Tim Kaine

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Fair and Equal Housing Act of 2017, legislation to ensure equal housing opportunities for all Americans. This 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 am a former civil rights attorney. And during my practice, I focused on fair housing and I learned that a home is more than just a door, a roof, rooms, and walls. Your home is critical to your identity and central to the life of every American. And a home becomes even more important when you are searching for a safe, stable place to live. But, say you run into problems as you're trying to rent that dream apartment and it is not because you are not a good tenant or a good neighbor. Instead, you learn that the apartment you wanted is suddenly no longer available because, after you met the landlord in person, they don't approve of your personal life or your appearance. Or you learn your rental application cannot be processed because you and your partner share the same sex. Housing discrimination is real. 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 only prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability. And if someone thinks this is not a real problem, more than 20 states and over 200 localities protect sexual orientation and gender identity in their own housing discrimination statutes. This is about equality, plain and simple. I want to thank my fellow Virginian, Representative Scott Taylor, for his leadership on this issue. I also want to thank all the civil rights attorneys across the nation who fight for justice on this issue every day. This is the right thing to do.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Fair and Equal Housing Act of 2017, legislation to ensure equal housing opportunities for all Americans. This 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 am a former civil rights attorney. And during my practice, I focused on fair housing and I learned that a home is more than just a door, a roof, rooms, and walls. Your home is critical to your identity and central to the life of every American. And a home becomes even more important when you are searching for a safe, stable place to live. But, say you run into problems as you're trying to rent that dream apartment and it is not because you are not a good tenant or a good neighbor. Instead, you learn that the apartment you wanted is suddenly no longer available because, after you met the landlord in person, they don't approve of your personal life or your appearance. Or you learn your rental application cannot be processed because you and your partner share the same sex. Housing discrimination is real. 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 only prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability. And if someone thinks this is not a real problem, more than 20 states and over 200 localities protect sexual orientation and gender identity in their own housing discrimination statutes. This is about equality, plain and simple. I want to thank my fellow Virginian, Representative Scott Taylor, for his leadership on this issue. I also want to thank all the civil rights attorneys across the nation who fight for justice on this issue every day. This is the right thing to do.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. Today I am introducing a bipartisan bill to make the process of siting natural gas pipelines fairer and more transparent. For some time now, I have been listening to Virginians with passionate views on the proposed Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley Pipelines. For various reasons, many oppose one or both of these projects, while others support these projects. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, is tasked with analyzing all the issues-- purpose and need for a project, impacts on 2 'people living on the route, potential risks to the environment or property--and deciding what course best serves the public interest. From listening to all sides, I have concluded that while reasonable people may reach different conclusions, FERC's public input process is flawed and could be better. Accordingly, this legislation proposes several steps to address several shortcomings, all of which were originally brought to my attention by Virginia constituents. For instance, this bill requires programmatic analysis of pipelines proposed around the same time and in the same geographic vicinity so that the full impacts of multiple projects can be analyzed. It requires a greater number of public comment meetings so that citizens are not required to commute long distances to meetings at which they must speed through just a few minutes of remarks on these complex topics. And it clarifies the circumstances under which eminent domain should and should not be used. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Mark Warner on this bill, and our Virginia Republican colleague Representative Morgan Griffith is preparing a similar bill in the House of Representatives. While our views may differ on many aspects of energy policy, we can all agree that the public deserves reasonable opportunity to weigh in on energy infrastructure projects and that this process can be fairer and more transparent without mandating a particular outcome. I encourage the Senate to consider this legislation, not to pave the way for pipelines nor to throw up insurmountable roadblocks to them-- but to give the public greater certainty that the federal government's infrastructure decisions are fair and transparent.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. Today I am introducing a bipartisan bill to make the process of siting natural gas pipelines fairer and more transparent. For some time now, I have been listening to Virginians with passionate views on the proposed Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley Pipelines. For various reasons, many oppose one or both of these projects, while others support these projects. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, is tasked with analyzing all the issues-- purpose and need for a project, impacts on 2 'people living on the route, potential risks to the environment or property--and deciding what course best serves the public interest. From listening to all sides, I have concluded that while reasonable people may reach different conclusions, FERC's public input process is flawed and could be better. Accordingly, this legislation proposes several steps to address several shortcomings, all of which were originally brought to my attention by Virginia constituents. For instance, this bill requires programmatic analysis of pipelines proposed around the same time and in the same geographic vicinity so that the full impacts of multiple projects can be analyzed. It requires a greater number of public comment meetings so that citizens are not required to commute long distances to meetings at which they must speed through just a few minutes of remarks on these complex topics. And it clarifies the circumstances under which eminent domain should and should not be used. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Mark Warner on this bill, and our Virginia Republican colleague Representative Morgan Griffith is preparing a similar bill in the House of Representatives. While our views may differ on many aspects of energy policy, we can all agree that the public deserves reasonable opportunity to weigh in on energy infrastructure projects and that this process can be fairer and more transparent without mandating a particular outcome. I encourage the Senate to consider this legislation, not to pave the way for pipelines nor to throw up insurmountable roadblocks to them-- but to give the public greater certainty that the federal government's infrastructure decisions are fair and transparent.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to authorize a game-changing scale of investment in making America's infrastructure more resilient to natural disasters. The BUILD Resilience Act would build on the National Disaster Resilience Competition first authorized in the 2013 Hurricane Sandy emergency supplemental disaster package. It would authorize $1 billion a year over 5 years to jumpstart large-scale investment in community resilience--supporting jobs, strengthening infrastructure, and reducing risk to communities from disasters like hurricanes and flooding. This bill aims to follow the ``ounce of prevention'' principle. Cleaning up after a disaster is important, but if we invest in sturdier infrastructure before the disaster, there will be less to clean up after the disaster. This is borne out in two separate studies. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that every $1 invested upfront in resilient infrastructure saves $3 on the back end. The Multihazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences estimates $4 of benefit. The Sandy Competition supported resilience projects in low-lying coastal areas of Virginia and Louisiana; in Sandy-affected areas of New York and New Jersey, in flood-prone Midwest regions like Iowa and North Dakota, and elsewhere. But Virginia's grant illustrates the scale of the challenge. This grant is supporting innovative flood-control projects but only in two at-risk neighborhoods of Norfolk, which is only one part of a broader Hampton Roads region. Neighboring localities like Newport News and Chesapeake submitted proposals to address their own infrastructure needs, but funding was insufficient. Since there will always be risk of another devastating storm, we must learn from Sandy and take steps now to protect our communities later. This bill tries to do that. With a range from 1\1/2\ to 7 feet of sea level rise projected by the year 2100, the Hampton Roads region is the second largest population center at risk from sea level rise in the Nation, behind only New Orleans. Residents are dealing with skyrocketing flood insurance premiums and flooding not only after a Sandy or a Matthew but from ordinary rainstorms. This is a direct Federal responsibility given the presence of the largest concentration of naval power in the world. An ODU study estimates that the main Norfolk city road leading into Naval Station Norfolk could be inundated by the tides a few hours per day by midcentury. That makes this not only an infrastructure issue but a national security issue. I hope to work with the White House and Congress to advance a comprehensive infrastructure package that rises to this challenge.