Tim Kaine

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the George C. Marshall Foundation's museum and library as the National George C. Marshall Museum. General George C. Marshall was born in Uniontown, PA, to a Virginia family. He is a distant relative of Chief Justice John Marshall, the fourth Supreme Court Justice of the United States. General Marshall graduated from the Virginia Military Institute in 1901 as senior first captain of the Corps of Cadets. General Marshall served in a variety of posts in the Philippines, the United States, France, and China, distinguishing himself as a military leader. In 1939 he was named Chief of Staff by President Roosevelt and was responsible for building, supplying, and deploying over 8 million soldiers. Marshall also urged military readiness prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. After World War II, President Truman sent General Marshall to China to broker a coalition government between the Nationalist allies under Generalissimo Chaing Kai-shek and the Communists under Mao Zedong. In 1946, General Marshall received the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor. President Truman appointed Marshall Secretary of State in 1947. In what became known as the Marshall Plan, as Secretary of State Marshall oversaw the post-war European economic recovery strategy. In 1953, General Marshall received the Nobel Peace Prize for his post-war work, the only career officer in the United States Army to ever receive this honor. The George C. Marshall Foundation was established in 1953 and officially opened in 1964. The Foundation's museum is located in Lexington, VA, and is dedicated to educating the public and the military and diplomatic career of General George C. Marshall. The foundation has devoted its mission to educating the public about the important contributions of General Marshall through its museum and research Library. The Museum has five extensive exhibits and houses General Marshall's Nobel Peace Prize. I am proud to submit this resolution which will recognize and honor General George C. Marshall.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, the demands of today's competitive global market require that students have the right skills and knowledge to succeed in postsecondary education and enter the workforce. Providing students with an engaging experience that is relevant to the workforce and integrates partnerships with industry and higher education is critical to our Nation's future. Unfortunately, these opportunities are lacking in many of today's high schools, leaving students unprepared for 21st century careers. Career and technical education, CTE, is often overlooked in discussions on increasing relevancy and rigor in our Nation's schools-- despite the fact that a strong focus on academics is the cornerstone of high-quality CTE. When the National Research Center for Career and Technical Education conducted a 4-year longitudinal study in three states, they found that students participating in CTE programs or career pathways outperformed their peers on the number of credits they earned in science, technology, engineering and math, STEM, and AP classes, while also earning higher grade point averages in their CTE classes. That is why I am introducing with my colleagues, Senators Portman, Baldwin, and Capito, the CTE Excellence and Equity Act. This bipartisan legislation supports funding for innovation in career and technical education to help redesign the high school experience for historically underserved students. It would authorize grants to partnerships among school districts, employers, and institutions of higher education in Virginia and other states that help students earn industry recognized credentials or credit toward a postsecondary degree or certificate. The bill also places an emphasis on understanding the relevance of coursework in the context of a future career by placing an emphasis on teaching workplace skills through job shadowing, internships, and apprenticeships. CTE programs are critical components to every student's education. I am pleased to be introducing this bipartisan legislation to strengthen CTE programs in high school so that students are better prepared for postsecondary studies and the workforce. I hope that my colleagues consider this legislation as we move to reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins CTE Act.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, the demands of today's competitive global market require that students have the right skills and knowledge to succeed in postsecondary education and enter the workforce. Providing students with an engaging experience that is relevant to the workforce and integrates partnerships with industry and higher education is critical to our Nation's future. Unfortunately, these opportunities are lacking in many of today's high schools, leaving students unprepared for 21st century careers. Career and technical education, CTE, is often overlooked in discussions on increasing relevancy and rigor in our Nation's schools-- despite the fact that a strong focus on academics is the cornerstone of high-quality CTE. When the National Research Center for Career and Technical Education conducted a 4-year longitudinal study in three states, they found that students participating in CTE programs or career pathways outperformed their peers on the number of credits they earned in science, technology, engineering and math, STEM, and AP classes, while also earning higher grade point averages in their CTE classes. That is why I am introducing with my colleagues, Senators Portman, Baldwin, and Capito, the CTE Excellence and Equity Act. This bipartisan legislation supports funding for innovation in career and technical education to help redesign the high school experience for historically underserved students. It would authorize grants to partnerships among school districts, employers, and institutions of higher education in Virginia and other states that help students earn industry recognized credentials or credit toward a postsecondary degree or certificate. The bill also places an emphasis on understanding the relevance of coursework in the context of a future career by placing an emphasis on teaching workplace skills through job shadowing, internships, and apprenticeships. CTE programs are critical components to every student's education. I am pleased to be introducing this bipartisan legislation to strengthen CTE programs in high school so that students are better prepared for postsecondary studies and the workforce. I hope that my colleagues consider this legislation as we move to reauthorize the Carl D. Perkins CTE Act.