Tim Kaine

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, for purposes of today's votes, I want to announce that, had I voted on Tuesday, September 6, 2016, I would have voted no on both cloture motions, the motion to invoke cloture on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2577, MilCon-VA appropriations, and the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 524, H.R. 5293, DOD appropriations. This is consistent with how I voted previously on June 28, July 7, and July 14, 2016.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to join my colleague from Rhode Island and other colleagues this evening who are talking about the critical issue of climate change, especially the facts around climate change but also the fact that there are many who would deny the facts. This is a very important issue to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Climate change is not an abstraction. Climate change is not a next-year or next-decade issue. Climate change in Virginia is a today issue. Earlier today, I was in Norfolk, VA, which is in the Hampton Roads area, near the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. Norfolk, and the surrounding communities, is the largest concentration of naval power in the world. It is the center of American naval operations, the headquarters of the U.S. Atlantic fleet, and it is already having to spend millions of dollars to elevate the piers where aircraft carriers come and go due to sea level rise. The Hampton Roads area is listed as the second most vulnerable community in the United States to rising sea levels after New Orleans. This is a challenging issue in a lot of ways. I have friends who live in these communities who recently bought homes, but now their homes aren't marketable. For most Americans--certainly for me--my home is the most valuable asset I own. If you have that, and then you suddenly can't sell it because climate is changing, sea level is rising, flooding is more recurrent, and no one will buy your home, it is a very serious issue. In addition to the effect on individuals and businesses because of sea level rise, the effect on the naval station is significant. Current estimates are that rising sea levels in Norfolk will take the main road entrance into the center of American naval power and have that under water 3 hours a day by 2040 just because of normal tidal action. In times of storms, it would be worse. Imagine an America that counts on that Navy, counts on that naval presence around the globe having its largest base inaccessible because of sea level rise. We have an interesting community. One of the most unique parts of Virginia is a small island, Tangier Island, in the center of the Chesapeake Bay. It has been continually inhabited since the 1600s as a community for water men and women, the folks who have traditionally made their living by going out and catching crabs, oysters, and fish. This is a small island, a few acres. It is one of the only places you can go in the United States where you can hear English spoken as Shakespeare would have spoken it, with a language that is an Elizabethan language. The community is very isolated in that way, and so you hear this beautiful English spoken there. The community has many wonderful virtues to it, but the Chesapeake Bay is coming up around this community and eroding it. I received a letter from a middle school student within the last month--a handwritten letter that might have been the most heartfelt communication I have received in 4-plus years in the Senate--saying: What are you doing about sea level rise? What can you do to help us deal with these issues so Tangier, as an island, does not completely disappear? So for these reasons and many others, in Virginia, we take this very seriously and we have to deal with it. I will tell you something else about Virginia. Virginians believe in science. The Virginia political figure we most admire was the preeminent scientist of his day, Thomas Jefferson. He was a scientist. Virginians overwhelmingly believe in science. Seventy percent of Virginians accept the scientific consensus that human activity is causing climate change and that it is urgent we do something about it. Seventy percent of Virginians believe in that proposition. I am here because my friend from Rhode Island asked me to come and talk about the fact that there is an organized effort--not just a battle about the policy about climate science--to knowingly try to misrepresent the status of climate science and suggest that climate change is not occurring. They are denying it exists, they are denying it is a concern, and they are working against any reasonable solutions. Of course, we have to be open to points of view, reasonable differences of opinion, and have a debate, but when the science is settled on some things and people in an organized way--who know better--are trying to fight against it, we should be suspicious. So a group of Senators are speaking today and tomorrow to discuss these organizations that constitute what my friend from Rhode Island has termed a ``web of denial,'' an organized effort to deny science. Let me just talk a little bit because a number of these deniers are companies that at least have PO boxes or nonprofit organizations that at least have PO boxes in Virginia. The same Virginia where Tangier Island is disappearing, the same Virginia where the Navy is having to spend to shore up their infrastructure, also has some shadowy organizations that are trying to deny the real science involved. There is an organization involved called the Science and Public Policy Institute, and it purports to summarize available academic literature. Here is a quote: They further note that decadal variability in sea level is observed, but to date there is no detectable secular increase in the rate of sea level rise over the period 1950-2000. They also report that no increase in the rate of sea level rise had been detected for the entire 20th century. This is a group that throws in a few ``sciency'' words like ``decadal variability,'' but what they are really saying is there is no sea level rise. This is at odds with the conclusions of virtually every scientist who studied this issue, including scientists at Virginia universities-- Old Dominion University and at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at William & Mary. Those scientists say sea level rise has risen a foot since industrialization, and the range of future sea level rise on the Virginia coast is anywhere from 1\1/2\ additional feet to 7 feet by the year 2100. They will acknowledge some question about is it going to be 1\1/2\ feet, is it going to be 7 feet, but they don't challenge the basic science surrounding sea level rise. So which is it--1\1/2\ feet to 7 feet or you don't need to worry it? Don't worry, be happy. Without getting a Ph.D. in atmospheric science and building your own quantitative models, how do you know who is right? Here is a clue. Look at who funds these organizations. In the case of ODU and William & Mary, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science--which is one of the most preeminent marine sciences organizations in the Nation, with Scripps in San Diego and Woods Hole in Massachusetts--it is not hard. They are State universities. They are funded by the general assembly of Virginia, which are two Republican houses. They are reaching a scientific conclusion that says climate change is serious, but with the Science and Public Policy Institute, it is a bit nebulous, and it is kind of hard to figure out. There are online sources that enable you to track how organizations are funded through foundations with ties, frankly, to the energy. According to one of these sources, called ``DeSmogBlog,'' one of this major funders of this institute, the Science and Public Policy Institute, is called the Donors Capital Fund, which has distributed $170 million to various conservative causes and describes itself as being ``dedicated to the ideals of limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise.'' A New York Times article from as far back as 2003, documents a connection between this foundation and an organization that also has a point of view, ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil is a funder or, in the past, has been a funder of this organization. Why doesn't ExxonMobil or a conservative organization just publish the material on their own Web sites under their own bylines? My guess is, they have scientists who actually know the science. There has been recent information about ExxonMobil. They understand the climate science. They couldn't publish this under their own byline and meet their own standards of truthfulness, but they are providing funding to an organization that is denying climate change. In other words, the organization is just a delivery vehicle for information that is meant to be seen as impartial scientific information, but it is, in fact, not impartial at all. So when you see one group saying there has been no sea level rise and another saying there has been a lot and we could be in for more, if you are wondering which one to believe, take a look at who is funding the research. Here is another organization, the Virginia Institute for Public Policy: ``Regulations prescribing a reduction, or even a complete cessation, of Virginia's CO2 emissions will have absolutely no effect on global climate.'' If there are Virginia regulations that even eliminate Virginia CO2, it will have no effect on global climate. This is an interesting quote because it is not technically a lie because it is literally true. Virginia's share of world CO2 emissions is infinitesimal. So if Virginia eliminated it all, it wouldn't affect the entire globe in a measurable way. But that is like saying: One vote? Your vote is not going to make the difference or one cigarette will not hurt you so go ahead and have one. This argument is a kind of a classic hide-the-ball argument that makes a statement that is technically true, but it essentially is promoting a false point of view that, oh well, we shouldn't do anything about it. Again, it is the use of a literal truth that is basically designed to pitch a message that is grossly misleading. So let's ask about this group, the Virginia Institute for Public Policy, who funds a group that would say something like that? Again, the Donors Capital Fund that funded the first organization I discussed, as well as the Chase Foundation of Virginia and the Roe Foundation, which support a list of conservative causes. If you call an organization the Virginia Institute for Public Policy, it sounds kind of neutral and, again, probably trying to do a good thing, but if you go back and look at who is funding it and you again find the funding sources are heavily linked to energy industry groups like ExxonMobil, then you understand they are not quite as impartial as their name would suggest. Here is another quote from the CO2 Coalition: Concerns about carbon dioxide being a quote-unquote ``pollutant'' are not valid. Climate change is proceeding very slowly, and the likely increase in temperature for the 21st century is about 1 degree Celsius or less. Well, yes; is that technically true? The temperature of the Earth has increased by about 1 degree since industrialization, and 197 countries just signed an agreement in Paris last year to try to limit any further increase to no more than 1 degree additional. So this group makes it sound like 1 degree, who cares about 1 degree? Well, a 100-degree fever is only 2 degrees more than normal, but it is enough to make you pretty sick. It is actually 1.4 degrees more than normal. It is enough to make you pretty sick. The number of 0.8 sounds tiny in the abstract, but if that is your blood alcohol content, that gets you a DUI in Virginia. The number sounds small. Oh, gosh. Why would that make a difference? That gets you a DUI because you are impaired. So, yes, the group using the one temperature, 1 degree in temperature, makes it sound like it is not that big of a deal--but it is that big of a deal. This is the last one I want to discuss before I close. This is kind of a doozy because it is from an open letter to Pope Francis on the topic of the Pope's environmental encyclical. The group is called the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. Nothing like going big if you are going to pick a name for yourself. I am glad there is somebody who is trying to be a steward of creation. Their quote starts with a quote from the 19th Psalm. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Beautiful aspect of the first verse in Psalm 19, but then the group goes on to declare in their own words this: By using fossil fuels to generate energy to lift billions of God's precious children out of poverty, we liberate from the tomb of the earth the carbon dioxide on which plants and therefore all the rest of life depend. In light of these considerations, we believe it is both unwise and unjust to adopt policies requiring reduced use of fossil fuels for energy. So somebody is really using Scripture to argue that making our energy production cleaner, safer, and cheaper violates the Christian tenet of caring for the poor. I am a Christian, and many of us in this body have a deep-faith background in one faith or another, but I will use a non-Christian phrase to describe that argument. It takes a lot of chutzpa to claim your religious faith and compassion for the poor drives you to support pollution-intensive energy, especially when the organization refuses to reveal how it is funded. In closing, we certainly don't want to imply that all groups that have an agenda or have a point of view are motivated by funding sources, but the web of denial the Senator from Rhode Island is asking us to come out and talk about tonight is one that includes a number of organizations that are climate deniers, and they are denying science that in my view they actually know to be true. There comes a point when the truth becomes so hard to deny that those who deny it are simply not credible. And you have to then ask the question: Why are you denying it? I assert that most of these organizations understand the science, they accept the science, and they realize it to be true. So why do they deny the science? The answer is greed. That is the basic answer. Many of the organizations we are discussing are funded primarily by fossil fuel interests. If they can delay, even by 1 year or 2 years or 5 years or even 6 months, the enactment of policies that would move us toward fewer fossil fuels, it will hurt their bottom line. So rather than come up here and argue about what the right transition should be, they are handing funds over to organizations that are trying to confuse the American public about science itself. Let me close and read from Pope Francis's encyclical, since the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation cherry-picked the piece. I am going to read it as a quote: Is it realistic to hope that those who are obsessed with maximizing profits will stop to reflect on the environmental damage which they will leave behind for future generations? Where profits alone count, there are can be no thinking about the rhythms of nature, its phases of decay and regeneration, or the complexity of ecosystems which may be gravely upset by human intervention. Once we start to think about the kind of world we are leaving to future generations, we look at things differently-- As to future generations, we look at things differently-- we realize that the world is a gift which we have freely received and must share with others. Since the world has been given to us, we can no longer view reality in a purely utilitarian way, in which efficiency and productivity are entirely geared to our individual benefit. Intergenerational solidarity is not optional, but rather a basic question of justice, since the world we have received also belongs to those who will follow us. Science and faith have a number of things in common, but one of the most important things they have in common is that their first duty has to be to the truth. I hope all actors in the political process, whatever their views, will remember that and have that same commitment. I thank the Chair, and with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