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to authorize a game-changing scale of investment in making America's infrastructure more resilient to natural disasters. The BUILD Resilience Act would build on the National Disaster Resilience Competition first authorized in the 2013 Hurricane Sandy emergency supplemental disaster package. It would authorize $1 billion a year over 5 years to jumpstart large-scale investment in community resilience--supporting jobs, strengthening infrastructure, and reducing risk to communities from disasters like hurricanes and flooding. This bill aims to follow the ``ounce of prevention'' principle. Cleaning up after a disaster is important, but if we invest in sturdier infrastructure before the disaster, there will be less to clean up after the disaster. This is borne out in two separate studies. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that every $1 invested upfront in resilient infrastructure saves $3 on the back end. The Multihazard Mitigation Council of the National Institute of Building Sciences estimates $4 of benefit. The Sandy Competition supported resilience projects in low-lying coastal areas of Virginia and Louisiana; in Sandy-affected areas of New York and New Jersey, in flood-prone Midwest regions like Iowa and North Dakota, and elsewhere. But Virginia's grant illustrates the scale of the challenge. This grant is supporting innovative flood-control projects but only in two at-risk neighborhoods of Norfolk, which is only one part of a broader Hampton Roads region. Neighboring localities like Newport News and Chesapeake submitted proposals to address their own infrastructure needs, but funding was insufficient. Since there will always be risk of another devastating storm, we must learn from Sandy and take steps now to protect our communities later. This bill tries to do that. With a range from 1\1/2\ to 7 feet of sea level rise projected by the year 2100, the Hampton Roads region is the second largest population center at risk from sea level rise in the Nation, behind only New Orleans. Residents are dealing with skyrocketing flood insurance premiums and flooding not only after a Sandy or a Matthew but from ordinary rainstorms. This is a direct Federal responsibility given the presence of the largest concentration of naval power in the world. An ODU study estimates that the main Norfolk city road leading into Naval Station Norfolk could be inundated by the tides a few hours per day by midcentury. That makes this not only an infrastructure issue but a national security issue. I hope to work with the White House and Congress to advance a comprehensive infrastructure package that rises to this challenge.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, for purposes of today's votes, I want to announce that had I voted on Thursday, May 18, 2017, I would have voted no on confirmation of Rachel Brand to be Associate Attorney General, and I would have voted yea on the motion to invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 55, the nomination of Terry Branstad, of Iowa, to be Ambassador to China.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I want to discuss legislation I am introducing, the School Infrastructure Modernization Act. To claim the federal tax credit for historic preservation, a building renovation must be for a different purpose than that for which the building was previously used, a requirement known as the ``prior use'' rule. This bill waives that requirement for renovations of K-12 public school buildings. This will make it easier to restore historic-but- dilapidated school buildings across the country so our children have safe, modern spaces in which to learn. As a Richmond City Council member and later Mayor, I faced challenges familiar to many municipalities--overcrowded schools, aging buildings, and limited dollars in the budget. But in one particular case, I and a group of local stakeholders identified a creative solution. On one hand we had an overcrowded Thomas Jefferson High School with in-zone and magnet students. On the other hand, we had a closed Maggie Walker High School that needed renovations. We put together a financing package that made use of federal and state historic tax credits to renovate Maggie Walker High School and satisfied the prior use rule by consolidating the magnet program from Thomas Jefferson into a new Maggie Walker Governor's School for Government and International Studies. Today, some 20 years later, this is one of America's highest performing public high schools. Without the federal historic tax credit, this would have been too expensive to make happen. This bill will make it easier to do similar projects around the country. More modern school buildings will bolster the quality of public education, and carrying out these projects will generate private sector infrastructure investment and jobs. In Virginia alone, according to a 2013 study, more than 800 K-12 schools are at least 50 years old, representing some 40% of all the K-12 schools in the Commonwealth. As the Senate considers tax reform and a comprehensive infrastructure package, I encourage my colleagues to support this common-sense incentive that is good for education, good for infrastructure, and good for jobs.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I want to discuss legislation I am introducing, the School Infrastructure Modernization Act. To claim the federal tax credit for historic preservation, a building renovation must be for a different purpose than that for which the building was previously used, a requirement known as the ``prior use'' rule. This bill waives that requirement for renovations of K-12 public school buildings. This will make it easier to restore historic-but- dilapidated school buildings across the country so our children have safe, modern spaces in which to learn. As a Richmond City Council member and later Mayor, I faced challenges familiar to many municipalities--overcrowded schools, aging buildings, and limited dollars in the budget. But in one particular case, I and a group of local stakeholders identified a creative solution. On one hand we had an overcrowded Thomas Jefferson High School with in-zone and magnet students. On the other hand, we had a closed Maggie Walker High School that needed renovations. We put together a financing package that made use of federal and state historic tax credits to renovate Maggie Walker High School and satisfied the prior use rule by consolidating the magnet program from Thomas Jefferson into a new Maggie Walker Governor's School for Government and International Studies. Today, some 20 years later, this is one of America's highest performing public high schools. Without the federal historic tax credit, this would have been too expensive to make happen. This bill will make it easier to do similar projects around the country. More modern school buildings will bolster the quality of public education, and carrying out these projects will generate private sector infrastructure investment and jobs. In Virginia alone, according to a 2013 study, more than 800 K-12 schools are at least 50 years old, representing some 40% of all the K-12 schools in the Commonwealth. As the Senate considers tax reform and a comprehensive infrastructure package, I encourage my colleagues to support this common-sense incentive that is good for education, good for infrastructure, and good for jobs.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, when a United States servicemember gives their life in service to their country, they often leave behind family who we are equally indebted. Ensuring that these survivors are provided every opportunity to succeed and get a quality education supports our values and upholds our promise to servicemembers and military families. Unfortunately, our ability to uphold our promise to dependents of servicemembers who were killed in action (KIA) in Iraq and Afghanistan following the attacks on September 11, 2001 was affected recently. In May 2016 the U.S. Department of Education sent a letter to institutions of higher education requiring them to reduce the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant awards by 7% or roughly $400 per student. These grants are critical for students to use for tuition, books, and room and board and any future cut would be significant for a young college student. Many children and dependents of servicemembers who were KIA in Iraq and Afghanistan are now reaching college age so more and more students will not be receiving as much in grants as they should be getting and rightfully deserve. Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleague Senator Tester the Protect our Gold Star Families' Education Act of 2017. This legislation will move the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant program to the Pell Grant program to stabilize the funding source for these awards and ensure Gold Star families have access to the maximum Pell Grant funding available if they previously did not qualify for Pell Grants. The program would maintain the same eligibility requirements under the existing Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants--parent or guardian having died as a result of military service in Iraq or Afghanistan after 9/11 and are 24 years old or younger--and the award would continue to equal the maximum Pell Grant for that award year. While Virginia public universities already offer tuition assistance to dependents whose parents were killed in action or were permanently disabled under the state's Virginia Military Survivors and Dependents Education Program (VMSDEP), these funds could be used to offset tuition at private institutions and could also cover additional expenses, including room and board, books, and supplies. Over 500 Virginians have attended or are currently attending college at public universities with assistance through VMSDEP and would qualify for these Pell Grants as well. Our Gold Star families have made the ultimate sacrifice for this country and ensuring they have access to a quality college education is the right thing to do. Moving the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant under the Pell Grant program will provide more security to Gold Star families and help ease the burden of college costs. As more of our post 9/11 Gold Star children are starting to reach college age, now is the right time to improve the grant system. I hope that my colleagues will incorporate this bill in a reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, when a United States servicemember gives their life in service to their country, they often leave behind family who we are equally indebted. Ensuring that these survivors are provided every opportunity to succeed and get a quality education supports our values and upholds our promise to servicemembers and military families. Unfortunately, our ability to uphold our promise to dependents of servicemembers who were killed in action (KIA) in Iraq and Afghanistan following the attacks on September 11, 2001 was affected recently. In May 2016 the U.S. Department of Education sent a letter to institutions of higher education requiring them to reduce the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant awards by 7% or roughly $400 per student. These grants are critical for students to use for tuition, books, and room and board and any future cut would be significant for a young college student. Many children and dependents of servicemembers who were KIA in Iraq and Afghanistan are now reaching college age so more and more students will not be receiving as much in grants as they should be getting and rightfully deserve. Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleague Senator Tester the Protect our Gold Star Families' Education Act of 2017. This legislation will move the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant program to the Pell Grant program to stabilize the funding source for these awards and ensure Gold Star families have access to the maximum Pell Grant funding available if they previously did not qualify for Pell Grants. The program would maintain the same eligibility requirements under the existing Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grants--parent or guardian having died as a result of military service in Iraq or Afghanistan after 9/11 and are 24 years old or younger--and the award would continue to equal the maximum Pell Grant for that award year. While Virginia public universities already offer tuition assistance to dependents whose parents were killed in action or were permanently disabled under the state's Virginia Military Survivors and Dependents Education Program (VMSDEP), these funds could be used to offset tuition at private institutions and could also cover additional expenses, including room and board, books, and supplies. Over 500 Virginians have attended or are currently attending college at public universities with assistance through VMSDEP and would qualify for these Pell Grants as well. Our Gold Star families have made the ultimate sacrifice for this country and ensuring they have access to a quality college education is the right thing to do. Moving the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant under the Pell Grant program will provide more security to Gold Star families and help ease the burden of college costs. As more of our post 9/11 Gold Star children are starting to reach college age, now is the right time to improve the grant system. I hope that my colleagues will incorporate this bill in a reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I am proud to take the floor, and I am especially proud to take the floor after my colleague from Louisiana, whom I believe has offered a very good-faith proposal, both in the specifics of the bill that he has introduced but also in his encouragement that Democrats should participate together with Republicans as the Senate takes up the House-passed American Health Care Act. I do applaud my colleague, and I find much in his presentation to support. I find some points of difference, which I will get into, but much to support. I am strongly opposed to the House-passed American Health Care Act, TrumpCare. I found that one of the sets of reasons really crystalized yesterday. The Democrats had a hearing, and we invited patients to come from around the country to talk about their healthcare experiences. There were six witnesses in the hearing. One was a Virginian, a man named Michael Dunkley, from Alexandria. His story was a common one but a tough one. He has been the caretaker for his wife, who has had multiple sclerosis for many years and then got diagnosed with cancer. He talked about trying to deal with being a full-time caregiver for a wife with multiple sclerosis and dealing with cancer before the Affordable Care Act and the unsustainable cost that it led to with his family. But after the Affordable Care Act, he was able to afford coverage for himself and his wife. We heard from a mother from Indiana whose daughter was born with Down syndrome and how the medical bills connected to her child's treatment forced her, first, to stop working because she needed to be a full-time caregiver. She described the pain of cuddling her newborn in her arms and going to the mailbox and pulling out a $64,000 bill and knowing that this is what the rest of my life is going to be like and the rest of my child's life. Then she talked about how her family got relief because of the Affordable Care Act. We heard from a witness who has multiple sclerosis, a woman who is now a substitute teacher. Because the State she lived in, Texas, didn't expand Medicaid, she had to move to another State because she couldn't afford health insurance to deal with a medical problem. So she chose to move to a State that had done Medicaid expansion, Maryland. We heard other stories as well. These were painful stories. (Mr. CASSIDY assumed the Chair.) I say to the Presiding Officer, I give you credit for modesty. You are too modest. You do have an expertise in this. You do understand this. You have heard these stories before, and I had heard some of them, too, even without a medical expertise. What I found so troubling--and during the testimony of this mother from Indiana about her child with Down syndrome, I could feel tears rolling down my face-- was this. I had heard stories like this before, but what struck me was that the House voted on this bill without caring about any of these stories, without listening to any of these stories, without allowing a process to address any of these stories. I blurted out: The folks who voted for this bill in the House don't care about the challenges you are facing. They don't care about this or they would have listened to you. I beg my Senate colleagues to treat this differently, to treat it seriously, to take these stories seriously, and to work together. I hope the Senate takes a different course on this. Let me explain what I mean when I say the House Members who voted for this didn't care about these people and the challenges they were facing. When the House bill was taken up, there was a version of the bill taken up before March 24, and there were three hearings held. At those hearings--at two of the hearings--no patients were invited to speak. Nobody representing patients was invited to speak. One of the hearings had one witness from the American Cancer Society and one witness who was a State insurance commissioner. Now, that bill came to nothing on March 24, and the bill was rewritten. It was the rewritten bill that was passed by the House. There were no hearings on the rewritten bill. There were no hearings. There were no opportunities for patients to talk about the bill and what it would mean to them. There were no Democratic amendments that were accepted. No patients or providers were given any opportunity to share their concerns in a hearing or in formal discussion about the bill. No expert witnesses were allowed to testify about the bill. The House rushed to pass the bill without a CBO score--the Congressional Budget Office--which would have said what would have been the premium effect on people, how many people would have lost insurance, and were folks with preexisting conditions going to be covered or not. The House rushed to pass it before the score came about. When they passed it by the narrow margin of 217 to 213, they boarded a bus and went to the White House and had a big celebration. It was the kind of celebration that happens at the White House when they invite the Super Bowl winning team or the NCAA football champions to come to the White House. It was a celebration. Imagine