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to offer some thoughts about the current discussion over a vacancy on the Supreme Court. I had high hopes yesterday for the meeting in the White House between the majority leader, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, President Obama, and Vice President Biden. I had high hopes that meeting might lead to an opening and a willingness to entertain the important business of filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court, but the announcements made directly after that meeting suggested--a phrase we sometimes use back home--that the schoolhouse door is going to stay closed. There will not be a debate. There will not be a vote. There will not be a committee hearing. In fact, there was even a suggestion, a commitment, that the majority would refuse even to entertain courtesy office visits with the nominee that President Obama is expected to send up soon. I was disappointed in that, and I wanted to take the floor to offer a simple message. It is very important that the Senate do its constitutional duty and do its job with respect to the Supreme Court vacancy. The job is pretty plain. We have a job description, as most people do who have jobs. The job description is contained mostly in article I of the Constitution, but there are also descriptions of what we must do in the Senate in article II. Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution says the President ``shall nominate, and . . . with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint'' a variety of officials, including Supreme Court Justices. This is part of our job description, to entertain Presidential nominations for Supreme Court Justices. We volunteer for the job. We take an oath to do the job. We cash a paycheck written by the American people to pay for us to do the job. Frankly, we don't have the option of refusing to do the job. Is there anything unusual about this situation, a vacancy on the Supreme Court occurring during the last year of a President's term? The answer to that is no. On 17 occasions, this body has entertained and had a confirmation vote on a Supreme Court Justice in the final year of a President's term--17 times. When this happened, people thought it seemed rare, but when you go back and look at the historical record, it is not rare at all. On each of those occasions in a Presidential election year, the Senate has done its job under article II, section 2, clause 2, and entertained a nominee. There is no reason why this Senate should not do exactly the same thing, follow that historical precedent. As I have traveled around Virginia in the weeks since the vacancy became open, I have talked to a lot of citizens about this. Sometimes it is helpful for us in this body to think about the way others-- especially our citizens--look at what we are doing or not doing here. Citizens ask me: What possibly could be the reason why the Senate would not follow its clear historical precedent and do a job description that is contained in the Constitution and would refuse a vote, refuse debate, refuse committee hearings, refuse even to meet with a nominee? Why would Congress not do its job? Why would the Senate not do its job? I have been thinking about that, and I can only conceive of two reasons why this Senate would not do its job, and both of the reasons are highly illegitimate, in my opinion. The first reason--and this is a reason that occurs to many citizens, and they are very concerned about this--is that the Senate is announcing that it will not do its job because of the identity of this particular President. The Senate has been willing to do the job for other Presidents, but is there something about this particular President that is making the Senate decide to break its historical traditions and violate article II, section 2, clause 2, and not do the job? This question has given some added oomph because of another recent event. In early February, President Obama sent his budget to the Congress. Pursuant to the Budget Act of 1974--and this has been followed uniformly by the Senate and the House--when the President sends up a budget, the Budget Committees have a hearing about the President's budget--even if they do not like it, and they often don't like it, but that is what you do. You have a hearing about the President's budget. If you don't like it, you criticize the budget and then you write a different budget. That is what has happened for every President since the Budget Control Act of 1974 passed. In the last year of the Bush administration, when there were Democratic majorities in both Houses when President Bush sent up his budget, hearings were held on the budget. But in this instance, just within the last month, when the budget was sent up from President Obama, both committees said: For this President--breaking the statute, breaking all tradition--we will not even have a hearing on this President's budget. So if we are going to break a constitutional command and break a history in which 17 Justices have been confirmed in a Presidential year, and if we are going to break it for this President, and if we are going to break the Budget Control Act and break a uniform history since 1974 by not according even a hearing for the budget submitted by this President, then a question that is being asked by the citizens of this country--certainly the citizens of this Commonwealth--is whether the actions taken here on this Supreme Court nomination to not allow a vote, not allow a debate, not allow a committee hearing, and not even allow courtesy office visits, is actually not about