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

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time under cloture to the Democratic leader. With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise briefly to offer a tale of two cities. My comments are in a deep and disturbed reaction to the police shootings of Alton Sterling in Louisiana and Philando Castile in Minnesota. The videos of these shootings--one of an African-American father of five selling CDs outside a convenience store and one of a beloved African-American school cafeteria supervisor stopped for a broken taillight--are shocking. All people of good will have to ask--in the words that President Obama uttered an hour or so ago: ``What if this happened to somebody in your family?'' The first city is the world of America's police officers. Our law enforcement officers are heroes. While we are told in the Scriptures that the greatest love is to lay one's life down for a friend, police officers risk their lives every day not just for friends but for people they have never even met. As a mayor and Governor, I came face to face with the danger of police work and went to too many funerals for local and State law enforcement officials who gave up their lives in service to their fellow citizens. Just in February of this year, Prince William County police officer Ashley Guindin was shot and killed on her first day working her beat after service as a Marine reservist and veteran. Police work is hard and dangerous, and we have to be grateful for those who do it. But here is one glimmer of hope. For a police officer, the threat of death by gun violence is being dramatically reduced even as our Nation's population grows and even as the number of weapons grows. The death of police officers by gun violence hit its peak in the early 1970s. In 1973, 156 police officers in this country were shot and killed. In the first decade of the 2000s, that number had been reduced to an average of 57 police officers killed by gunfire every year. In 2014, 49 police officers were killed by gunfire. Last year, the number of police officers killed by gunfire had come down to 42. This year, police deaths by gunfire are at the same level as 2015. We know that one police death by gunfire is too many, and police die in traffic accidents and by other work-related causes that also need our attention and resolution. But the experience of our Nation in the last 40 years--and this is what should give us hope--is this: We have made our police safer from death by gunshot. We have shown we can tackle a problem and begin to solve it, and that should give us hope that we can bring down the number of police killed by gunfire even more. The second city is the world of people, especially young African- American males shot by the police. In 2015, according to painstaking research undertaken by the Guardian newspaper, 1,010 people were shot and killed by the police in the United States. Young African-American males were five times more likely to be killed by police than White males of the same age. This data suggests that 102 unarmed African- American males were killed by police in 2015. This number was also five times the rate of unarmed Whites killed by police. How does this number compare to past years? It is nearly impossible to know. While deaths of law enforcement officers have been carefully tracked for decades, the deaths of individuals killed by the police in this country have only recently been counted. At least since the early 1990s, there have been legal reporting requirements at the Federal level for such deaths, but actual data collection was weak, and it has not been until the last 2 years that there has been an effort driven by journalists and citizens to systematically collect this data. Even now, there are questions about whether current data is actually comprehensive. How did our Nation bring down the number of police killed by gunfire even as the Nation grew and even as the number of firearms in this country increased? Because we cared about it. Because we kept records and resolved to do better, and police departments trained to reduce risks and society supported those efforts with budgets and emotional commitment. How will our Nation bring down the number of people--especially African-American males, especially young African-American males, especially unarmed African American males--killed by police? We will decide that we must care about it. Again, in the words that President Obama said an hour or so ago, because we will decide that ``this is not just a black issue, it's an American issue.'' We must decide that we care about it. We must decide that we will keep rigorous records and resolve to do better, and provide better police training and support those efforts with our budgets and with our emotional commitment. If we have brought down the rate of police deaths by gunfire, we can bring down the rate of people killed by the police. But we cannot do it unless we care and unless we act. I yield the floor. Mr. President, inquiry: We are not in a quorum call; is that correct?