if you are the mom with a kid with Down syndrome and you are getting a $64,000 bill in the mail and you are saying: This is what the rest of my life is going to be like. And the House passes a bill without listening to you, that by some estimates could take health insurance away from 24 million people and could reimpose deep penalties on folks if they have preexisting conditions. And you watch people celebrating that--celebrating it like it is a sports victory? This is what I found so very troubling during the hearing yesterday-- these folks' stories, which are not the only stories to be told about the Affordable Care Act. There are good stories. There are challenging stories. But the stories weren't even important enough for the House to even listen to them. I do think the Senate process should be different. Where I am going to disagree slightly with the comments you made is that I am going to compare that process in the House to the process that was undertaken in Congress before the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, because sometimes it is said: Well, that was just a one-party thing. Actually, that is not the case. In 2009, before the Affordable Care Act passed, the Senate Finance Committee held not one or two hearings. No, 53 hearings on health reform were held. The committee spent 8 days marking up the legislation, which is the longest markup in 22 years, and it considered 135 amendments. In the Finance Committee, the then-Democratic chair, Senator Baucus, worked for months with a bipartisan group of three Democrats and three Republicans trying to find a compromise on healthcare reform. While they couldn't find a compromise ultimately on the floor vote, Democrats and Republicans wrote the bill together and considered amendments in that committee offered by both Democrats and Republicans. The HELP Committee, where you and I serve, was every bit as active. They had an additional 47 bipartisan hearings, roundtables, and walk- throughs on health insurance. HELP considered hundreds of amendments during a monthlong markup, which is one of the longest in congressional history, and many Republican amendments were accepted as part of the process. When the bill came from the two committees to the Senate floor in 2010, the final Senate bill that was passed in this Chamber included not one or two, not a few dozen but 147 amendments that were proposed by Republicans. This bill, the Affordable Care Act, was shaped by the Republicans. The Republicans decided, for their own reasons, to vote against the final product, but they offered amendments in good faith--147 of them were accepted. The Senate spent 25 days consecutively in session on healthcare reform, the second longest consecutive session in history. The House did something similar in 2009: bipartisan hearings, 100 hours of hearings, and 181 witnesses from both sides testifying. Some 239 amendments were considered, and 121 by both Democrats and Republicans were adopted. Again, in the House on the floor, there were no House Republican votes, but the bill was shaped by Republicans, amended by Republicans. There was a process that included two parties. I would suggest to you that the difference in the processes--an ACA process that included hearings, hearing from patients, the opportunities to have committee hearings, the opportunities for both parties to amend--led to a situation in 2010 where many stakeholder groups supported the Affordable Care Act: the American Medical Association, the AARP, the American Hospital Association, and numerous other groups, providers, consumers, businesses, and other groups. Compare that to what is the level of support for the bill as it passed out of the House. Patients oppose this bill: the American Association of People with Disabilities, AARP, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Society of Hematology, the Children's Defense Fund, Families USA, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the National Disability Rights Center, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the National Organization for Rare Disorders. All of these groups represent patients. All of these groups oppose the House bill that contained no input from patients and no meaningful bipartisan process. Doctors and nurses oppose the House bill: the American Medical Association, the American Nursing Association, the American Osteopathic Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Rheumatology. Hospitals oppose the House bill: America's Essential Hospitals, the American Hospital Association, and the Federation of American Hospitals. There are groups fighting for women's health access: the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association and Planned Parenthood. All of these groups oppose the bill that came out of the House without patient input, without a meaningful committee process, without the ability of Democrats to offer amendments. Mr. President, I think that points us to a lesson, and I do think it is the same lesson that you spoke about a few minutes ago. Democrats have called for a transparent and bipartisan process to engage in fixes to the Affordable Care Act. I had been on the committee with you no less than a week. I have been trying to get on the HELP Committee since I came into the Senate. I finally achieved my goal in January, and within a week or 10 days of being on committee, I led a group of 13 Democrats. We wrote to our chair, Lamar Alexander, the Finance chair, Orrin Hatch, and the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and said that we are ready to sit down and talk about improvements and fixes. I say to the Presiding Officer, my heart soared when I read your comment last week: Any final bill must fulfill President Trump's promises to lower premiums, maintain coverage, and ensure protection for those with preexisting conditions--the same items that you put up on your board just a few minutes ago--because that is the same set of three goals I have. That is the same set of three goals, I think, all my colleagues have. If we can hold that up as the standard, we will work on a bill together, and the bill should meet three promises: to maintain coverage so people don't lose, to maintain costs so people don't pay more, and to maintain compassion so those with preexisting conditions aren't kicked to the curb. If we can find that bill, we will do it as Democrats and Republicans. We will do it in a way that we can build something that will last. I agree with you on this point. But I deeply believe this: No bill will achieve those aims if it is purely done by one party. No bill will achieve those aims if it is cooked up and put on the floor without a meaningful committee process in HELP and Finance, without hearing from expert witnesses, without hearing from stakeholders, without hearing from patients, without hearing the kinds of stories we heard yesterday. If we wall ourselves off from the public presentation of this kind of information as we are grappling with the most important spending decision anyone ever makes in their life, as we are grappling with the largest sector of the American economy, if we just rush to get this to the floor and try to make it a one-party product, we will not achieve the three pillars that you and I share and that President Trump has promised to the American public. So this is my hope. We want to work together, and the right way to work together is this: Send the House bill or a preferable bill, if you have it--your bill or a consensus bill that the group of 12 on the Republican side has. Put that bill in the two committees. Why not have this bill in the HELP Committee and the Finance Committee? Why not hear from patients and doctors and hospitals and nurses and insurance companies and small businesses that struggle to buy insurance for their employees? Let's hear from some expert witnesses about what they like about the status quo or like about the new proposals, what they don't like about them, and how we can fix them. Give us the opportunity to ask some questions. Give us the opportunity to offer some amendments, hopefully some bipartisan amendments, to make this better. Let's treat this at least with the seriousness it was treated in 2009. You are right to critique that the final vote--save the vote of Arlen Specter, who at the time he voted was a Democrat--that the final vote was partisan. You are right to critique that. We would want to go beyond that, but we can't go backward. We can't eliminate the opportunity for public input, eliminate the opportunity for committee action and amendments. We should be doing that in a full and robust way. So I just stand on the floor today to say amen to the boards that you put up there--amen to those three pillars that should be the test of the work that we do in this body--and to pledge that if you put this in the committees where we serve and we have the opportunity to work together, that is the most natural place for us to work in a transparent and bipartisan way. To ask Democratic Members just to cross the aisle to work on something that will be rushed to the floor with no committee process-- that is not really engagement; that is not really meaningful. But putting it in committees, where we can do our work in the light of day and hear from people like Michael Dunkley and the mother from Indiana and do it with the American public watching--now that is engagement. I guarantee if we do that, we will get to a better result, a result that will be better for people, a result that will be more likely to meet your criteria and mine, and a result that will be more likely to last. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, might I respond to my colleague?

