations--to further analyze, communicate, and justify tariff actions to Congress. Congress would then review new tariffs and if the Administration used national security to justify the tariffs' need, Congress would be required to approve them. I am advocating for my colleagues to consider supporting this bill, especially as the damaging effects of the ongoing trade war continue. It's time for Congress to step in and act on our Constitutional duty.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today Senator Carper and I introduced the Reclaiming Congressional Trade Authority Act of 2019. Enacting this bill would restore the role on Congress in overseeing international trade matters. I have been outspoken against the abuse of executive authorities that have been delegated to the President. Congress has a Constitutional power to oversee international trade. We have recently seen an abuse of this power, as with other executive authorities. This bill would mandate expanded Congressional involvement in international trade decisions by requiring the Trump Administration--and future Administrations--to further analyze, communicate, and justify tariff actions to Congress. Congress would then review new tariffs and if the Administration used national security to justify the tariffs' need, Congress would be required to approve them. I am advocating for my colleagues to consider supporting this bill, especially as the damaging effects of the ongoing trade war continue. It's time for Congress to step in and act on our Constitutional duty.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. In today's economy, approximately 80 percent of jobs require some form of postsecondary education or training beyond the high school level. The National Skills Coalition estimates that nearly half of all job openings between now and 2022 will be middle skill jobs that require post high school training, but not a four-year degree. While the number of students pursing postsecondary education is growing, the supply of skilled workers still falls short of industry demand. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics 7.3 million U.S. jobs are currently vacant in part because of a shortage of qualified workers. Our Federal higher education policy must be modernized to meet the needs of students and employers. Under current law, Pell Grants--needs- based grants for low-income and working students--can only be awarded to students attending programs that are over 600 clock hours or at least 15 weeks in length. These grants cannot be used to offset the cost of targeted, short-term training programs offered at community and technical colleges that help students obtain employer-recognized credentials. When it comes to higher education, Federal policies need to support the demands of the changing labor market by increasing access to career pathways that align with industry demand. According to the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, shorter-term educational investments pay off--the average postsecondary certificate holder has 30 percent higher lifetime earnings than individuals with only a high school diploma. Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleague, Senator Portman, the Jumpstart Our Businesses by Supporting Students or JOBS Act. The JOBS Act would close the skills gap by extending Pell Grant eligibility to high-quality, short-term job training programs offered at community colleges and other public institutions, so workers can afford the instruction they need to be successful in today's job market. Under the legislation, Pell-eligible job training programs are defined as those providing at least 150 clock hours of instruction time over a minimum of 8 weeks. Eligible job training programs must also provide students with licenses, certifications, or credentials that meet the hiring requirements of multiple employers in the field for which the job training is offered. The JOBS Act also ensures that students enrolling in Pell-eligible short-term programs are earning high-quality postsecondary credentials by requiring that the credentials meet the standards of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, are recognized by industry or sector partnerships, and align with the skill needs of industries in States or local economies. Job training programs under this Act must also be evaluated by an accreditor and the State workforce board for quality and outcomes. The Virginia Community College System has identified approximately 50 programs that would benefit from the JOBS Act including in the fields of manufacturing, architecture/construction, energy, health care, information technology, transportation, and business management and administration. The JOBS Act is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that would help workers and employers succeed in today's economy. As Congress works to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in advocating for Pell Grants to be made available to individuals enrolling in high-quality, short-term training programs that lead to industry-recognized credentials and good paying jobs.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. In today's economy, approximately 80 percent of jobs require some form of postsecondary education or training beyond the high school level. The National Skills Coalition estimates that nearly half of all job openings between now and 2022 will be middle skill jobs that require post high school training, but not a four-year degree. While the number of students pursing postsecondary education is growing, the supply of skilled workers still falls short of industry demand. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics 7.3 million U.S. jobs are currently vacant in part because of a shortage of qualified workers. Our Federal higher education policy must be modernized to meet the needs of students and employers. Under current law, Pell Grants--needs- based grants for low-income and working students--can only be awarded to students attending programs that are over 600 clock hours or at least 15 weeks in length. These grants cannot be used to offset the cost of targeted, short-term training programs offered at community and technical colleges that help students obtain employer-recognized credentials. When it comes to higher education, Federal policies need to support the demands of the changing labor market by increasing access to career pathways that align with industry demand. According to the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, shorter-term educational investments pay off--the average postsecondary certificate holder has 30 percent higher lifetime earnings than individuals with only a high school diploma. Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleague, Senator Portman, the Jumpstart Our Businesses by Supporting Students or JOBS Act. The JOBS Act would close the skills gap by extending Pell Grant eligibility to high-quality, short-term job training programs offered at community colleges and other public institutions, so workers can afford the instruction they need to be successful in today's job market. Under the legislation, Pell-eligible job training programs are defined as those providing at least 150 clock hours of instruction time over a minimum of 8 weeks. Eligible job training programs must also provide students with licenses, certifications, or credentials that meet the hiring requirements of multiple employers in the field for which the job training is offered. The JOBS Act also ensures that students enrolling in Pell-eligible short-term programs are earning high-quality postsecondary credentials by requiring that the credentials meet the standards of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, are recognized by industry or sector partnerships, and align with the skill needs of industries in States or local economies. Job training programs under this Act must also be evaluated by an accreditor and the State workforce board for quality and outcomes. The Virginia Community College System has identified approximately 50 programs that would benefit from the JOBS Act including in the fields of manufacturing, architecture/construction, energy, health care, information technology, transportation, and business management and administration. The JOBS Act is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that would help workers and employers succeed in today's economy. As Congress works to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in advocating for Pell Grants to be made available to individuals enrolling in high-quality, short-term training programs that lead to industry-recognized credentials and good paying jobs.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise, as colleagues of mine have earlier today, to talk about the President's emergency declaration. Before I do, I will just say that this declaration deals with budgetary matters at the end of the day, whether the President should be able to take $6.1 billion this year and possibly more in future years from the Pentagon's budget to deal with a nonbudgetary emergency. I want to acknowledge that today is the last day of my budget staffer, my right hand on all Federal budget matters for the last 6\1/ 2\ years, Ron Storhaug. I am going to miss him. I will start there. I will miss Ron. He has done such a good job. My only good feeling is that he is staying right here in the Senate and moving to work with the senior Senator from Maryland. I want to talk about the declaration and urge my colleagues to vote to reject what I believe is the President's unwise use of his power to raid the Pentagon's budget. Is there an emergency at the border? There is a serious issue at the border--a whole series of serious issues, negative but also positive. Trade happens across all the borders of the country. But all the testimony before the Armed Services Committee, where I sit, says there is no military emergency at the border. We heard testimony from General O'Shaughnessy, who is the commander of what we call NORTHCOM-- everything in the Americas north of Mexico's southern border. General O'Shaughnessy said there is no military emergency at the border between the United States and Mexico. We heard the same testimony this morning from Defense Secretary Shanahan and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunford. So there is no military emergency at the border. Compared to other significant challenges we deal with--70,000 drug overdose deaths a year, climate change, 40,000 deaths a year from gun violence, including both homicides and suicides, homelessness, lack of medical care, military housing--it is hard to see why the border issue would be an emergency that would rise to the top of any list. I can certainly assert this: There are much higher priorities for Virginians. While we could argue about whether it is an emergency, one thing I think is pretty clear--it is inarguably a Presidential power grab. The President is unhappy with congressional appropriations for the border, so he is declaring an emergency to take $6.1 billion this year and possibly more in future years from the Pentagon's budget. This will establish a very dangerous precedent. First, let's focus on the President's being unhappy. For all of this President's tenure up until January 3, he had two Republican Houses. There were two Republican Houses and a