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my colleagues and others for their leadership on this issue. I just want to point out something about the institution and what we are about to do. Monday night we had competing proposals from both parties to deal with this challenging issue of no guns for terrorists. Not surprisingly, the majority party wouldn't support the minority party, and the minority party wouldn't support the majority party. And none of the bills got enough votes to go forward. Now there is a bipartisan version on the floor. Now there is a version where both parties have worked together to do something commonsensical to stop this carnage of gun violence we are seeing in the country. And I am just curious as to why one side wants to fight against a bipartisan proposal by putting up a motion to table. That is what this is. I hope we are able to get over that motion to proceed. But it is important to point out that when a bipartisan proposal is on the floor, where the sides are reaching together to try and do something good for our citizens, one side is trying to kill the bipartisan proposal and one side is supporting it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Absolutely.

Mr. KAINE. It is in there for a reason. And it has been in there since 1787, and Virginians were the drafters. So it is in there for a reason, and it is important, just like the First Amendment. Let me ask the Senator about the First Amendment. The First Amendment says there is a right to free speech and a right to freedom of the press. Does that mean that constitutionally I can go out and slander and libel anyone, and there is no consequence for that? Is that what the First Amendment means?

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity to appear tonight, and I share my praise for my colleague, the Senator from Connecticut. We came to the Senate together. His leadership on this issue is something I admire, but more than leadership on the issue, I admire his heart and his compassion. He has suffered because his citizens have suffered. And if you suffer and you don't try to change things--if you don't try to do things differently--then you are not fully alive. I honor that in the Senator, that he is willing to be vulnerable and in his suffering is trying to find help for others. I have a little scar tissue on this issue. I would love to describe the Virginia experience and my own personal experience on this and then ask a series of questions of my colleague from Connecticut. I was elected to office--to the Richmond City Council--for the first time in May of 1994. At the time I was elected, Richmond had the second highest homicide rate per capita in the United States. I was sworn in on July 1, 1994. On October 14, 1994--I will never forget that day--in my city council district, in a public housing community, Gilpin Court, which is the largest between Washington and Atlanta, a 35-year-old guy walked into an apartment and gunned down a family of six, from a 35-year old woman, to her younger sister, to tiny little babies and children. I got a call as a city council member. I raced to the scene, and it was chaos. That has begun a 22-year experience of being too intimate with this problem. That funeral of the family in the Arthur Ashe Center in Richmond with 3,000 people and six little white coffins at the front of the room is something that I will never, ever forget. A number of years later I was Governor of Virginia. I had just taken a trade mission to Japan and had landed, had checked into the hotel, and had fallen asleep. Someone knocked on my door. It was April 16, 2007, and my security detail said: You have to call home. Something horrible has happened in Virginia, and it is still underway. I called to find that a shooting was still taking place at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg that eventually killed 32 people and injured dozens of others. At that point--at that point, it was the worst shooting incident in the history of the United States, but no longer. That was the worst day of my life, and it will always be the worst day of my life--comforting the families of the victims, talking to the first responders who went into a classroom where bodies littered the floor and who heard in the pockets of deceased students and professors cell phones ringing as parents who had seen it on the news were calling their kids, just knowing they were at Virginia Tech to ask them if they were all right--calls that would never be answered. This traumatized some of the most hardened first responders whom I know. I knew priests and ministers in that community who had seen a lot and were traumatized in the days to follow. The Senator from Connecticut has a reasonable proposal on the floor with respect to background record checks. The deranged young man who had committed that crime and then killed himself was not supposed to get a weapon. He was federally prohibited from getting a weapon because he had been adjudicated to be mentally ill and dangerous, but the weaknesses of a background check system--gaps in the background check system--had created the ability for him to buy this weapon and create this unspeakable carnage. We learned everything we could learn from that tragedy; we fixed what we could fix. To my everlasting regret, I could fix part of the background record check system, but I went to the legislature and said: Let's have universal background checks so this will not happen again. Even in the aftermath of the worst shooting tragedy in the United States, I couldn't get my legislature to do the simple thing that the voters, that gun owners, and that NRA members said they should do. Then, a year ago--it was in August of 2015--in the same community, the Blacksburg-Roanoke community in Virginia, a young woman I know who was the TV reporter at WDBJ television, Alison Parker, who covered Senator Warner and me--we know her parents--was shooting a live piece in the morning about the anniversary of a local chamber of commerce, and a mentally ill former employee of the station came up, live on television, and videoing himself, killed Alison and Adam Ward, her cameraman, and ultimately took his own life later that day. We have scar tissue in my town. We have scar tissue in my Commonwealth. We have scar tissue in this country. We have scar tissue personally. And after every one of these instances, we resolved to be better, and we resolved to do more. Why do we need to be passive? Why do we need to do nothing? We resolved to do better and do more. Yet here in this body, we can't. We were together here, my colleague from Connecticut and I. I talked about the worst day of my life at Blacksburg, but the worst day in the Senate was standing here on the floor in April of 2013 and having a debate about this very piece of legislation about background record checks, and we were surrounded in the gallery by the victims and the families from Newtown, and they were watching us. There is a line in the Letter to the Hebrews that talks about being surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, and we were surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. With them were Virginia Tech families, and they were together, and they were watching us, and they were praying, I know, for us to do the right thing. Yet, even with the family members who had suffered from the State of Senator Murphy and Senator Blumenthal, even with those family members hoping we would do the right thing, we couldn't get there. As surely as night follows day, there have been other tragedies. And now--something I hoped would never happen--a shooting tragedy has eclipsed even the horrific tragedy in Blacksburg in 2007. So the question that has to be asked is, What will it take and when will we act? So I would ask the Senator a series of questions because I am not just grappling with this as a legislator; I am grappling with this as a person, as a parent, as a friend, as somebody who has scar tissue. I have an organization, the National Rifle Association, that is headquartered in my State and that says we can't do anything because of the Second Amendment. Let me ask a couple of questions of my colleague. The Senator would agree with me, would he not, that the Second Amendment is in the Constitution, so of course it is important. It is important, as the First Amendment is important, wouldn't the Senator agree with me on that?

Mr. KAINE. There is another part of the First Amendment that says you have a right to assemble. My understanding--and the Senator is a lawyer, so he can tell me if I am wrong about the right to assemble. You have a right to assemble, but a government can condition that. It can say you have to get a permit or you can assemble here, not there. It cannot discriminate among points of view, but the common constitutional provision is that there can be reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of assembly under the First Amendment, and that is completely constitutional. Is that the Senator's understanding of the clause?

Mr. KAINE. I can do the same thing on the Third Amendment, and I can do the same thing on the Fourth Amendment, and I can do the same thing on the Sixth Amendment and the Seventh amendment, the right to trial by jury in civil matters. And each of these rights are important just as the Second Amendment is important, and in each of these rights we commonly accept--actually, we demand, not just accept--that consistent with constitutional rights there be reasonable limits so that we can live together in peaceable harmony as citizens. Would the Senator agree with me that there is nothing about those reasonable restrictions in the First or the Second or the Third or the Fourth or the Sixth or the Seventh Amendments that is at all inconsistent with the constitutional framework that we take an oath to uphold when we come into this body?

Mr. KAINE. Am I not right that the Second Amendment even has the phrase ``well regulated'' in it and even acknowledges the notion that this particular right is one where regulation is contemplated?

Mr. KAINE. So the organization in Virginia that makes this argument about the Second Amendment--I think we can clearly demonstrate it is specious. The Second Amendment is critically important. We all take an oath to uphold it, and we do uphold it, but there is nothing inconsistent with the Second Amendment in terms of the provisions you are talking about on the floor. Let me ask you this. Here is an argument they make, and I hear them make this all the time: What these guys who are advocating these propositions want to do is they want to take away all of your guns. You were in the House a while before I got here. To your recollection, has there ever been, in your time here, a proposal that has been put in place in Congress to take away the guns of American citizens?