Mr. KAINE. I honor his service at Pine Tree Legal Assistance in Maine. We take a little bit of pride in it because he probably got a good orientation to be a great public servant by going to the University of Virginia Law School. None of the Virginia Senators were smart enough to get into the University of Virginia, but our Maine Senator was. The Senator talks about it as related to our constitutional system. We have three branches. There is an article I branch, the legislative branch. People can participate in the article I branch by voting for Members of Congress or Senators. The article II branch is the executive branch. People can participate in the executive branch by voting. There used to be poll taxes. You could not participate if you could not pay something. Those were stricken down so everyone can participate. The article III branch is supposed to be coequal, the judiciary. If you are on trial for a criminal offense, under many circumstances, you are entitled, constitutionally, to have an appointed attorney. But what about a civil case? What if you are threatened with the termination of your rights as a parent to ever see your child again? That is a civil case. You are not entitled constitutionally to have an appointed attorney. But it is those kinds of cases where legal services comes in and provides an opportunity for people to participate in the article III branch. We should not have a branch of government and block people from participating in it, without the ability to receive assistance of counsel on matters dear to your life. You are essentially blocked from participation in one of the three branches of government. That is why this is so important. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise today in honor of Law Day earlier this week, May 1. Law Day is an annual tradition that is celebrated around the United States, usually at local bar association luncheons. It has been a tradition for over 40 years as a day to recognize the rule of law. The 2017 theme for Law Day was the 14th Amendment--a post- Civil War amendment, which for the first time in the Constitution defined what an American citizen was, the definition of citizenship, but it also provided a protection for all citizens as an entitlement to the privileges and immunities of all the laws in all the States, and all persons were entitled to equal protection of the laws, as well as no deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process. It is a powerful and important amendment to the Constitution. I want to talk about Law Day because there is a matter that is soon to be pending before the body: a proposal in President Trump's fiscal year 2018 budget to eliminate funding for the Legal Services Corporation, the effort that was begun more than four decades ago to try to provide free legal services for indigent people on matters in the civil courts that could affect their lives, liberty or property. I will say, I am standing here as an attorney who practiced for 17 years and practiced with Central Virginia Legal Aid and saw the value of their work. I am familiar with their work across the Commonwealth and country, and I also have a bit of a personal bias that I have to disclose. My wife Anne was a Legal Aid lawyer from 1984 until 1998--14 years' worth of Central Virginia Legal Aid Society, trying cases, big and small, but also doing something I will use as a theme in my comments. She helped start an award-winning program at Central Virginia Legal Aid to get private lawyers to do voluntary work for indigent clients. Legal Aid operates like small law firms in all these communities, but much of what they do is not just represent people in court. They bring private attorneys in who are willing to volunteer and provide them the training in cases like housing cases and others that might not normally be part of their practice. The Legal Services Corporation is very critical to the vindication of rights. There is an engraving over the Supreme Court Building across the street: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' That is supposed to mean equal justice regardless of who you are, your gender, your race, your national origin but also whether or not you can pay. The article III branch, just like the article I or article II branches, is supposed to be open to all. So Legal Services Corporation is critical to providing legal services to people who otherwise wouldn't be able to pay it: elderly, veterans, low-income families, disabled Americans, victims of domestic violence. It does so on a fairly miniscule Federal budget. The entire funding for legal services is less than one ten- thousandths of the Federal budget. Yet President Trump is proposing to eliminate it. Legal Services Corporation maintains 133 independent nonprofit programs in every State. My colleague from Maine was an attorney with one of those programs and is on the floor today. It funds the operation for 903 separate offices in the country. They served 1.8 million people in 2015. Of the nearly 756,000 cases that they successfully worked on and closed that year, 129,000 of the clients were people over age 60. More than 500,000 of the clients were females. Women comprised 70 percent of the Legal Services Corporation client base and 116,000 of the cases were cases about domestic violence. The offices around the country did as my wife's office did--they relied on these private attorneys, bringing in and training more than 91,000 private sector attorneys who volunteered during 2015 to help a Legal Aid client working with a local office, and they continue to do more. They partnered recently with Microsoft to develop Pro Bono Net, a statewide legal portal for individuals to obtain direct legal assistance specific to their needs. They established the Leaders Council, comprised of leaders, not necessarily leaders in the legal community but others to promote the value of what they do. LSC in 2016 launched the Rural Summer Legal Corps--30 law students working in rural areas to address challenges these communities encounter. It goes about its mission in an apolitical manner. Legal Services Corporation is not allowed to lobby. It works in blue and red States, works in urban and rural communities. It works everywhere and for everybody. The legal community is strongly in support of the continuance of the Legal Services Corporation--the American Bar Association and most State bars. In Virginia, just in Virginia, seven statewide bar associations have pledged their support for the continuation of Legal Aid. Many of them visited me in my office last week: Virginia State Bar, Virginia Bar Association, Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, Virginia Association of Defense Attorneys, Old Dominion Bar Association, Virginia Women's Attorneys Association, and the Virginia Hispanic Bar Association. And 160 of the Nation's top law firms have urged this body and urged the White House not to defund Legal Aid, and 185 general counsel's offices from preeminent American companies--Disney, HP, American Express, and GE--have weighed in and said we need Legal Aid. Many of Legal Aid's clients in Virginia are veterans because we are home to such a huge number of Active-Duty servicemembers, their families, and veterans. LSC helps veterans, Active-Duty military and their families access housing, deal with consumer financial challenges, or deceptive trade practices. Central Virginia Legal Aid recently dealt with a client, an elderly disabled veteran, who received a notice of involuntary transfer or discharge because an insurance company determined that his health had stabilized, despite the fact he was not even ambulatory and incontinent as well. Central Virginia Legal Aid worked with his insurance company to demonstrate this veteran had continuing physical needs, and he needed to have in-home care without further burdening his family, and were able to find a resolution. This is the kind of case that Legal Aid works on every day. In conclusion, I want to say this. The budget proposal that we will grapple with--my colleague from Maine, who is here, is on the Budget Committee, as well--proposes to eliminate funding for Legal Aid. That would be a very bad idea. It would not help the economy. It would hurt vulnerable people who have nowhere else to turn. I was in the Shenandoah Valley at a senior center about 10 days ago. This was the story that a local Legal Aid lawyer put on the table, as I conclude. A 90-year-old woman in Waynesboro, VA, was ripped off by a traveling salesmen who sold her $10,000 of frozen meat she could not afford-- virtually all of her savings. She realized very quickly she had been bamboozled by a fast-talking salesman: Why did I do this? I can't afford it, but I have given him my money. What do I do? This is the kind of case no private lawyer will take. You are not going to be able to get a legal fee for this. This is the kind of case that involves knowledge of particular consumer protection statutes that Legal Aid is well trained to do. And the Legal Aid lawyer who was representing this 90-year-old woman who had been ripped off by somebody said: Look, if I wasn't here for this person, nobody would be here. And that is what you get when you get Legal Aid. That is what you would lose if the Legal Aid was defunded. I just put it on the table to my colleagues. Many in this Chamber are attorneys. Many have worked directly with Legal Aid offices in their States around this country and know the value of the program. We need to make sure this program continues. In honor of Law Day this week, I just want to say, I hope my colleagues will join me in my effort.