the Supreme Court at all, not even about the nominee, whosoever it shall be, but it is a particular mark of disrespect for this President that is unprecedented in the history of this body. That is an explanation which many of my citizens are deeply worried about and which many of my citizens are talking about and asking about, and frankly I don't have a good answer to that concern. There is a second reason that suggests itself to me with respect to breaking all of the historical precedent on this particular Supreme Court vacancy. It connects to another concern that I have taken to the floor many times to talk about as a member of the Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees. There is another clause of the Constitution that I care deeply about, and that is article 1, section 8, clause 11. We should not be at war without a vote of Congress. We are now in the 20th month of a war, and Congress hasn't even voted--this war against ISIL. I go to hearings all the time where Members of the Senate criticize the President for what he is doing or not doing in the war, but I see a complete unwillingness in this House and the House of Representatives to actually do what the Constitution commands and have a vote on the war. This circumstance reminds me of that: a clear constitutional command in article 2, section 2, clause 2; a clear historical precedent of the Senate engaging; but now, for this President, on this vacancy, a decision: Hold on a second. Maybe we can just avoid voting yes or no. If we vote yes for a nominee the President might send up, we will make some people mad. If we vote no on a nominee the President sends up, we will make some other people mad. Maybe we can just avoid the commands of article II, section 2, clause 2, avoid the uniform history of this body, and not vote at all. If we can avoid voting at all, maybe we can evade accountability; maybe we can evade the criticism that might come to us from our constituents. That is also highly troubling. I can't think of any other reasons why this body would violate the clear commands of article II, section 2, clause 2, and violate a uniform history of approving 17 Supreme Court Justices during a Presidential year other than, A, it is fundamentally a sign of disrespect for this particular President or, B, it is a desire by a Senate that certainly has the votes to confirm or deny, consistent with the constitutional provision, to avoid taking a vote and thereby think we can avoid the accountability to our citizens for casting a vote on something that might be controversial. Needless to say, both of those reasons are highly illegitimate and, in my view, are really beneath what we should be doing in this Chamber. The last thing I will say is this: The job description of a Senator is laid out in the Constitution, but there are other parts of the job that may not be laid out so plainly but that we all understand to be our job. For example, I don't think it is laid out that we should passionately represent our citizens and do constituent service for them, but we all understand that is part of the job. Well, another part of the job of a U.S. Senator that may not be spelled out as directly as the power to advise and consent on nominations or the power to declare war is that we are elected guardians of this institution, and more than just the institution of the Senate, we are elected to be guardians of the Democratic traditions that are set out in the Constitution, in this marvelous Constitution that establishes three branches of government that have checks and balances against each other. We should always act, regardless of our disagreements, regardless of our debates or arguments, and the differences of opinion are legitimate. We should always act to promote respect for our institutions, not only the institution of the Senate but the institution of the court system, which has a vacancy right now on the Supreme Court, the institution of the Presidency, toward whom we are sending a signal of disrespect by the actions that are being undertaken in this body. It is part of the job we need to do to build up the respect for the institutions of our government. If Senators don't respect the institutions of our government, why would anyone else respect them? If we act in a way that subverts or tears them down, why would we expect anyone else to respect the institution? I came here to this body because I do respect the institution. I respect its history. We are all humans; we can make mistakes. Votes have been cast that in the light of day you could look at and expect to be different. But compared to other systems in the world--and I lived in a country that was a military dictatorship when I was a young man, and I can certainly see the great blessing it is to live here in this country and serve here in this body. I deeply fear that the actions we are embarking on in connection with the Supreme Court nomination are expressing a profound disrespect for the article III branch, the courts; a profound disrespect for the article II branch of the Presidency; and, frankly, a profound disrespect for our own history, traditions, and job description in this article I branch of the legislature. It is not too late for us to turn this around. It is not too late for us to take a pause and, when the President sends over a nomination for the Supreme Court, to do what justice demands. If justice demands anything, it should be that we would analyze an individual on that person's own merits instead of just saying that the blanket rule is that no matter who you are, no matter what your qualifications, because you were sent by this President, we will create a unique rule for you and refuse to entertain you. We still have time to turn this around. I have no idea when the President will send a nominee over, and I have no idea who that nominee will be, but when that nominee is delivered and recommended to the Senate, it is my prayer that this body will do what article II, section 2, clause 2, demands; that we will do what we have done in every other instance when a President has sent a nominee over in a Presidential election year; that we will not bar the schoolhouse door but we will open the doors to our office to accord a nominee the courtesy of a discussion; that we will have hearings in the Judiciary Committee; and that we will have a robust debate and a vote on this floor. If that vote is a yes, that will be great. If that vote is a no, that will still be fully in accord with the constitutional job description of this Congress. But to not entertain a nominee at all, in my view, would violate our oath, would violate the Constitution, and would express a significant disrespect for all three branches of government. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the 400 Years of African American History Commission Act. During my tenure as Governor of Virginia I presided over the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, VA, by the English colonists in 1604. Last year I attended the 450th anniversary of the founding of St. Augustine, FL, which celebrated Hispanic heritage. Both commemorations included activities sponsored by federal commissions, which were voted on and passed by Congress. In three years, in 2019, we will mark another key anniversary in American history. August 2019 will mark 400 years after the first documented arrival of Africans who came to English America by way of Point Comfort, Virginia. Although in 1619 slavery was not yet an institution the ``20 and odd'' Africans, as it was recorded, were the first recorded group of Africans to be sold as involuntary laborers or indentured servants in the colonies. Having commemorated the English and Spanish heritage of our founding there is no reason it should be any different for the arrival and continuous presence of Africans and African Americans in the English settlements in 1619. There is no dispute that the beginning of African and African American presence in what is now the United States was both tragic and regrettable. Slavery as an institution broke up families, resulted in the deaths of thousands, and caused irreparable damage to our American psyche. Though we should never forget that period of stain on our history, slavery is not the only part of African American history. We must remember the whole story. African Americans have contributed to the economic, academic, social, cultural and moral well- being of this nation. So today with my cosponsor Senator Mark Warner, I introduce the 400 Years of African American History Commission Act, which would establish a commission that would plan programs and activities across the county to recognize the arrival and influence of African Americans since 1619. It is my hope the establishment of a ``400th'' commission would create an opportunity to bring continued national education about the significance the arrival of African Americans has made to the U.S., and the contributions that have been made since 1619. Additionally, the commission would create space to discuss race relations in America and focus on dismantling the institutional systems that have adversely hindered African American progress.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the 400 Years of African American History Commission Act. During my tenure as Governor of Virginia I presided over the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, VA, by the English colonists in 1604. Last year I attended the 450th anniversary of the founding of St. Augustine, FL, which celebrated Hispanic heritage. Both commemorations included activities sponsored by federal commissions, which were voted on and passed by Congress. In three years, in 2019, we will mark another key anniversary in American history. August 2019 will mark 400 years after the first documented arrival of Africans who came to English America by way of Point Comfort, Virginia. Although in 1619 slavery was not yet an institution the ``20 and odd'' Africans, as it was recorded, were the first recorded group of Africans to be sold as involuntary laborers or indentured servants in the colonies. Having commemorated the English and Spanish heritage of our founding there is no reason it should be any different for the arrival and continuous presence of Africans and African Americans in the English settlements in 1619. There is no dispute that the beginning of African and African American presence in what is now the United States was both tragic and regrettable. Slavery as an institution broke up families, resulted in the deaths of thousands, and caused irreparable damage to our American psyche. Though we should never forget that period of stain on our history, slavery is not the only part of African American history. We must remember the whole story. African Americans have contributed to the economic, academic, social, cultural and moral well- being of this nation. So today with my cosponsor Senator Mark Warner, I introduce the 400 Years of African American History Commission Act, which would establish a commission that would plan programs and activities across the county to recognize the arrival and influence of African Americans since 1619. It is my hope the establishment of a ``400th'' commission would create an opportunity to bring continued national education about the significance the arrival of African Americans has made to the U.S., and the contributions that have been made since 1619. Additionally, the commission would create space to discuss race relations in America and focus on dismantling the institutional systems that have adversely hindered African American progress.