Republican President. Why should he be unhappy with the budget? He would have had the ability to convince Republican majorities to do what he wanted, but he could not. So he is unhappy with what Congress, the appropriating branch, has put on the table. We put billions of dollars on the table for the border, but he is unhappy with it, and so now he is going to declare an emergency. It raises two important questions. Can a President just declare an emergency every time he is unhappy that Congress doesn't accept his budgetary proposals? Second, can the President use the declaration of a nonmilitary emergency to just tap a spigot into the Pentagon's budget? That is exactly what President Trump is trying to do in this case. The President has declared an emergency that all agree is a nonmilitary emergency. The President said: I want to take $6.1 billion from the Pentagon's budget to deal with this emergency. He wants to take $3.6 billion from military construction. Military construction are the funds we use to build facilities on our military bases across the United States and across the world or to rebuild facilities, like the airbase at Tyndall or the big sections of Camp Lejeune that were hit in hurricanes last year. That is what the MILCON budget is supposed to do. This morning, I toured Fort Belvoir to visit with Army families living at Fort Belvoir in Fairfax County, VA. They shared with me atrocious stories about the condition of the housing they are living in. These are atrocious stories of rodent infestation, black mold, lead, and asbestos. I drove by one military house at Fort Belvoir that had a big warning sign on the door: ``Poison.'' You could not enter it because of efforts at asbestos and lead remediation. The families told me about the poor physical conditions of their properties. They told me about the fact that they couldn't get a response when they were trying to get help. Then they told me, tragically, about the illnesses of their children, hospitalizations, and having to move out of their homes and apartments. One mother of a 10-year-old talked about the fact that her 10-year-old daughter, because of mold in her military housing unit, missed 45 days of school in the last school year. Her daughter had to be absent for a quarter of the school year because of the poor physical conditions of military housing. The MILCON budget is there to deal with issues like these. Yet the President wants to take $3.6 billion out of the MILCON budget. The President wants to take $2.5 billion out of the drug-interdiction budget within the Department of Defense. Press reports suggest that account only has about $85 million available, so what they would need to do is cannibalize other accounts to fill up that account to $2.5 billion to then take out. Those are the important funds--military construction and drug interdiction--the President is proposing to raid. I think it is important to notice this: The President's emergency declaration is not just about tapping the budget this year for $6.1 billion. Earlier today, in an Armed Services hearing, I asked Secretary Shanahan: Doesn't this emergency declaration last until the President declares it is over? If we don't rebut the emergency, it will not just be fiscal year 2019; it will be fiscal year 2020 or 2021 and beyond. It will enable the President to tap a spigot into the MILCON budget and draw out moneys this year, next year, and in future years. So it is $6.1 billion that he is asking for this year, but unless Congress asserts its article I power to say, no, we are the appropriators, we will basically be allowing the President to tap into this fund in perpetuity, thereby affecting important military construction priorities that would be good for the military families and our Nation's defense. Which military construction projects might be compromised by the President's use of this $6.1 billion? When the President declared the emergency, I wrote a letter to Secretary Shanahan on February 15 and asked: Can you give us a list of the projects that will be compromised by this $6.1 billion raid on the Pentagon's budget? I have not received a response. That was 27 days ago. This morning, before the committee, Secretary Shanahan was asked: Why haven't we received a list? If the President wants to take $6.1 billion out of the Pentagon's budget, give us a list of the potential projects that could be affected. I wrote a letter on the 15th, and staffers have been reaching out to the Pentagon. If you do not know precisely the projects, give us the universe--all unobligated MILCON projects on your priority list that could possibly be affected. Today, after not responding to the requests, Secretary Shanahan said that he will send us a list at the end of the day: I will send you a list, basically, after you vote this afternoon. The vote that we will be casting this afternoon is about whether the President should be able to raid the Pentagon's budget for $6.1 billion. For a month, we have been asking what projects might be affected, and they are now proposing to give us an answer to the question after the vote. They have had the list since the very day we asked them. They keep a list every day about unobligated MILCON projects, but the service secretaries are not allowed to share those lists with Congress until the Secretary of Defense allows them to, and he is going to allow us to see it today. Everybody is voting to cannibalize the Pentagon's budget to the tune of $6.1 billion. All of the Senators should be interested in what projects might be affected in their own States that are necessary to the Nation's defense before they vote to give the President this power. In conclusion, I hope, today, we will stand up against the President's power grab. We shouldn't let the President tap a spigot into the Pentagon's budget to deal with an emergency that all have agreed is a nonmilitary emergency. We shouldn't let him tap a spigot that is not just for this budgetary year but for future fiscal years, as well, which is the effect of the vote today. We are the article I branch, and under that section of the Constitution, we set the spending priorities. Because he is unhappy with our work product, the President should not be able to overturn the spending priorities that we have established in our appropriations bills and raid the Pentagon's budget without telling us where the moneys will come from. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. As career opportunities and the requisite skills for success adapt to the demands of the 21st century, so too must the instruction and preparation students receive. Educators are tasked with designing educational experiences that rise to the rigorous State academic standards and reflect the needs and interests of our Nation's diverse student population. We have become accustomed to welcoming the start of the school year with news headlines describing overfilled classrooms and districts struggling to fill teacher vacancies. Though the challenge of teacher and principal shortages is felt broadly across the country, with a particularly acute impact on our rural communities, it is an issue we can remedy. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act is an opportunity to strengthen the preparation and leaders and to further support State efforts to successfully implement the Every Student Succeeds Act. It is also an opportunity to address the fact that schools in high-need communities are often staffed by a revolving door of underprepared and inexperienced teachers who are unable to meet students' needs. This in part due to State teacher shortages. This is why I am pleased to introduce today with my colleague Senator Collins, the Preparing and Retaining Education Professionals Act, or PREP Act. As schools across our Nation continue to face growing class sizes, many are struggling with a shortage of qualified teachers. Rural communities in particular are experiencing a dearth of teachers equipped to meet their growing needs. The PREP Act aims to create high- quality teacher residency programs to develop a diverse workforce that is well-prepared to provide the educational opportunities students need to be successful in the 21st century. More specifically, this legislation would expand the definition of ``high need'' districts under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to include those experiencing teacher shortages in rural communities and in areas such as special education, English language, science, technology, engineering, math, and CTE, to allow for access to additional support and improvement. It would also encourage school districts to establish partnerships with local community colleges and universities to ensure their education programs are developing future teachers in content areas where there is currently a shortage of educators. It would increase access to teacher and school leader residency programs and preparation training while requiring States to identify areas of teacher or leader shortages by subject across public schools and use that data to target their efforts. Additionally, the PREP Act bolsters support for teacher preparation programs at Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) or Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) to invest in a diverse and well-prepared educator workforce. Improving our Nation's educational system is contingent on our ability to prepare, support, and retain quality educators. Research shows that better prepared teachers stay longer in the profession and are more likely to remain in their roles and positively impact young people and their communities. As we look to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle see the PREP Act as a commonsense opportunity to help ensure that students in every zip code across the country have the well-prepared teachers and school leaders they deserve.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. As career opportunities and the requisite skills for success adapt to the demands of the 21st century, so too must the instruction and preparation students receive. Educators are tasked with designing educational experiences that rise to the rigorous State academic standards and reflect the needs and interests of our Nation's diverse student population. We have become accustomed to welcoming the start of the school year with news headlines describing overfilled classrooms and districts struggling to fill teacher vacancies. Though the challenge of teacher and principal shortages is felt broadly across the country, with a particularly acute impact on our rural communities, it is an issue we can remedy. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act is an opportunity to strengthen the preparation and leaders and to further support State efforts to successfully implement the Every Student Succeeds Act. It is also an opportunity to address the fact that schools in high-need communities are often staffed by a revolving door of underprepared and inexperienced teachers who are unable to meet students' needs. This in part due to State teacher shortages. This is why I am pleased to introduce today with my colleague Senator Collins, the Preparing and Retaining Education Professionals Act, or PREP Act. As schools across our Nation continue to face growing class sizes, many are struggling with a shortage of qualified teachers. Rural communities in particular are experiencing a dearth of teachers equipped to meet their growing needs. The PREP Act aims to create high- quality teacher residency programs to develop a diverse workforce that is well-prepared to provide the educational opportunities students need to be successful in the 21st century. More specifically, this legislation would expand the definition of ``high need'' districts under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to include those experiencing teacher shortages in rural communities and in areas such as special education, English language, science, technology, engineering, math, and CTE, to allow for access to additional support and improvement. It would also encourage school districts to establish partnerships with local community colleges and universities to ensure their education programs are developing future teachers in content areas where there is currently a shortage of educators. It would increase access to teacher and school leader residency programs and preparation training while requiring States to identify areas of teacher or leader shortages by subject across public schools and use that data to target their efforts. Additionally, the PREP Act bolsters support for teacher preparation programs at Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) or Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) to invest in a diverse and well-prepared educator workforce. Improving our Nation's educational system is contingent on our ability to prepare, support, and retain quality educators. Research shows that better prepared teachers stay longer in the profession and are more likely to remain in their roles and positively impact young people and their communities. As we look to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle see the PREP Act as a commonsense opportunity to help ensure that students in every zip code across the country have the well-prepared teachers and school leaders they deserve.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. I am pleased today to introduce in the Senate, with my colleague Senator Young, a bipartisan resolution to repeal the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq. This legislation will formally end the authorizations for the Gulf and Iraq wars--28 and 17 years, respectively, after these AUMFs were first passed, reasserting Congress' vital role in not only declaring wars, but in ending them. The repeal of these authorizations also recognizes the strong partnership the United States now has with a sovereign, democratic Iraq. The United States is no longer at war with Iraq and our legal frameworks should reflect this reality as much as our policy frameworks, to include the Strategic Framework Agreement that Iraq and the United States signed in November 2008, which affirms the establishment of a long-term relationship of cooperation and friendship, based on the principle of equality in sovereignty and the rights and principles that are enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Since 2014, U.S. troops have been in Iraq, alongside Iraqi forces, at the Government of Iraq's request for assistance in combating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Current Administration officials, including Secretary Pompeo, Acting Secretary Shanahan and Commander of the United States Central Command, General Votel, have routinely emphasized that United States military forces remain in Iraq at the invitation of the Government of Iraq and in respect to its sovereignty. Recent presidential administrations have maintained that the 2002 AUMF only serves to ``reinforce'' any legal authority to combat ISIS provided by the 2001 AUMF and is not independently required to authorize any such activities. As such, repealing the 1991 AUMF and the 2002 AUMF would not affect ongoing United States military operations. It would however, prevent the future misuse of the Gulf and Iraq War authorizations and strengthen Congressional oversight over war powers. It is past time to repeal both AUMFs and formally mark the end of the Iraq War that resulted in a devastating loss of life and wounded tens of thousands of our troops. It makes no sense that two AUMFs remain in place against a country that is now a close ally. They serve no operational purpose, run the risk of future abuse by the President, and help keep our nation at permanent war. I am proud to join Senator Young in introducing a bill to repeal these outdated and unnecessary authorizations. I hope we can continue to find bipartisan compromise on these tough war power issues to include revising and replacing the 2001 AUMF.

Mr. KAINE

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

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. I am pleased today to introduce in the Senate, with my colleague Senator Young, a bipartisan resolution to repeal the 1991 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq. This legislation will formally end the authorizations for the Gulf and Iraq wars--28 and 17 years, respectively, after these AUMFs were first passed, reasserting Congress' vital role in not only declaring wars, but in ending them. The repeal of these authorizations also recognizes the strong partnership the United States now has with a sovereign, democratic Iraq. The United States is no longer at war with Iraq and our legal frameworks should reflect this reality as much as our policy frameworks, to include the Strategic Framework Agreement that Iraq and the United States signed in November 2008, which affirms the establishment of a long-term relationship of cooperation and friendship, based on the principle of equality in sovereignty and the rights and principles