Mr. KAINE. I thought that was the case. I am a gun owner, I am a supporter of the Second Amendment, and I have been unaware of this body or any State legislature putting in a proposal to take away folks' guns, as advocates would suggest. Let me ask the Senator this one. Here is a position this organization used to advocate all the time: We don't want to have things that restrict law-abiding citizens; we just want to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. For a very long time, that was the NRA's position--don't restrict law-abiding citizens; keep guns out of the hands of bad guys. As far as you know, is there any way to enforce the existing laws and keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys pursuant to the Federal laws that have been in place for a very long time and that prohibit nine categories of people from owning weapons? Is there any way to do that job and keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys without a comprehensive background record check so that somebody who is selling can determine whether somebody who is buying is a bad guy?

Mr. KAINE. May I ask the Senator this since we have started to talk about this question. Has anybody come up to you and said: Hey, people on the terrorist watch list--we just shouldn't be worried about them. Why would we worry about people on the terrorist watch list? Have they tried to argue that those are good guys?

Mr. KAINE. Here is where I am puzzled. For an organization that says that they are about the Second Amendment, they advocate a position that has no support in the Second Amendment. An organization that shakes their fists and says we are trying to take their guns away--that has no basis because there are no such provisions that are on the floor and that have been introduced. An organization that says they want to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys--the only way to do that is to have a background record check. So doesn't it seem like the organization's principles are really--well, let's start with this: It seems to me they are at odds with the point of view of not only most Americans but also most gun owners. Most gun owners support the commonsense provisions that you are describing on the Senate floor.

Mr. KAINE. Finally, Senator, if I could do this, I know as part of standing on this floor, you are not standing here over words in draft legislation, you are standing here because of people. I sat with you, and we talked about people in your community who had been affected. I would love to tell you the story about just one Virginian, if I could, and then I would love to have you comment on the story I am going to tell you. I could tell a lot of stories about a lot of different people, but one just epitomizes to me so plainly this challenge, and it is a story of a man named Liviu Lebrescu. Liviu Lebrescu was one of the people who were killed at Virginia Tech. He was a professor of aerospace engineering. He was an amazing professor. On April 16, 2007, when Seung-Hui Cho came into Norris Hall and started shooting people, he stood in front of the door and told his engineering students to try to get out of the window so that they would be safe. He blocked the door, and Seung-Hui Cho was shooting bullets through the door. He kept saying: Hurry, hurry, hurry. Until the last breath he took, he told students to hurry. Everyone in his class got out the window except one other student, Minal Panchal, who stayed behind and encouraged others to go ahead of them. Professor Lebrescu was one of the 32 killed that day. Here is the amazing thing about Liviu Lebrescu that I just find myself continuing to contemplate. Liviu Lebrescu was 76 years old. He was born in the 1930s as a Jew in Romania. When Hitler and the Nazis started to sweep across Europe, he and his family were put into labor camps and concentration camps. But this amazing survivor, who was a young boy and a teenager, survived the Holocaust. Most of his family was killed. He survived the Holocaust, and he was a teenager with a lot of his family gone. A lot of people who had been through that experience in Romania decided to leave, they were so shattered, but he said: This is my home. My family is gone. This is my home. I am going to stay in Romania. Then the Soviet Union took over Romania, and they asked that he renounce his Judaism, and he wouldn't do it. Then they asked that he pledge allegiance to the Communist Party, and he wouldn't do it. He had gotten a Ph.D., and he was a well-recognized engineer, but suddenly, first, he couldn't travel to go to academic conferences, and then second, he was going to lose his job. This Holocaust survivor had to live under Soviet communism and be persecuted, but he wouldn't give up his faith, and he wouldn't give up his moral integrity. He kept trying for a better life. Finally, in 1977, when he was past 40, he was allowed to immigrate to Israel, and he moved to Israel. That had been his dream. And he was a teacher in Israel. In 1985, he got a 1-year teaching fellowship at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg to teach engineering. He came in 1985 for a 1-year fellowship, and he kept renewing it year after year after year because he found in Virginia, he found in America, he found in Blacksburg a community that he loved and a community that he cared about. So somebody who survived a holocaust of the Nazis and who survived the Soviet oppression of his native land couldn't survive the holocaust of gun violence in this country. There is one more thing about Liviu Lebrescu. It is about the day he was killed because it was a very different day for him than it was for his students. It was a Monday. It was April 16, 2007. That day was a special day in the Jewish faith for somebody who was Jewish. It was Yom HaShoah from sundown on April 15, 2007, until sundown on April 16. It is the day to remember the Holocaust. For Jews worldwide and people who care about Judaism worldwide, it is a day to remember the Holocaust. When you remember the Holocaust, well, it is one thing to reflect upon it, but it is another thing to reflect upon it as a Holocaust survivor. What you reflect upon is the perpetrators and the gravity of the tragedy that they perpetrated. You reflect upon the victims who lost their lives, and you reflect upon the survivors. You reflect upon the heroes, and you also reflect upon the bystanders. So while the students who went into that class on the morning of April 16 weren't thinking about Yom HaShoah, Liviu Lebrescu was. I have to believe that when that shooting started on that day where he was thinking about what he had been through, then he was faced with an existential--am I going to be perpetrator? Am I going to be a victim? Am I going to be a survivor? Am I going to be a bystander? Am I going to be a hero? He chose to be a hero, and he lost his life. He chose to be a hero, and he lost his life. Would I do that? Would I stand in front of a door, block it, take bullets, and tell my students to get out the window? Would I do that? I cannot honestly stand here and say that I would. I can't say that I would have the courage of Liviu Lebrescu. He was a hero. I can't say I would be a hero. But in this body, we don't have to be heroes; we just have to not be bystanders. We have been bystanders in this body. We have been bystanders in this Nation as this carnage of gun violence has gone from one tragedy to the next. To cast a vote, that is not heroic. To stand up and say, ``We can be safer tomorrow. We can protect people's lives,'' that is not heroic. That is just saying I will not be a bystander. And that is all we have to do--stop being bystanders. Mr. President, I would just ask my colleague from Connecticut if he has any close on that, and I appreciate the chance to engage in this dialogue with him.

Mr. KAINE. I would go one further. Not only is it consistent with what the American public wants in virtually any ZIP Code in this country, I think the notion of keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys, which for a long time has been the stated principle of the National Rifle Association--I think that is in accord with the opinions of the members of the National Rifle Association. As I have seen polling by NRA members, the members of the organization overwhelmingly support background record checks because they want to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys.