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

Mr. KAINE. I will be glad to yield.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the short-term budget resolution we will be voting on within the next couple of days and a quote the President made this morning. The bipartisan agreement we are going to tackle on the floor to extend the Federal budget past the CR deadline through the end of September is salutary. It is salutary because the two Houses worked together to find an agreement. I can see things in the agreement I like, and I can see things in the agreement I don't like. That is the nature of budget agreements. My principal disappointment with the agreement is that we should have done it in December. I will actually give credit to my Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We were ready to do this deal in December. The Appropriations Committees in both Houses had met. We were ready to do a deal that would then give everybody in government--but, more importantly, all of our citizens and all of our businesses--some certainty about what would happen between that vote in December and the end of the fiscal year, September 30. The incoming administration, not yet in office, dispatched the Vice President and others to the Hill and said: Don't do a budget. Don't do the omnibus bill. We want to have the ability to work on it ourselves. I think this was against the better judgment of both sides in the Senate. A decision was made: We won't do an omnibus bill in December. We recessed on the 10th. We had plenty of time to get work done. Instead, we would do a CR through April 28. I think my colleagues were right to want to do it in December. Nevertheless, we put everybody through the hoops of this: Is there going to be a shutdown, or what are we going to do? Now, apparently, we will have a deal. We will discuss it, and I hope we will vote in favor of it. We could have gotten the same deal in December. We would have given people more certainty. They could have adjusted. We could have not frightened people about a shutdown and done other productive work. Nevertheless, we have a deal which I plan to support. But I was very interested this morning--very interested and, I will be blunt, very disturbed--with the President's words. At 8:07 this morning, he put out a tweet about the deal, about a bipartisan deal reached by two Republican Houses, with Democrats included--as we ought to be, because we represent a lot of the American public. This is the quote: Either elect more Republican Senators in 2018 or change the rules now to 51%. Our country needs a good ``shutdown'' in September to fix mess! So what I want to talk about today is whether there is a good shutdown of the government of the United States--whether there is such a thing as a good shutdown. Is it right for the President of the United States to hope for a good shutdown of the government of the greatest Nation on Earth? I can't imagine that a CEO--any CEO we would admire--would call for a shutdown of his own company. That is what President Trump now is. He is the Commander in Chief and the Chief Executive of the government of the greatest Nation on Earth. He apparently believes there could be a good shutdown of this government in September. I want to take us back to the fall of 2013. In the fall of 2013, the government was shut down for about 16 days in October. It was my first year as a Senator. That was bad. It was bad in Virginia, a State with 170,000 Federal employees, who didn't know whether or not there would be work to do, when they would return to work, or whether they would be paid for those days. It was bad for veterans whose claims to get a disability benefit were already too backed up and who couldn't get their calls and questions answered. It was bad for veterans whose requests for medical appointments were already too backed up and, in the uncertainty of a shutdown, they didn't know when they would be resolved. It was in October, which is the high season of tourism in Virginia. It was bad for one of my smallest communities, Accomack County, on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, which is adjacent to the Chincoteague National Seashore. They count on October tourism as a huge part of their local economy, but when the Federal parks shut down, it was bad for their economy. It was bad for economies near Shenandoah National Park to have that park shut down in the heart of fall leaf season, which is the time they count on to help their small businesses succeed. It was bad for people on military bases, when DOD civilians were being furloughed--civilians like nurses at hospitals, and childcare workers who provide childcare to military families on military bases. They didn't know when they would be reopening. I see nothing good about a shutdown of the Government of the United States. In fact, it was the first Republican President in the address at Gettysburg who said: The question that we always have to grapple with is whether government by, of, and for the people shall perish from the Earth. I think the answer to that question is that it should not perish from the Earth--not for a year, not for a month, not for a week, not for a day, not for an hour. There should not be a shutdown of the government of the United States. There is no such thing as a good shutdown. So I just wanted to come to the floor today and be very, very blunt. On behalf of anybody in Virginia and in this country who is afraid of how a government shutdown could impact them or their communities; on behalf of troops, veterans, military families, and members of our Department of Defense who keep us safe every day; on behalf of veterans who fought for this country and who need the Federal Government to cut the backlog on disability claims or medical appointments at the VA; on behalf of every senior citizen or disabled person who has a case awaiting resolution by Social Security or Medicare or CMS; on behalf of 170,000 Federal employees living in Virginia and the people and communities they serve; on behalf of cities and counties around Virginia that rely on Federal support for infrastructure projects, economic development assistance, opioid prevention efforts, export promotion, and so many other critical programs; on behalf of Virginians struggling with disease and illness who pray for lifesaving cures developed through federally funded medical research; on behalf of our dynamic businesses and all of their workers, who need certainty from Washington in order to create jobs and expand the economy; on behalf of Virginia students and families who rely on Head Start Programs or rely on federally funded work study programs so they can work their way through college; on behalf of all Virginians and all Americans who deserve to have clean water, breathable air, beautiful open space, safe food and drugs, violence-free communities, a functional immigration system, and protection from cyber threats; and on behalf of the reputation of this Nation and the values that we proudly claim as American values, I will do anything and everything in my power as a U.S. Senator to stop any Trump shutdown, to stop any good shutdown of the government of the greatest Nation on this Earth, either now or during September or during the remainder of his term. I call on all of my colleagues to take a similar pledge. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. In today's increasingly competitive global market, it is more important than ever that students develop the right skills and knowledge to succeed in postsecondary education and enter the workforce. Our nation's future depends on providing students with an engaging experience that is relevant to the workforce and integrates partnerships with industry and higher education. Unfortunately, many high schools currently lack these opportunities, leaving students unprepared for 21st century careers. In fact, nearly 80 percent of college instructors and 60 percent of employers indicate that public high schools fall short in preparing students for postsecondary education.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. In today's increasingly competitive global market, it is more important than ever that students develop the right skills and knowledge to succeed in postsecondary education and enter the workforce. Our nation's future depends on providing students with an engaging experience that is relevant to the workforce and integrates partnerships with industry and higher education. Unfortunately, many high schools currently lack these opportunities, leaving students unprepared for 21st century careers. In fact, nearly 80 percent of college instructors and 60 percent of employers indicate that public high schools fall short in preparing students for postsecondary education.