that are enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Since 2014, U.S. troops have been in Iraq, alongside Iraqi forces, at the Government of Iraq's request for assistance in combating the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Current Administration officials, including Secretary Pompeo, Acting Secretary Shanahan and Commander of the United States Central Command, General Votel, have routinely emphasized that United States military forces remain in Iraq at the invitation of the Government of Iraq and in respect to its sovereignty. Recent presidential administrations have maintained that the 2002 AUMF only serves to ``reinforce'' any legal authority to combat ISIS provided by the 2001 AUMF and is not independently required to authorize any such activities. As such, repealing the 1991 AUMF and the 2002 AUMF would not affect ongoing United States military operations. It would however, prevent the future misuse of the Gulf and Iraq War authorizations and strengthen Congressional oversight over war powers. It is past time to repeal both AUMFs and formally mark the end of the Iraq War that resulted in a devastating loss of life and wounded tens of thousands of our troops. It makes no sense that two AUMFs remain in place against a country that is now a close ally. They serve no operational purpose, run the risk of future abuse by the President, and help keep our nation at permanent war. I am proud to join Senator Young in introducing a bill to repeal these outdated and unnecessary authorizations. I hope we can continue to find bipartisan compromise on these tough war power issues to include revising and replacing the 2001 AUMF.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise and want to compliment my colleague from Oregon for putting on the table the need for this body--the greatest deliberative body in the world--to deliberate upon a situation of grave importance to the world--the reality of climate change and what we as American leaders can do to tackle it. I will take the floor to talk about this in the coming days.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, our Nation's continued economic progress and the social mobility of our citizens are contingent on the education and skills of the American workforce and its ability to adjust and fulfill the needs of the 21st century economy. Career and technical education (CTE) programs are an essential piece of every student's education, providing them access to the important knowledge, skills, and credentials needed to obtain careers in rapidly growing, high- demand fields. Today, approximately 12.2 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 intentionally designed applied learning, these students gain workplace skills and technical training that mirror in-demand positions in the workforce. In the coming decade, a projected 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 employability skills with workforce demands, lowering the probability of students dropping out of high school and increasing their 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 in CTE classrooms. It is essential that we elevate the important role of CTE in the country's ability to meet the interconnected challenges of economic development, student achievement, and global competitiveness. Last year, 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 co-chairs Senator Portman, Senator Baldwin, and Senator Young and 47 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, today I introduced the End Shutdowns Act. Enacting this bill would go a long way towards avoiding the pain and suffering caused to families from government shutdowns, such as the recent 35 day partial shutdown. I have been outspoken against President Trump's use of a government shutdown as a negotiating tactic, and--in an effort to take away that option in the future--this bill would initiate an automatic continuing resolution on October 1 if no appropriations bill is passed by that date. The legislation would then stop the Senate from moving forward with any other legislation, outside of an emergency scenario, until Congress reached an agreement on a long-term spending deal. I am advocating for my colleagues to consider supporting this bill, especially those negotiating on the current spending bills set to expire February 15, to include legislation to prevent future shutdowns in any bipartisan deal reached by that deadline.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I introduced the End Shutdowns Act. Enacting this bill would go a long way towards avoiding the pain and suffering caused to families from government shutdowns, such as the recent 35 day partial shutdown. I have been outspoken against President Trump's use of a government shutdown as a negotiating tactic, and--in an effort to take away that option in the future--this bill would initiate an automatic continuing resolution on October 1 if no appropriations bill is passed by that date. The legislation would then stop the Senate from moving forward with any other legislation, outside of an emergency scenario, until Congress reached an agreement on a long-term spending deal. I am advocating for my colleagues to consider supporting this bill, especially those negotiating on the current spending bills set to expire February 15, to include legislation to prevent future shutdowns in any bipartisan deal reached by that deadline.