Mr. KAINE. That is talking about outside this building. How about the disconnect between what our citizens, gun owners, and NRA members want and expect us to do and the complete lack of action and, frankly, counterproductive action. Let's talk about that. Congress has given gun manufacturers a unique form of liability protection that virtually nobody else in this country gets. We have put a number of restrictions in place to stop research into causes of gun violence, to stop the ability to trace weapons in gun violence. These are not only not doing the right thing but doing the wrong thing in the sense of the thing that seems completely contrary to the wishes of the constituents who send us here to represent them.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, today I wish to speak about the fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA. I want to thank Senator McCain and Senator Reed for all their work on this Defense bill. This year's floor process has been challenging to say the least, but with their leadership and that of their staff directors, Chris Brose and Liz King, I am confident we can find a meaningful path forward. I supported this bill out of committee in hopes of having a vigorous debate on some of the proposals I had expressed concern over regarding Defense reform. It was my belief that the public release of this bill would invite greater scrutiny by officials in the Department of Defense to inform floor debate. In anticipation of their concern, I again submitted an amendment that I had offered in committee to initiate a commission on Defense reform to assist Congress in considering future legislation. I have been surprised at the absence of comments about many of the reform proposals. This has contributed to a sense that the concepts were welcome and being embraced by the Department. It wasn't until the administration's response was released, in the midst of the bill being on the Senate floor, that concern was finally noted. Despite my belief that some of our proposals lack sufficient analysis and have gone too far, I do share the chairman's concern over whether the Department has the ability to adapt and remain successful in today's security environment. I am also concerned that the Department may in fact be mired in duplicative process and complicated organizational designs. Many of the witnesses in front of the Armed Services Committee testified to these facts, but several went on to recommend caution. On November 10, 2015 in front of a hearing by this committee, Jim Thomas from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis said, ``all of these ideas would require detailed analysis to fully understand their strengths and avoid outcomes that might inadvertently leave us worse off.'' At that same hearing, we heard from James Locher, a former staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee during the Goldwater-Nichols reform, who stated ``pinpointing problems was the committee's sole focus for eighteen months. As part of this thorough process, the committee staff produced a 645-page staff study with detailed analyses of each problem area. . . . a hasty reform without a deep appreciation for the origins of the behaviors that currently limit Pentagon effectiveness would be a mistake.'' Additional comments by witnesses like the Honorable David Walker, ``there needs to be a fundamental review and reassessment of the current organizational structure and personnel practices,'' or former Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy, ``it is imperative that we think through the second and third order effects of any changes proposed. . . . great care should be taken to hear the full range of views and consider the unintended consequences,'' should have provided the necessary direction and caution to this committee to pursue a deliberative, well-researched, and open approach. Many of the reform provisions were drafted by the committee's very skilled professional staff. While I have the full confidence that they crafted proposals to address various challenges in the Department, it is ultimately the responsibility of the members to fully understand them. Despite the numerous hearings and countless witnesses, the only theme that emerged was that reform was needed interspersed with a few conceptual suggestions. To date, no study has proposed the legislation contained within this bill. No officials offered their views for consideration until the bill was on the Senate floor. In the absence of a debate on the merits of an independent study, investigative work, or official Department views, I suspect many of my colleagues do not have confidence that the proposals address the Department's challenges. Should we require the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to consult with and seek the advice of others? Should the headquarters be reduced in addition to previous reductions? Is an additional 15 percent of staff adequate in a time of war or crisis? Will the new Under Secretary for Research and Engineering make the Department's acquisition process run more efficiently? Last year we removed a pay increase for general officers; this year, we reduced their number by 25 percent. The combination of these two provisions makes me wonder whether we are doing all we can to cultivate the next Eisenhower, Halsey, Abrams, or Dunford. We made significant reforms in previous years empowering acquisition professionals to have flexibility and offer service chiefs greater ownership of their acquisition programs. We have also charged the Department with necessary authorities to ``hire top talent'' in an attempt to drive innovation. Many of us in the Senate have demanded a more comprehensive military strategy in countering the myriad of threats around the globe. In addition, this bill encourages numerous outreach and coordination programs with our allies and partners. These requests are not hollow or zero-sum. People are required to assist our service chiefs with acquisition programs. People develop more comprehensive doctrines and offset strategies. Hiring and retaining top-talent means just that. What impact will the reorganization of the Department and significant changes in personnel policies have on our operations in the midst of a two-front cold war and expanding conflict in the Middle East? Do we challenge the advice our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is providing? How do we get ``top talent'' if each spring we reorganize and cut our Department of Defense workforce? How will a reduction in general and flag officers impact current and future senior officers? What are the secondary effects to changes in combatant command responsibilities? How will our allies and adversaries interpret the reduction or disappearance of general officers in overseas billets? I submit that most of my colleagues do not know the answers to these questions, but I would encourage them to consider them prior to taking similar drastic action in the future. I share the chairman's desire to improve the organization and capability of the Department of Defense. I know he has reached a comfort level with the reform proposals contained within, that in time I may better understand their impacts. However, I am mindful of the cautions relayed by many of our witnesses. We should take our independent oversight responsibility very seriously. I remain committed to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion and seek a more measured and informed approach to any legislation that has the potential to negatively impact the very Department we seek to improve. It is in this spirit that I offered my amendment on establishing a commission to study Defense reform.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Bon Secours St. Mary's Hospital, the first hospital in the Bon Secours Richmond Health System. This not-for-profit Catholic health system, which is comprised of four hospitals in the greater Richmond metropolitan area, serves some of the neediest populations throughout central Virginia. St. Mary's founding was rooted in a strong history of providing care. In 1824, in Paris, 12 women formed the congregation of the Sisters of Bon Secours, French for ``Good Help.'' The Sisters' purpose was to nurse the sick and dying in their homes. The Sisters of Bon Secours came to the United States in 1881, where they continued their work of aiding the poor, the sick, and the dying in their homes. In 1966, Bon Secours expanded its mission with the opening of St. Mary's Hospital. Through its history, Bon Secours Richmond has stayed true to its founding principles through its community outreach and commitment to serving the neediest among us. For the past 50 years, St. Mary's Hospital has provided critical health services including cardiac, orthopedic, women's pediatric, surgery, oncology, imaging, neurology, and emergency services. St. Mary's Hospital ranks in the top 10 percent of America's hospitals for emergency care. Today St. Mary's employs over 3,000 employees, including more than 1,000 physicians. Bon Secours' mission is to bring compassion to health care and to be good help to those in need. I commend St. Mary's Hospital on behalf of my constituents for its commitment to health care excellence and service to the patients and families in the greater Richmond area.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with my colleague Senator Murphy, a bill that extends the sunset of the Iran Sanctions Act, ISA, of 1996 until the President certifies to Congress that the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency has reached a broader conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities. Currently, ISA expires on December 31st, 2016. Tying ISA's extension to Iran's compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA, will provide the administration additional leverage to ensure that a ``snap back'' of sanctions would have significant effect on Iran's economy. Since its enactment in 1996, ISA has been a pivotal component of U.S. sanctions against Iran's energy sector and other industries and remains a critical foundation of our overall sanctions architecture. Administration officials have indicated that extending ISA, with its current waiver authorities, would not violate the JCPOA, as it imposes no new sanctions. Additionally, ISA is about more than Iran's nuclear program, but also its support for international terrorism, which endangers the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and those countries with which the United States shares common strategic and foreign policy objectives. ISA addresses this issue by denying Iran money to finance international terrorism. By specifying in the bill that the extension of ISA ``effectuates the JCPOA,'' the intent is to support Congressional actions in line with the deal negotiated by the P5+1 and Iran, particularly following Congress's comprehensive review of the deal and decision to move forward under the Iran Nuclear Review Agreement Act of 2015. I am proud to introduce this bill with Senator Murphy to make sure that ISA is in place during the JCPOA to signal to the commitment of Congress to vigorously enforce Iran's compliance and to make clear that should Iran break the terms of the agreement, there will be clear consequences, including the re-imposition of sanctions.