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I also rise to support the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act of 2016. It is good to see on the floor colleagues who have worked on this important legislation from Maryland, New Jersey, our committee chair, and the Senator from Colorado. I appreciate their efforts and believe this can be a great example of bipartisanship and near-unanimous agreement. We have witnessed recently many provocations by the North Koreans. The ballistic missile test this past weekend violates numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions and it threatens both the United States and especially our allies in the region. This closely follows a nuclear test in January--another deplorable action by North Korea--and missile nuclear weapons program proliferation concerns that have been the subject of a lot of discussion in this body. I appreciate the drafters and the Foreign Relations Committee for moving swiftly to deliver a response that includes penalties for the missile launch and the nuclear test. I will also mention that North Korea's detention of American citizens can't be overlooked. This includes the recent detainment in North Korea of Otto Frederick Warmbier, who is a third-year college student at the University of Virginia. As we move forward with our strategy on North Korea, we have to prioritize and ensure the safe return of our citizens who are detained there. A little bit about how destabilizing North Korea's actions are. This recent test was expected, and it is proof of the North Korean grim determination to develop nuclear weapons, even if it is hampering and hobbling their economy and causing their citizens to suffer. They have been given warnings that they shouldn't do it, but they have also been giving warnings to the global community that they would. This is a country that is determined to defy a host of U.N. Security Council resolutions that ban it from conducting nuclear and missile tests. The international community has been speaking with clarity about what the line is: Don't do this--but North Korea has chosen to proceed. Kim Jong Un has once again displayed a willingness to defy the international community--and at such a cost to his people. The economy there is absolutely hobbled because of his desire to be a militaristic leader, but the result is the population of his country is suffering. His strategy to have nuclear, military, and economic development for his people is not going to work because he can't have both, and the legislation demonstrates that these things are impossible by imposing a significant economic cost. The legislation shows that the United States will hold countries and private entities accountable for compliance with rules and law. Kim Jong Un's backward calculus has left his country impoverished and almost entirely dependent on China for economic trade. Roughly 90 percent of North Korea's foreign trade is with China, which is why China can have significant leverage over North Korea, but the track record of China using its leverage to curb North Korean activity is very disappointing. We need to continue to pressure China to increase sanctions on North Korea and elevate this issue in bilateral discussions with China. The number of North Korean nuclear weapons could soon approach China's within the next decade, and that is a direct threat to regional security and global security. Yesterday, in the Armed Services Committee hearing we attended, DNI James Clapper stated that North Korea is expanding its uranium enrichment activities, it has restarted plutonium production, and it could start extracting plutonium from spent fuel within a matter of months. China can no longer turn a blind eye to this. As a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, China needs to help foster international peace and play the role that an international power on the U.N. Security Council needs to play. They need to play the role in additionally advancing or pushing for more human rights in North Korea because they have the leverage to do so. We don't trade with North Korea. Our leverage system is somewhat limited, but China, with a 90- percent trade share, has that leverage. The good thing about these sanctions is that they will sanction the activities of Chinese companies and entities that are trading with North Korea, and that secondary sanction effect, I think, has the ability to work and put pressure on them. We have seen recently how sanctions can work in another context, in the Iran context. The architects of the sanctions policy with Iran are in this room, and they deserve praise because there is no way Iran, a rogue nation that was moving forward to develop nuclear weapons, would have ever entertained a diplomatic discussion to try to put limits on that program had it not been for sanctions that were designed to have a strategic and careful effect. So we need to do the same thing here, and these sanctions do that. In conclusion, the United States has to undertake a more proactive approach to North Korea to address the nuclear and ballistic missile programs. This legislation is good because it not only puts Congress even more firmly on the record in opposition to North Korea's activity, but it also provides the executive branch a more robust set of policy tools to confront the threat that is posed by Pyongyang. This is an example of legislation that came out of the committee-- bipartisan and unanimous. It represents the best of bipartisan foreign policy cooperation, and I am strongly in support of the bill. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sanjay Mukhi, Michael Pascual, and Heather Ichord, congressional fellows in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 114th Congress.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for taking the floor on this important matter. While I serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I actually want to talk about this issue from my standpoint on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I happen to believe that one of the most valuable military assets we have as a nation is information intelligence. In that capacity, what we have under the JCPOA is the dramatic ability to learn, sadly, from tragic mistakes. After more than a decade of war in Iraq and thousands of lives lost, we know that operating in an environment where we base national security decisions on what we don't know rather than what we do know can be tragically costly. Over the weekend, there was press about a recently declassified report from the Joint Chiefs of Staff on weapons of mass destruction. It was submitted to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in September of 2002, around the time Congress and the administration were trying to decide whether to invade Iraq. The