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, this bill authorizes additions to two existing wilderness areas within the George Washington National Forest in Bath County, Virginia. This text represents years of negotiation and compromise among Virginia stakeholders who rely in different ways on the GW Forest. In many parts of America, Federal land management is controversial. Some may view these lands as repositories for timber, energy, or minerals. Others may enjoy using recreational trails through them. Others may believe that they should be left to nature and not disturbed. The truth, of course, is that all of these uses are important; the conflict lies in agreeing on which lands are best suited to which purposes. In the lead-up to the latest multi-year GW Forest Management Plan, various forest users came together to see if they could find reasonable compromises that would avoid years of unproductive disagreement and litigation. This group, known as the George Washington National Forest Stakeholder Collaborative, succeeded. Through hard work and consensus, the Collaborative made joint recommendations to the U.S. Forest Service for forest management and protection. Preservation advocates consented to timber harvest and other active forest restoration and management in certain areas, while forest products interests consented to wilderness and light management in other areas. Following this fruitful collaboration, the Forest Service convened the Lower Cowpasture Restoration and Management Project, bringing together the Collaborative and other stakeholders to help develop management activities on this particular part of the Forest in Bath County. Again, this collaborative succeeded, with everyone getting some of what they want and giving some ground. The Collaborative has now come together to support the wilderness additions in this bill, which designates 4,500 acres to be added to the Rich Hole Wilderness Area and 1,000 acres to be added to the Rough Mountain Wilderness Area. I am proud to partner on this with my colleague Senator Mark Warner, and we are following in the path blazed by Senator John Warner and Representative Rick Boucher, who led the original Virginia Wilderness Act in 1984. Taking care of our Nation's public lands is good for the economy and good for the environment. Land disputes may often be contentious, but this example proves they don't have to be. When everyone comes to the table and invests the necessary time, we can find common ground. I hope this will be a lesson for us in other tough policy challenges, and I encourage the Senate to support this bill.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, this bill authorizes additions to two existing wilderness areas within the George Washington National Forest in Bath County, Virginia. This text represents years of negotiation and compromise among Virginia stakeholders who rely in different ways on the GW Forest. In many parts of America, Federal land management is controversial. Some may view these lands as repositories for timber, energy, or minerals. Others may enjoy using recreational trails through them. Others may believe that they should be left to nature and not disturbed. The truth, of course, is that all of these uses are important; the conflict lies in agreeing on which lands are best suited to which purposes. In the lead-up to the latest multi-year GW Forest Management Plan, various forest users came together to see if they could find reasonable compromises that would avoid years of unproductive disagreement and litigation. This group, known as the George Washington National Forest Stakeholder Collaborative, succeeded. Through hard work and consensus, the Collaborative made joint recommendations to the U.S. Forest Service for forest management and protection. Preservation advocates consented to timber harvest and other active forest restoration and management in certain areas, while forest products interests consented to wilderness and light management in other areas. Following this fruitful collaboration, the Forest Service convened the Lower Cowpasture Restoration and Management Project, bringing together the Collaborative and other stakeholders to help develop management activities on this particular part of the Forest in Bath County. Again, this collaborative succeeded, with everyone getting some of what they want and giving some ground. The Collaborative has now come together to support the wilderness additions in this bill, which designates 4,500 acres to be added to the Rich Hole Wilderness Area and 1,000 acres to be added to the Rough Mountain Wilderness Area. I am proud to partner on this with my colleague Senator Mark Warner, and we are following in the path blazed by Senator John Warner and Representative Rick Boucher, who led the original Virginia Wilderness Act in 1984. Taking care of our Nation's public lands is good for the economy and good for the environment. Land disputes may often be contentious, but this example proves they don't have to be. When everyone comes to the table and invests the necessary time, we can find common ground. I hope this will be a lesson for us in other tough policy challenges, and I encourage the Senate to support this bill.