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with my colleague Senator Murphy, a bill that extends the sunset of the Iran Sanctions Act, ISA, of 1996 until the President certifies to Congress that the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency has reached a broader conclusion that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities. Currently, ISA expires on December 31st, 2016. Tying ISA's extension to Iran's compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA, will provide the administration additional leverage to ensure that a ``snap back'' of sanctions would have significant effect on Iran's economy. Since its enactment in 1996, ISA has been a pivotal component of U.S. sanctions against Iran's energy sector and other industries and remains a critical foundation of our overall sanctions architecture. Administration officials have indicated that extending ISA, with its current waiver authorities, would not violate the JCPOA, as it imposes no new sanctions. Additionally, ISA is about more than Iran's nuclear program, but also its support for international terrorism, which endangers the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and those countries with which the United States shares common strategic and foreign policy objectives. ISA addresses this issue by denying Iran money to finance international terrorism. By specifying in the bill that the extension of ISA ``effectuates the JCPOA,'' the intent is to support Congressional actions in line with the deal negotiated by the P5+1 and Iran, particularly following Congress's comprehensive review of the deal and decision to move forward under the Iran Nuclear Review Agreement Act of 2015. I am proud to introduce this bill with Senator Murphy to make sure that ISA is in place during the JCPOA to signal to the commitment of Congress to vigorously enforce Iran's compliance and to make clear that should Iran break the terms of the agreement, there will be clear consequences, including the re-imposition of sanctions.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to speak on Lee amendment No. 3897 that deals with the Federal Fair Housing Act, and I want to describe why many of my colleagues and I are opposed to the amendment. The amendment would eliminate the current affirmative furthering fair housing enforcement regulations promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I want to go into that. I will start with a personal story. Before I was in partisan elected politics, I was a civil rights lawyer in Richmond for 17 years. About two-thirds of my legal practice was fair housing cases. I will just tell you the story about my first client and two lessons I learned from my first client that bear upon this amendment. I had barely hung my diploma on the wall in my office, where I was the junior person among 12 lawyers, when a client was referred to our firm. They did what is often the case; they sent it to the newest person. Somebody needed some help--pro bono assistance. This young woman's name was Loraine. Loraine was almost exactly my age. I think I was 25 at the time, and she was the same age. I had just moved to a new city and had just gone out to find my apartment in that new city and started my first real job after school. She was kind of in the same place--just out of college, just starting a new job, just looking for an apartment. Loraine had been at work one day and had read in the newspaper an ad for an apartment in a neighborhood she liked. So she called the landlord and said: Hey, I am really interested in your apartment. Is it still available? Yes, it is available. Could I come over on my lunch hour to take a look? Sure, come on over. Well, about an hour later she went over to the apartment, and when she met the owner, the owner looked at her and said: Oh, I'm sorry, this place has just been rented. This was in the fall of 1984. Loraine drove back to her office and had this sinking suspicion that when the person saw she was African American, maybe that was why suddenly the available apartment turned into one that wasn't available. When she got back to the office, she asked a Caucasian colleague to make a call to the same owner and ask about the apartment. Within 20 minutes the colleague had made the call and asked: Hey, I'm calling about this apartment. Is it still available? The owner, who had just turned Loraine away, said: Sure, it's still available. When do you want to come over and see it? That was the first lawsuit I drafted. I know I am speaking to a Presiding Officer who is an attorney and who has done the same thing. For the first client who was truly mine, the first pleading I drafted was a Federal fair housing action. With the testimony of the coworker, it was a slam-dunk case. We settled it shortly after we filed it. So in that sense, I don't have a big momentous trial story or anything to tell. Nevertheless, it made a huge impression on me as a brand-new attorney for two reasons. First, in hearing my client tell me the story, I understood more deeply than I ever had how important your home is, how important housing is. I think most of us feel that what is important in life is relationships--not things, not physical objects. But where you live is more like a part of your person than it is a physical thing. As she described this experience, obviously, that was what made it so painful. But the thing that really stuck with me about this was this: She and I were so similar in many ways--about the same age, excited to be coming out to find a house, having a new job. But my experience--I found an apartment with no problem for my wife and me--was a positive one. But Loraine's experience of being turned away--and then having the sinking suspicion that she was turned away because of her skin color and then finding out that was the case--was a very negative and painful one. What really struck me, as I talked to her, was that the pain was not just the pain of something in the past tense. The pain was also the anticipation: What about the next time I look for a house? What about the next time? Am I going to be faced with this same differential treatment because of the color of my skin? That first case I had suddenly made me the expert in Virginia on fair housing law--doing one case that was settled within a matter of weeks. So for the next 17 years, this was the heart of my legal practice-- representing people who had been turned away from housing because of their race, disabilities--apartments, houses, mortgages, homeowner's insurance policies. I learned an awful lot when I did it. One of the things I learned was what a superb piece of legislation the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 is. It was the last of the major pieces of civil rights legislation done in the 1960s. There was the 1964 act of public accommodations, employment discriminations, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 1968, the Federal Fair Housing Act was really the last of those big pieces of Federal legislation. I am proud to say that even over the course of my legal career, from 1984 until I stopped practicing in early 2002, in Virginia and elsewhere there was significant improvement. The Federal Fair Housing Act really did open the doors so that people could live where they wanted to live and as their resources would allow them to live there. Yet, if we just looked at the statistics about residential segregation, in all 50 States, we would see that we still have more work to do. There are still barriers that people face, and some of them are just absolute, sharp, and clear barriers, and some of them are more subtle. HUD was directed by GAO in 2010 to do a study because they had been encouraged as part of the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 to encourage affirmatively to advance the fair housing mission through agencies that are funded by HUD. The case that I described with Loraine was a private landlord, and that is not necessarily relevant to this topic except to underline how important the law is and how critical housing is. But there are circumstances in which HUD is giving funding to organizations. I was a mayor, and my city had a housing authority. HUD funding went into the housing authority in my city, just like it goes into housing authorities all around the United States. I was a Governor, and Governors got CDBG funds that came from HUD. So whether it is to a city, county, State, or to a CDBG program that then gets allocated out--even to worthy and strong housing nonprofits--HUD was under a directive when it was funding organizations to make sure they were affirmatively advancing the commands of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. HUD was doing this sort of in fits and starts and in a little bit of an extemporaneous way. In 2010, the GAO said: You have an obligation to affirmatively further fair housing, but you are not exactly doing it the right way. Can you really look at guidance that you can give to your grantees? Now, this was really important--that Federal grantees get this guidance and affirmatively further fair housing because it wasn't just the private landlords of the world that had done bad things in the housing industry. In fact, there had been a lot of policies of State and local governments, and even the Federal Government, that had cut against fair housing. There were zoning laws that cut against fair housing. There were Federal appraisal standards to get FHA loans that cut against fair housing, and there were other Federal policies that actually cut directly against the goal of allowing people to live where they wanted to live. So that is the reason why these grantees that are receiving Federal money, are in a unique position to do something about it, and often are inheriting a history where in the past they did the wrong things, need to be encouraged and given clear guidance about how to affirmatively further fair housing. So to follow the GAO directive, HUD, under this administration--and I give Secretary Castro huge credit for getting this to the goal line-- did the work to come up with clear guidance so that organizations that receive HUD funding know what it means to affirmatively encourage fair housing and so that it is not just a vague platitude or something you pay lip service to but you don't actually do it. The rule announced by HUD is pretty straightforward. It doesn't mandate changes to local zoning laws. It doesn't require people to move. It doesn't end local control of community planning and development. It allows communities to determine what the best strategies are to comply with the Fair Housing Act. It provides local communities with data and tools that are needed to make fair housing decisions, including allowing local communities to add any relevant local or regional data so that people can understand the effects of their actions. It does include protected classes in the statute in the larger community planning process. It prevents the use of Federal resources to discriminate against protected classes of individuals. It simplifies compliance with the Fair Housing Act, and this is really important because a lot of small communities don't have a phalanx of lawyers to pour through all the laws and regs. So simplified compliance guidelines are helpful. It does not require grantees to collect new data and data they are not already collecting, and it encourages engagement with the local community, including the real estate industry, residents, developers, and other organizations. As somebody who was sitting on the other end of this as a mayor, and as somebody who was appointing members to a public housing