report that was given to the Secretary of Defense--and it was not widely shared with the administration or Congress at the time--confirmed that our officials at the very top levels of the intel and military community knew very little about the actual status of Iraq's WMD program. The report concluded that what we suspect is ``based largely--perhaps 90 percent-- on analysis of imprecise intelligence.'' While the national security apparatus was acknowledging that it was operating in the dark, it was nevertheless planning for war. On March 7, 2003, 2 weeks before the beginning of the Iraq invasion, the IAEA presented to the U.N. an updated report on Iraq's nuclear activities. The report stated that they had conducted 218 nuclear inspections at 141 sites and concluded at the time that there was no indication of resumed nuclear activities since 1998, no indication that Iraq had attempted to import uranium since 1990, no indication that Iraq had imported aluminium tubes, and no indication that they had sought to import magnets for use in centrifuge enrichment. The IAEA said they had no information suggesting that Iraq had a WMD program specifically with nuclear weapons. We ignored what the IAEA told the U.N. the world, and us, and instead we went to war based upon a national intelligence estimate that said we didn't know what they were doing. That decision locked us into a decade of combat operations which resulted in a tragic cost. We know the rest of the story: 4,484 Americans lost their lives in connection with the war in Iraq from 2003 to 2011 and another 32,246 Americans were wounded. We also know that it turned out the IAEA was right. Once the war was waged and we got in and had our own ability to gather intelligence and information, we found out that Iraq didn't have a program of weapons of mass destruction, so we went to war based upon a faulty assessment and we didn't have the information we needed. Let's contrast what happened in 2002 and 2003 with the opportunity we now have before us as a result of the JCPOA. The agreement of Iran to follow for the next 25 years an enhanced inspection regime and be inspected by the IAEA to a standard that no other country in the world must follow is very unique. It will provide us and all of our international partners with significant intelligence about Iran's program. After year 25, Iran has also agreed to submit and follow the additional protocol of the IAEA, which also guarantees significant intelligence and inspections. What does that give us? It arms us with information. It arms us with facts. It arms us with intelligence. Those are some of the best military assets we can have. With intelligence, we obviously hope that Iran never makes a move to develop nuclear weapons, but if they do, with intelligence we can blow the whistle and inform the world that they are violating paragraph 1, page 1 of the agreement where they pledged never to seek, acquire, or develop nuclear weapons. With intelligence, we can make a wise decision rather than a blind decision as to whether we should send American men and women into war to try to stop a nuclear weapons program. With intelligence, we can even target military action to be more effective. That is what the JCPOA gives us that we didn't have before. That is what it gives us that we didn't have in Iraq, and we regret that we didn't have it. I say to the Senator from Delaware that I noticed during our recent visit to Israel that the tone seems to be changing a little bit as far as our dialogue with our Israeli allies about this deal because the dramatic nature of the intelligence is now being seen by our strong allies in Israel as something that is potentially transformative. Two days ago, the chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces gave a speech in Tel Aviv. Gadi Eizenkot spoke on Monday at a national security conference in Tel Aviv and basically said that the nuclear deal with Iran constitutes a strategic turning point. He didn't whitewash it; he said ``many risks but also opportunities.'' What are the opportunities? He said the deal reduces the immediate Iranian threat to Israel because it rolls back Iran's nuclear capabilities and deepens the monitoring capabilities of the international community. After all the drama about how it was a historic mistake, how refreshing it was to go to Israel a few weeks ago and hear security and intel officials talk about what this enhanced intelligence meant with respect to Israel's security. We know there is no guarantee that a diplomatic deal will work out, and my colleagues have laid out the need for strict implementation, but we also know--and we have the scar tissue, so this is painful knowledge--that we are much safer if we have better information, we are much safer if we have better intel, and we will make much better decisions. I certainly pray that we will never again send American men and women into war based on a false intelligence assessment. The only way we can guard against that eventuality is to have stronger intelligence. The IAEA inspections will give us better intelligence and should help us make better military decisions in the future. With that, I yield the floor back to my friend from Delaware.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a pending legislative matter we will be discussing later in the day, the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act of 2015. This is the title of the bill that was passed by the House in November. It is now pending before the Senate, and we will be discussing it later. I am going to talk for a few minutes, but the punch line is as indicated on this board. We are talking about who are America's foreign enemies. This is a bill that deals with Iraqi and Syrian refugees. I assert that refugees are not our enemy; ISIL is our enemy. Yet, for some strange reason, in the 18th month of a war against ISIL, Congress has been unwilling to debate our real enemy. First, refugees are not our enemies. The refugee crisis, with refugees coming from Syria and now Iraq, has been called the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II. Four million Syrians have