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. The issue isn't antipathy to the President. It is that Democrats don't believe in shutting down government. I appreciate my colleague from South Dakota stating the issue the way he did at the beginning of his talk: Democrats will not engage in negotiations to reopen the government. Let's be plain. Democrats think the Government of the United States should never close. Democrats think that using a shutdown as leverage to get something else is illegitimate and beneath the oath of office. The President, on the other hand, said that he is proud to shut government down and is willing to use the suffering of more than 800,000 employees and millions of American citizens to get his way. The difference here is not on the immigration topics; there are differences that can be resolved. But the difference that is hard to resolve is a President and a party that believe in government shutdowns and a party that rejects the idea of government shutdowns. I will state complete willingness to negotiate with this President and my colleagues over border security. We--8 Democrats, 8 Republicans--introduced a proposal in February with border security investments, protections for Dreamers; 46 out of 49 of Democrats supported a $25 billion border security investment, and only 8 of 51 Republicans did. The President blew up the deal. So the issue is not about negotiation over border security. We have been a more reliable party in making border security investments than the majority party has been. The issue is this: Is it or is it not illegitimate to shut down the government of the greatest Nation on Earth and inflict needless pain on hundreds of thousands of workers and millions of citizens when you don't get your way? That is what is at stake. Is the proposal that is on the table offered by the President a ``compromise''? If it were a compromise, the President would have talked to us about it. If it were a compromise, the majority would let us offer amendments about it. If it were a compromise, the majority would have had a hearing about it so that we could have asked questions about it. Introducing a 1,200-page bill on Tuesday and calling a vote on Thursday and giving Democrats no opportunity to ask questions or propose amendments is not a compromise. It is my way or the highway. What we should be doing to show that we respect the President's proposal is referring it to the committee of origin, having committee hearings and markup next week, and putting it on the floor the following week. If the President means it as a compromise, he should allow the Democratic Party--minority here and majority in the House--to have an opportunity to shape it. It is my hope that my Republican colleagues will vote to reopen government this afternoon, through February 8, so that we would use next week to have a committee process to consider the President's proposal and the following week consider it on the floor. These are important enough topics that it would seem giving it a 2-week review by committee and by Senators on the floor is not asking too much. Briefly, before yielding to my colleague from Missouri, I will say that I just returned from Reagan National Airport, where I met with air traffic controllers, TSA agents, airline safety specialists who maintain the radar and other safety equipment at this and other airports. They talked about how this shutdown in which they are working but not being paid is starting to fray them as they are working overtime, as they are trying to get jobs when they are not working 10- hour shifts to try to cover the bills they have to cover for babysitters and rent and medical appointments. They are talking about the degradation of the safety of American air traffic because of air traffic controllers not being paid, TSA agents not being paid, airline safety specialists not being paid and, in some instances, furloughed. If nothing else, we should care about the safety of commercial aviation. That is one reason, among many, that we should end the shutdown. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today is day 34 of the longest shutdown of government in United States history. We must end this shutdown. We must reopen government right away. Today, I want to talk about legislation that would provide some assistance to the Federal workers who are suffering from this unnecessary shutdown, the Emergency Relief for Federal Workers Act of 2019. Tomorrow, 800,000 Federal workers who work hard and just want to serve their Nation will not receive a paycheck. They have not received a paycheck since December 28th, 2018. However, more than 400,000 hold positions so essential to our Nation that they must go to work regardless of their pay status. Thus shutdown hurts these workers. I have talked about the personal stories of Virginians who serve our Nation in the Coast Guard, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Forest Service. This shutdown means families that have jobs cannot pay their mortgages or rent. They cannot buy food to feed their families. They cannot afford to refill prescriptions critical to the health of their children. This shutdown threatens Federal workers with financial ruin. Again, we must reopen the government immediately. We have passed legislation to provide retroactive pay to these workers when the shutdown ends, but we do not know when that will happen. So today, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues to introduce the Emergency Relief for Federal Workers Act. This legislation would allow federal employees who are in desperate financial straits directly because of this shutdown to borrow from what is, for many, their largest financial asset, their retirement account. This legislation would allow Federal workers in the Thrift Savings Plan to access their savings without immediate penalty to meet the financial hardships caused by the government shutdown. It would allow them to pay for basic necessities during the shutdown and allow them to replenish their savings after the shutdown ends. I do not know how much longer 800,000 families will have to wait to be made whole after this manufactured crisis. And I do not advocate irresponsibly borrowing from retirement savings. But I believe we must act to help the people who make our federal government function in this time of need they are in through no fault of their own. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.