agency in Richmond, I think this kind of guidance is actually very, very helpful. So I was heartened when the GAO directed HUD to do this work. HUD did a significant period of study and put out guidance under Secretary Castro's leadership. I think it is actually something that is helpful-- not harmful--to those who are receiving HUD funds and should be using HUD funds to advance important goals, including the fair housing goals. I know the Senator who is proposing the amendment--Lee amendment No. 3897. I know it is well-intentioned, and the intention might be to not put too many burdens and obligations on the shoulders of local planning officials or cities or counties. But as somebody who has been a mayor and been in that spot, guidance is helpful. I actually think this guidance gives clarity in an area where, before the guidance, there was some confusion. I think the guidance strikes the right balance. I don't know exactly when this is going to be called for a vote. I gather soon. But I just wanted to take the floor and hearken back to the days before I ever knew I would be in politics and I was representing people who desperately needed to just be treated equally to everybody else when it came to their housing. This HUD regulation really furthers that goal in a positive way, and I think we should not eliminate it by accepting Lee amendment No. 3897. So, for that reason, I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to discuss the pending vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, and I do so on a very momentous day in American legal history. May 17, today, is the anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in the pivotal case of Brown v. Board of Education. On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that the promise of equality--stated as paramount in the Declaration of Independence and then reaffirmed in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution passed in the aftermath of the Civil War--could not be denied to little school children based on their skin color. The Brown v. Board case was actually five cases consolidated together--one from Virginia, one from Kansas, one from Delaware, one from South Carolina, and one from the District of Columbia. While most of us know what the Brown case resolved, few remember that the Brown ruling was in serious jeopardy because of the death of a Supreme Court Justice and the deep divisions on the Court among the remaining eight members. It was only through the prompt filling of a judicial vacancy that the Court was able to come together and render a ruling in America's best interest. The Brown case was originally argued in 1952, and the court that heard the argument was hopelessly divided. In fact, it was so divided that they asked that the case be reargued in 1953, and then to make matters worse, Chief Justice Fred Vinson died before the reargument. By many accounts, his death left the Court evenly divided over an issue of the most fundamental importance. Had the vacancy left by the death of Judge Vinson persisted, there is no way of predicting whether the Supreme Court could have even resolved the case. Imagine how different our history as a Nation would be if the Supreme Court had been unable to decide on a matter of fundamental importance. President Eisenhower nominated former California Governor Earl Warren to fill the vacancy. The Senate did its job, held a prompt hearing, and confirmed the appointment. Chief Justice Warren then used his skill to cut through the division and convince his colleagues that the Court should speak unanimously and say that a child's skin color should not determine which school he or she should attend. Because the Senate did its job, the Court was able to do its job, and all of America was lifted. I have listened to my colleagues and Virginia citizens about the current Supreme Court vacancy for 3 months. I have come to this conclusion: I think the Senate is treading on dangerous ground here. We are communicating--and I think the communication could be unintentional--a message to our public that is painful, and our actions in this high-profile matter are creating pain among many of my constituents. I fear that a precedent is about to be set that could undermine all three branches of our government. I offer these comments today because the Senate can correct the dangerous message we are sending, and I hope that calm reflection will call us to honor the great traditions of this body. The death of Justice Scalia on February 13 created a naturally occurring vacancy on a Court that is statutorily required to have nine members. Within hours of Justice Scalia's death, the majority leader announced a blockade on the vacancy, declaring that no nomination by President Obama would ever receive a hearing or a vote. This hastily announced blockade has been described as follows: The majority thinks the American people should decide on the Presidential race, and therefore, this nomination should be for the next President to make, even if that means a Supreme Court vacancy for more than a year. I want to examine the majority's rationale. What has the Senate done in other instances when a vacancy has occurred during the last year of a President's term? Well, that is easy enough to find out. Before Justice Scalia's death, more than a dozen Justices have been confirmed during a Presidential year. For the last 100 years, with the exception of nominees who have withdrawn their nomination, the Senate has taken action on every pending nominee to fill a vacancy on the Court. In the past, some Senators have suggested that a vacancy occurring during the final year of a Presidential term should be entitled to less deference than other Executive nominations, but that is related to the question of whether or not a Senator votes yes or no, and, of course, Senators are free to vote yes or no on nominees. But the refusal to even consider a nominee is unprecedented. Beyond the precedent of previous Senate actions, let's look at article II, section 2, of the Constitution. It says that the President ``shall nominate'' and ``appoint''--``by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate''--various officials, including Supreme Court Justices. While all agree that the advice and consent provision gives the Senate the ability to affirm or reject a nominee, there is nothing in the clause suggesting that the Senate can blockade the consideration of a nominee, and there is certainly nothing in the clause to suggest that the President's appointed powers or the Senate's confirmation powers are somehow limited in the last year of a Presidential term. Finally, the meaning of the constitutional clause was extensively discussed as the Constitution was drafted, approved, and ratified by the States, and Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper 76 also discusses the provision at length. All understood that the advice and consent provision was an opportunity for the Senate to determine whether a Presidential nominee for a Senate confirmable position possessed ``fit character.'' That is the check against Presidential power intended by the clause. The President, knowing that a Senate would inquire into the character of a nominee, would not just nominate people purely for partisan, personal, or regional reasons--wanting to fill it with people from my State, for example. ``Fit character'' would require that the President nominate somebody who could pass that scrutiny in the Senate. ``Fit character'' is a phrase with some significant subjectivity to it, giving each Senator the ability to decide what it means in a given instance. But the position that the character of the nominee doesn't matter at all--as evidenced by the majority's view that there would be no meetings, no hearings, and no vote regardless of the person nominated for the vacancy--is directly contrary, in my view, to the intent of the provision. I look at this, and I believe the asserted rationale that we should not take up the Garland nomination because the vacancy occurred in the final year of a Presidential term is at odds with the text of the Constitution, with the clear meaning of the text, as explained during the drafting of the provision, and with the clear line of Senate action in previous cases. What could explain the blockade of Judge Garland? I obviously don't know, and I can't comment upon motivations that I am unaware of, but I do want to discuss how it appears--a perception that we are leaving, possibly unwittingly, based on my discussions with Virginians. The current Senate blockade is variously interpreted as an opposition to the nominee, as opposition to the particular President making the nomination, or as some effort to undermine judicial independence. Let's look at those three interpretations that are very commonly held by Virginians and others. The first interpretation: Is it opposition to the nominee? I think we can dispense with that pretty quickly. The blockade strategy is not based on the character of the nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, and I can assert this safely because the blockade strategy was announced--no meeting, no hearing, no vote--before the President even nominated Judge Garland. It was said that regardless of the character of a particular nominee, they would not entertain a nomination from this particular President. This is ironic, given that the nomination for a Supreme Court Justice is fundamentally about the very essence of justice and that the essence of justice must carry with it a duty to consider each individual on his or her own merits. The position that we would refuse to consider Judge Garland on his own merits seems contrary, to me, to the very notion of justice itself. Now that Judge Garland has been nominated, we also know that the blockade is not about the character of the nominee. Judge Garland has an esteemed record as a prosecutor, private practitioner, and Federal appellate judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. He is the chief judge on that court. His judicial service alone is approaching the 20- year mark on a court that most believe is second in importance only to the U.S. Supreme Court. I have not seen any Member of the majority assert any credible weakness in Judge Garland's background, integrity, experience, character, judicial temper, or fitness for the position. Indeed, the majority's senior Member, a respected former chair of the Judiciary Committee, has praised Judge Garland as exactly the kind of jurist who should be on the Supreme Court. In my recent interview with Judge Garland, I came away deeply impressed with his thoughtful manner and significant experience as a trial attorney and judge. This is no ivory tower jurist, but instead a man who understands the real-life struggles of plaintiffs and defendants, lawyers and juries, legislators and citizens, and trial judges who depend upon the Supreme Court to give clarity and guidance to the rules that impact the most important issues of their lives. I think we should give President Obama his due in proposing a nominee with such impeccable credentials. I reject the first possible explanation that the majority's opposition is about the nominee. In fact, a determination that Merrick Garland was not of fit character to even receive consideration as a Supreme Court Justice would set such a high bar for appointees that it is hard to imagine anyone ever clearing it. Since the Garland blockade has nothing to do with the character