left their native country because of being exposed to the atrocities of being barrel-bombed by Bashar al-Assad and now the atrocities of ISIL and other terrorist organizations. Those 4 million have left to find haven from this horrible violence, just as any family would. Over 200,000 Syrians have been killed by this violence, and now the number is probably approaching 300,000. In addition to the 4 million Syrian refugees who have left Syria to escape violence, there are an additional 8 million Syrians who have left their homes and been displaced within the country and who could leave the country at any moment as the violence continues. These refugees are victims of violence, victims of unspeakable atrocity first perpetrated by the horrible dictator Bashar al-Assad and second by terrorist groups such as ISIL. Yet this bill would say these refugees are enemies. There is a story that means an awful lot to me personally, and I hope you will indulge me. A Jewish man was traveling from Jerusalem down to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along, but when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Temple assistant walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side. Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him. ``Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I'll pay you the next time I'm here. ``Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?'' Jesus asked. The man replied, ``The one who showed him mercy.'' Then Jesus said, ``Yes, now go and do the same.'' This is a story that was written 2,000 years ago, but it is not a story about yesterday, it is a story about every day of human life on this planet. They are beaten-up people lying by the side of the road, and the choice we have to make as individuals or as a society is do we pass by or do we act as the Good Samaritan did--in a compassionate way? In fact, I would argue that the Good Samaritan story actually isn't tough enough. If we called the refugees of the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II our enemies, it is as if we were going over to the man and not passing by but kicking the man who had been beaten and robbed by bandits. Let me move away from Scripture and talk about American values. The Statue of Liberty that stands in New York Harbor is graced with a powerful poem, ``The New Colossus,'' written by an American poet, Emma Lazarus. Emma Lazarus was a member of a very prominent, multigenerational Jewish family in New York. There was a fundraising campaign to build the pediment upon which the Statue of Liberty stands in New York Harbor. The Federal Government didn't have the money, so the fundraising was done privately. Emma Lazarus wrote a poem about the Statue of Liberty for a fundraising contest to help raise money, and that is why the statue is there now. The poem is called ``The New Colossus.'' The Colossus references one of the wonders of the ancient world, the Colossus of Rhodes. Emma Lazarus wrote the poem about the Statue of Liberty, calling it the ``New Colossus.'' Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. ``Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!'' Cries she With silent lips. ``Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'' The debate that we will undertake about this bill, about whether we call refugees enemies is a debate about who we are as a nation. Let's honor our history, let's honor our values, and let's do what Americans have always done--been willing to extend a hand to those who are victimized by atrocity in other lands, rather than extend the back of our hand and label them as enemies. Now, I don't dislike everything about this bill we are about to debate. I actually really like the title. The content, I don't like. The title, ``American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act of 2015.'' We have an enemy. We have been at war with ISIL for 18 months. We have spent $5 billion in this war. We have deployed thousands of American troops in this war. Eleven members of the American Armed Services have been killed while on deployment in Operation Inherent Resolve. We have an enemy. The enemy is not refugees from Syria--the enemy is ISIL. We all know the facts about ISIL, this organization that claims to be inspired to create a worldwide caliphate. They have slaughtered Christians and other religious minorities by the thousands. They have sold women into slavery by the thousands. They have beheaded American hostages, including American aid workers. If there is a modern-day equivalent of a Good Samaritan, it is an American aid worker who is trying to help somebody out. ISIL has kidnapped, captured, and beheaded American aid workers. The number of deaths just this weekend--400 more people kidnapped by ISIL in Iraq and Syria. The number of deaths have been in the tens of thousands by ISIL, and as I have said, beheading American hostages, 11 American servicemembers killed, but it is beyond Iraq and Syria. ISIL has claimed credit for bringing down an airliner, killing tourists in the Sinai. ISIL has claimed credit for bombing and shooting attacks, killing hundreds in Paris. ISIL has claimed credit for a bombing at a peace rally in Ankara, Turkey, that killed hundreds and then a bombing outside the Blue Mosque in Istanbul 2 weeks ago that killed 15 and injured dozens more. The shooters in San Bernardino were inspired by ISIL, even if they weren't directly connected to them. Within the last few days, we saw another attack and explosion in Jakarta that was claimed by ISIL. Now, that is who an enemy is--not a refugee who is fleeing ISIL. ISIL is the enemy. ISIL is the enemy. ISIL must be defeated. Yet we are not debating ISIL--and we haven't been willing to debate ISIL in 18 months. Instead, we are trying to claim that refugees are the enemies of this Statue of Liberty Nation. Why has Congress been silent about ISIL for 18 months? Our President has asked Congress: Congress, do your job and declare war against ISIL. He even sent us a proposed authorization 11 months ago. Eleven months ago, the President sent to Congress a proposed authorization against ISIL. There has not been