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I also rise to discuss the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit. I take this very seriously. I started my legal career as an appellate law clerk in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the South, working for a spectacular jurist, Judge R. Lanier Anderson III. He taught me about what it was to be an appellate judge: humility, not making a case a personal cause, and careful application of the law. I then went on to practice law in the State and Federal courts, the trial and appeal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court as a civil rights lawyer for 17 years. When I was the Governor of Virginia, I twice had to appoint members of the Virginia Supreme Court and grappled with qualifications to serve on an appellate bench. Maybe most especially, my wife was a judge. So with a judge in the house--she was a judge for 8 years--I spent a lot of time also thinking about the characteristics of a good judge. Judge Gorsuch has some strong characteristics, educational background, and professional experience. These are characteristics that are worthy of respect. But I have decided that there is an additional characteristic that is very important--judicial philosophy. And as I have looked at Judge Gorsuch's judicial philosophy, I have concluded that I cannot support him. I have read scores of his opinions. I met with him in my office. I am so proud of my colleagues-- Democrat and Republican--because in 2 months, Judge Gorsuch has enjoyed something that Merrick Garland didn't get in 10 months. Judge Gorsuch has had meetings with virtually all Senators. He has had a Judiciary Committee hearing, a Judiciary Committee vote. He is getting floor debate, and he will get a floor vote. Those are the five things he is entitled to, and he is getting all of them. Judge Merrick Garland was nominated. Republicans wouldn't meet with him. They wouldn't hold a hearing. They wouldn't do a committee vote. They wouldn't do a floor debate, and he wouldn't get a floor vote. He got nothing he was entitled to as a sitting judge on the DC Circuit. Also, the Senate didn't exercise the advice and consent function that is part of our constitutional job description. Let's talk about Judge Gorsuch's record. Many of my colleagues have been speaking for hours. I want to focus on one aspect of his record. Judge Gorsuch was promoted by President Trump as not an activist. And Judge Gorsuch has written with scorn about activist judges, saying that judges who impose their moral or social preferences on others can't square their position with the Constitution. He even scorned activists in courts, saying that liberals are addicted to the courtroom, as if somehow bringing constitutional claims in courts is wrong. So I think it is fair to look at Judge Gorsuch by his own standard. Is he an activist or not? The best definition of a nonactivist judge was the definition given by Chief Justice Roberts during his confirmation hearing. He said: I am an umpire. I have no platform. I have no agenda. I call balls and strikes without fear of any party, without favor to any party. I am an umpire. I looked at Judge Gorsuch's record and talked about a set of cases that determine whether that is, in fact, true. And I have concluded that Judge Gorsuch is definitely an activist. He may not be an activist on everything. I don't think you have to be an activist on everything to be an activist, but I do believe he is an activist. It shows through in no area clearer than it shows through in cases dealing with women's ability to make their own decisions about their own healthcare, especially reproductive health. There is a famous 2013 case that has been much discussed during these discussions and in committee--Hobby Lobby v. Burwell. It was a challenge brought up in the Tenth Circuit, where Judge Gorsuch now sits. The legal question before the circuit court was pretty straightforward. Under a congressional act designed to protect religious liberty--the Religious Freedom Restoration Act--a company claimed that its religious views conflicted with the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act. And, if so, could they gain protection for their own position? It was sort of a controversial case because the notion that a company could assert religious views was sort of a novel theory at the time. But, with Judge Gorsuch as part of the majority, the majority in the Tenth Circuit ruled that, yes, a company could assert a claim based on sincerely held religious beliefs under the RFR statute. And they could assert that their beliefs conflicted with the ACA's contraception mandate. Then, in 2014, that ruling was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court--a controversial decision, but the majority agreed with the position that, yes, a company could assert that its sincerely held religious beliefs were, in fact, in conflict with the statute, and they could get relief from the statute for doing that. Judge Gorsuch joined the ruling, which was later affirmed by the Supreme Court. What interested me about Judge Gorsuch in the case was that he chose to write a concurring opinion. Most folks know what they are. If you are not a lawyer--when a panel writes an opinion, there is a majority opinion that is the ruling in the case. If a judge feels that it is wrong, a judge will write a dissenting opinion saying: No, you are wrong, and here is why. You are dutybound, if you think the majority is wrong, to write a dissent. A concurring opinion is about as voluntary as it gets. A concurring opinion is: I agree with the outcome, but I have a point I want to make. I can't convince the rest of the majority to go along with me, and I want to make this point. So Judge Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion that was incredibly revealing. It was voluntary, and that shows you a little about a person's philosophy. It was incredibly revealing for two reasons. First, Judge Gorsuch had already joined the majority opinion to say that the employer, Hobby Lobby, could challenge the employer mandate of the ACA. He had already joined that, but he stretched beyond to rule that, in addition, the individuals owning the company should be able to sue to challenge the employer mandate, even though they weren't the employer. The ACA mandate applied only to the employer of the female employees. The employer was Hobby Lobby. But even though the mandate didn't even apply to the Green family who owned the company, Judge Gorsuch said that they should be able to challenge the ACA anyway. I practiced law for a long time. There is a complete separation-- there is supposed to be--between individuals and an incorporated company. You can run a business and not incorporate it, and in that case, there is no separation. But as soon as you incorporate it, you get all kinds of protections, especially that you can protect your own personal assets from liability for corporate actions. The Green family had done that. But Judge Gorsuch said: Even though you voluntarily separated yourself from the company and even though the mandate doesn't apply to you, you should be able to file a lawsuit to challenge the mandate. I found that to be highly unusual--a great stretch. I asked him about it when we talked. He did not give me a satisfactory answer. Here was the thing about the Hobby Lobby case that was more notable. It was the way Judge Gorsuch described what the case was about. The majority opinion in the Tenth Circuit and the majority opinion in the Supreme Court described the case the same way. They basically said that the owners of this company claimed that the contraception mandate was contrary to their religious views. That is what the case was about. The clash was between the owners' religious beliefs and the statute. That is what the case was about. But Judge Gorsuch described the case completely differently. Here are his words: All of us face the problem of complicity. All must answer . . . to what degree we are willing to be involved in the wrongdoing of others. He didn't describe it as a clash between the owners and the statute. He described it as a case about whether you are willing to be complicit in the wrongdoing of others. That wasn't the legal issue at all. In the Gorsuch concurring opinion in Hobby Lobby, what does that phrase mean-- ``the wrongdoing of others''? Who are the others he is talking about? He is talking about female employees of Hobby Lobby, who wish to make their own choice from among available and lawful methods of contraception. Those are the others he is referring to. He is also referring to that choice as ``wrongdoing.'' That is a completely editorial comment that is not drawn from what a lawyer said or what a plaintiff said. That is his own characterization of the case, and it is completely irrelevant and, I would argue, insulting. It is a completely irrelevant and insulting reference to something that was not part of the case at all, except Judge Gorsuch decided to inject it into the case. Somebody who looks at women making their own choice of contraception as the ``wrongdoing of others''--that is very telling.