of the nominee, many perceive that it is instead explained by the majority's views of this President. Is there something about President Obama that would warrant his Supreme Court nominee receiving second-class treatment compared with past Senate practice? Could it be the circumstances of the President's election? Some Presidents have been elected with less than a majority vote of the American public and have thus been burdened with the notion that they did not have a mandate from the American public, but President Obama was elected in both 2008 and 2012 with overwhelming majorities in the electoral college, and his popular vote margins in both elections were also relatively strong in comparison with the norm in recent Presidential elections. So there is nothing about the legitimacy of President Obama's elections that would warrant treating this President's nomination different from previous Executives. This makes extremely puzzling the majority's claim that they want to ``let the American people decide.'' The American people did decide. They gave President Obama the constitutional responsibility to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court from his first day in office to his last. Some may not be happy with the decision, but it is insulting to the President and it is insulting to the American electorate who chose him, according to longstanding and clear electoral rules, to demean the legitimacy of his election. Could it be the unique unpopularity of this President? I think one could hypothesize a situation where a President, in the last year of his term, is so unpopular that a Senate might conclude that the public is no longer supportive of the Executive, but that is not the case with President Obama. The President's current popularity is actually quite strong compared with other Presidents during their final years in office. So there is nothing about the President's popularity with the American electorate that would warrant treating his court nominee different than the treatment afforded to past nominees. So what could it be about President Obama that would warrant the blockade of his Court nominee in a manner completely different than the way the Senate has treated all other occupants of the Oval Office? In what way is this President different to justify such treatment? I state again what I have said before. Obviously, I don't know the answer. I cannot say why the Senate would be so willing to break its historic practice and, by my reading of the Constitution, to refuse consideration of a nomination made by this particular President, but I can say it is painful and offer some thoughts about how it appears to many of my neighbors, to many of my constituents, as well as to many of my parishioners with whom I attend church. They reacted with alarm when news came that certain leaders had declared, soon after President Obama was elected, that their primary goal was to assure that he would not be reelected. They watched with sadness as some in Congress raised questions about whether he was even born in the United States. They saw some in Congress question his faith and his patriotism. They observed a Member of Congress shout ``you lie'' at this President during a televised speech to the entire Congress. They noticed, recently, as the Budget Committees of both the House and Senate refused to even hold hearings on the President's submitted 2017 budget--the only time a President has been treated in such a manner since the passage of the Budget Control Act of 1974. In short, they are confused and they are disturbed by what they see as an attack on this President's legitimacy. I am not referring to an attack on this President's policies, which should always be fair game for vigorous disagreement, and I have often attacked this President's policies, but instead what people are worried about is some level of attack on the very notion that it is this individual occupying the Oval Office. This latest action--the refusal to even consider any Supreme Court nominee afforded by President Obama in his final year, when other Presidents were granted consideration of their nominees--seems highly suspicious to them. When that blockade is maintained, even after the President affords to the Senate a nominee of sterling credentials, the suspicion is heightened. When the asserted reason is the need to ``let the people decide,'' thus suggesting that the people's decision to elect this particular President twice is entitled to no respect, they are deeply troubled. What can explain why this President--the Nation's first African-American President--is singled out for this treatment? Again, I don't know, but we cannot blind ourselves to how actions are perceived. The treatment of a Supreme Court nomination by this President that departs from the practice with previous Executives and that cannot be explained due to any feature of the particular nominee under consideration feeds a painful perception about motivations. The pain is magnified when it is in connection with an appointment to the Supreme Court, whose very building proclaims in stone over its entrance the cardinal notion of ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' There is a third interpretation of the Garland blockade that is also troubling. Some see the blockade as just sort of power politics--as an attempt to slant the Court. The death of Justice Scalia creates concern among those who fear a natural transition on the Court, so there is an effort to stop that natural and lawful transition. The blockade on filling a naturally occurring vacancy, in my view, is harmful to the independence of the article III branch. Even in the 3 months since Justice Scalia's death, the Court's rulings have shown the challenges of an eight-member Court. On four occasions already, the Court has been unable to render a clear decision in a case of great importance. Since the blockade, if successful, will probably maintain the artificial vacancy until the spring of 2017, it is likely to happen in other cases as well. So lower courts, and all persons whose rights and liberties are subject to rule by this Court, are deprived of the clarity on Federal issues that the Court was designed to provide, but it is more than just a hobbling of the Court's ability to decide individual discrete cases. Seventy years ago, when Winston Churchill spoke at Westminster College about the descent of an Iron Curtain across Europe, he defined the differences between free societies and those driven by tyranny. Key to his description of free societies was an independent judiciary. It is an independent judiciary that serves as a bulwark against Executive or legislative power grabs, protecting the liberties of an individual from an overreaching Executive or from a majoritarian legislature that does not fully grasp the rights of minorities. That is what an independent judiciary is designed to do. I think we all know this independence of the American judiciary has been one of the great hallmarks of American democracy. In my view, the blockade of the Garland nomination undermines this independence. The Judiciary Act of 1869 sets the composition of the Court at nine Justices with life tenure, and that statute has remained in force for 150 years. When President Franklin Roosevelt didn't like certain rulings of the Supreme Court in the 1930s, he tried to expand the Court and elbow out older Justices by proposing a forced retirement age and an expansion of the numbers in that Judiciary Act of 1869. Everybody understood that FDR's actions were an attempt to attack the independence of the judicial branch, and so congressional leaders of both parties stood up to stop him. I think this current blockade is the legislative equivalent of what President Roosevelt tried to do. Refusing to consider an Obama nomination in order to artificially maintain a Court vacancy for more than a year is as much an attack on the judiciary as trying to expand it beyond nine members. I hope we would agree with this: Whether an independent judiciary is attacked by the executive or the legislative branches, we need to be equally diligent in repelling that attack. American diplomats work every day around the world trying to convince other societies of the virtues of the rule of law and the independent judiciary, but the current blockade, unless corrected, suggests that we do not practice what we preach. By refusing to fill a naturally occurring vacancy, we send the message that the rule of law and an independent judiciary are ultimately secondary to having a more favorable or a more compliant judiciary, even when we have to weaken it to obtain what we want. I once lived in a country with a military dictatorship that held this view of the judiciary. The judiciary was not prized for its independence but instead was priced for its slavish obedience to a few in control of society. By refusing to fill a Supreme Court vacancy because a partial and weakened Court is deemed more acceptable than a full and lawfully constituted Court, we move away from one of our best traditions--to become more like legal systems that we are working to change around the world every day. In doing so, we weaken the judiciary by leaving this vacancy that has already affected proceedings, we weaken the Executive by hobbling the constitutional power to fill dually constituted executive and judicial positions, but we also weaken the legislative body, which has that important duty of checking these nominees for fitness of character, and by doing it without even being willing to cast a vote, I think we hurt our own institutional credibility. In conclusion, I harken back to 1954. A matter of fundamental importance to our Nation was before the Supreme Court. The death of a Justice left an eight-member Court that had already shown it was deeply divided and likely unable to reach a ruling, but the Senate did its job and filled the Court and the Court could then render a ruling that changed the course of American history for the better. We should learn from that history and do our job. Persisting with this current blockade and sending these possibly unintentional messages is deeply dangerous. The refusal to carry out the commands of the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1869, to abide by the Senate precedents, to fill a naturally occurring Supreme Court vacancy, to offer the advice and consent that is part of a Senator's job description, and to entertain a well-qualified nominee--even for a hearing, much less a vote--will not be viewed favorably in the bright and objective light that history will shine on all of our actions. We can fix this. If the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing, cast a vote, report Judge Garland to the floor, and then ensure that the Senate debates this nomination and holds a floor vote, we will uphold our responsibility. Judge Garland might be confirmed or he might be rejected, but in taking action--rather than mounting an unprecedented blockade--we preserve the ability of each Senator to make the judgment about whether Judge Garland possesses the fit character necessary for this position. We act in accordance with the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1869, we follow the traditional practices of the Senate--practices that have served us well, as the case of Brown v. Board of Education shows--and we cure the painful and dangerous message that is communicated by the current blockade strategy. With that, I yield the floor.