Mr. KAINE. I thank my friend, the deputy majority leader, the senior Senator from Texas. I draw support for my conclusion about that language from two other cases that Judge Gorsuch was involved in in the Tenth Circuit, one case dealing with contraception and one case dealing with an effort to defund Planned Parenthood in Utah. In both cases, the Tenth Circuit reached a decision that was pro- women's health, pro-women's health access. The parties were fine with the decisions. They were going back to the district court and they did not apply to have the cases reheard en banc. But in both those cases, Judge Gorsuch took the highly unusual step of trying to get the appeals heard anyway, even though the parties did not want to have them reheard. In my experience as an appellate advocate, that is virtually unheard of. I have talked to litigators in the Tenth Circuit, and they have said the same thing. It is highly rare. The fact that Judge Gorsuch would do it in two cases--both of which involved women's health access--is important. Finally, in his confirmation hearing, Judge Gorsuch was asked directly whether he agreed with the decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 decision that said married couples could not be criminalized for using contraception. He said it was a precedent worthy of respect like all precedents, but he would not agree--he would not say he agreed with the case. Chief Justice Roberts, during his confirmation, said he agreed with the case. Justice Thomas said: I have no quarrel with Griswold. Justice Alito said he agreed with the case. But Judge Gorsuch would not. Griswold v. Connecticut has been used repeatedly in the last 50 years to basically create a body of constitutional precedent that says the relationships of people--romantic, inmate relationships--should be free from the intrusion of Big Government. You can't criminalize somebody because of their relationship. I think somebody who is not willing to commit to that principle is somebody who has not earned my vote. With that, I yield the floor. Again, I thank my friend from Texas.

Mr. KAINE. I would appreciate it. I will take 2 minutes and finish quickly.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, a skilled workforce is essential to addressing the growing cybersecurity challenges in the United States. In both the public and private sectors, a shortage of skilled cyber security professionals has hindered the Nation's cyber preparedness. According to a 2017 Global Information Security Workforce Study, 1.8 million more cyber security professionals will be needed worldwide by 2022. Data breaches at the Office of Personnel Management in 2015 highlighted the need for robust cyber security protections at the Federal level, which include a strong and skilled workforce. Since 2001, the Federal Government has operated a cyber security education program known as CyberCorps: Scholarship for Service. Thanks to great leadership by Chairman John Thune and the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Congress codified the CyberCorps Program as part of the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014. Serving roughly 70 institutions, the National Science Foundation, NSF, grants award to institutions as part of the CyberCorps Program. Institutions utilize grants to build capacity for cyber security programs and provide scholarships to students. Scholarship recipients must fulfill a service requirement in a federal, state or local government cyber security job upon graduation. In recent years, more community colleges have provided opportunities for students to gain much needed cyber security skills. An October 2015 study by the National Academy for Public Administration reviewed the CyberCorps Program and formulated major recommendations to improve it. One of the Academy's recommendations was to include qualified 2-year programs in the program regardless of their association with a 4-year institution. Currently, NSF only provides scholarship awards to students in 2-year programs who will transfer into a 4-year program. Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleague Senator Roger Wicker, the Cybersecurity Scholarship Opportunities Act of 2017. This legislation will improve the federal cyber security workforce pipeline by directing the CyberCorps Program to provide 5 percent of scholarships to career changers and military veterans at qualified 2- year programs with no transfer requirement. The bill would also codify CyberCorps' K-12 education program and align the skills required for scholarship eligibility with the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education Framework. In addition, the bill would enhance cyber security protection for critical infrastructure by allowing CyberCorps graduates, on a case-by- case basis, to meet their service requirements in critical infrastructure missions at government-affiliated entities like the Tennessee Valley Authority. Just today, a report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that digital threats to U.S. critical infrastructure demand attention and that the Nation does not produce enough graduates with the skills to protect critical infrastructure. It recommended that the President take steps to increase the supply of skilled professionals. By allowing CyberCorps graduates to fulfill service obligations in critical infrastructure missions, this legislation represents an important step in the right direction. The Cybersecurity Scholarship Opportunities Act is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that would help students succeed and strengthen our national security. There are cyber security jobs in Virginia and across the country that are going unfilled, and it is clear we must make it easier for students to access the programs that prepare them for these roles.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, a skilled workforce is essential to addressing the growing cybersecurity challenges in the United States. In both the public and private sectors, a shortage of skilled cyber security professionals has hindered the Nation's cyber preparedness. According to a 2017 Global Information Security Workforce Study, 1.8 million more cyber security professionals will be needed worldwide by 2022. Data breaches at the Office of Personnel Management in 2015 highlighted the need for robust cyber security protections at the Federal level, which include a strong and skilled workforce. Since 2001, the Federal Government has operated a cyber security education program known as CyberCorps: Scholarship for Service. Thanks to great leadership by Chairman John Thune and the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Congress codified the CyberCorps Program as part of the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014. Serving roughly 70 institutions, the National Science Foundation, NSF, grants award to institutions as part of the CyberCorps Program. Institutions utilize grants to build capacity for cyber security programs and provide scholarships to students. Scholarship recipients must fulfill a service requirement in a federal, state or local government cyber security job upon graduation. In recent years, more community colleges have provided opportunities for students to gain much needed cyber security skills. An October 2015 study by the National Academy for Public Administration reviewed the CyberCorps Program and formulated major recommendations to improve it. One of the Academy's recommendations was to include qualified 2-year programs in the program regardless of their association with a 4-year institution. Currently, NSF only provides scholarship awards to students in 2-year programs who will transfer into a 4-year program. Today, I am pleased to introduce with my colleague Senator Roger Wicker, the Cybersecurity Scholarship Opportunities Act of 2017. This legislation will improve the federal cyber security workforce pipeline by directing the CyberCorps Program to provide 5 percent of scholarships to career changers and military veterans at qualified 2- year programs with no transfer requirement. The bill would also codify CyberCorps' K-12 education program and align the skills required for scholarship eligibility with the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education Framework. In addition, the bill would enhance cyber security protection for critical infrastructure by allowing CyberCorps graduates, on a case-by- case basis, to meet their service requirements in critical infrastructure missions at government-affiliated entities like the Tennessee Valley Authority. Just today, a report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that digital threats to U.S. critical infrastructure demand attention and that the Nation does not produce enough graduates with the skills to protect critical infrastructure. It recommended that the President take steps to increase the supply of skilled professionals. By allowing CyberCorps graduates to fulfill service obligations in critical infrastructure missions, this legislation represents an important step in the right direction. The Cybersecurity Scholarship Opportunities Act is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that would help students succeed and strengthen our national security. There are cyber security jobs in Virginia and across the country that are going unfilled, and it is clear we must make it easier for students to access the programs that prepare them for these roles.