a vote on the floor in the House. There has not been a vote on the floor in the Senate. There has not been a debate on the floor of the House or Senate. There has not been a debate or vote in committees in the House or Senate. For 11 months, since the President asked us, ``Let's get involved and take action against ISIL,'' there has been no action. And it is not just the President. General Dunford, the Marine general, who is now head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Armed Services Committee. I asked him: Should we do an authorization against ISIL? He said it would send a strong message to ISIL. It would send a strong message to our allies. But here is what he said that really grabbed me, coming from a heavily military State. He said: Our troops deserve it. There are thousands deployed away from home risking their lives. I asked General Dunford: Would it be good to have an authorization against ISIL? How would our troops respond? Here is what he said: What our young men and women need--and it is virtually all they need to do the job we asked them to do--is the sense that what they are doing has purpose, has meaning, and has the support of the American people. Our troops think Congress is indifferent to this. Virginia is very military. We are very closely connected to it. I have a child in the military, one of my three kids. I know what our troops are thinking about Congress right now, which is, while we are deployed overseas, fighting this battle and risking our lives, Congress doesn't care and would rather not talk about it. Secretary Panetta has recently given a speech saying Congress should act. So our President, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary Panetta, and others have said: Congress have this debate. There is an enemy out there. Have the backbone to name it as an enemy and authorize action against this enemy. Constitutionally, Congress should act. One of the most important powers in the Constitution is article 1, in the definition of the roles of Congress. It is Congress that declares war, not the President. That was put in the Constitution by the Framers--Virginians like James Madison--who knew that, before 1787, war was a matter for the Executive, the Monarch, the Emperor, and the Sultan. But he said, ``In America, it is going to be different.'' We are not going to make a declaration of war for the Executive. We are going to make a declaration of war for Congress. Once declared, the President can implement, but it is Congress's job. Congress is not doing what the Constitution commands. Imagine one of the family members of the 11 servicemembers who have been killed while deployed in Operation Inherent Resolve--killed in combat, killed when their jet was taking off of an aircraft carrier and crashed into the ocean or otherwise killed during deployment. Imagine, our best and brightest are sent, as they volunteered for our American military. They were sent overseas to fight an enemy--who we all agree is an enemy, who we all agree is conducting atrocities--and that pride of your life is killed while serving our country, and yet Congress will not even have a debate about whether ISIL is an enemy and whether we should declare war against ISIL and instead wants to have a debate about whether refugees from ISIL should be called our enemies. Imagine how you would feel if you were one of those families, and Congress was even unwilling to dignify the loss of your loved one by 2 minutes of debate or vote on the floor of either the Senate or the House. David Ignatius wrote a piece yesterday in the Washington Post, ``The ugly truth: Defeating the Islamic State will take decades.'' The last line of his article says this: The next President is going to inherit an expanding war against a global terrorist adversary. The debate about how best to fight this enemy hasn't even begun. After 18 months, after deaths of American troops, after all these atrocities, after bombings in cities all over the world, the debate hasn't even begun because we refuse to have it in this Chamber. As I conclude, why has Congress been silent about this, since we began military action against ISIL on August 8 of 2014? We will hit the 18-month anniversary in a couple weeks, in February. I have a lot of criticisms of the administration's strategy. I think they waited too long to send the authorization to us. I don't think the authorization is particularly well-drafted, but that is no obstacle to us acting. Presidents send authorizations frequently and Congress redrafts them. So I am not light on criticism for the administration, but I am asking this question in this Chamber, where I am a Member, and so my question is actually critical, but it is also self-critical: Why has Congress been silent in the 18-month battle against ISIL? It is because of fear. Fear of not ISIL but fear of accountability. A war vote is hard. It is the hardest vote we will ever cast--and it should be. It should be. How much easier is it to criticize the President and say: We don't like your strategy. You are doing it wrong. Why don't you do more airstrikes here or put more boots on the ground there? That is much easier for Congress to do than to actually have a debate about ISIL and craft a strategy, and then say we, Members of Congress, individually, are putting our names on this. Members of Congress have been looking actively to avoid a vote on this for 18 months because a war vote is tough. Under the best of circumstances, there are going to be consequences that will be painful and tragic. There will be American lives lost, and that is under the best of circumstances. War isn't always fought under the best of circumstances. There will be surprises. There will be twists and turns. We will go down a path such as trying to train and equip a moderate Syrian opposition and find it doesn't work out the way we hope. I think in Congress both Houses, both parties, have had a sense that, well, maybe if we don't vote and we just criticize the President and we just kind of turn our eyes while we are essentially forcing people to risk their lives in a war that we are not willing to declare, people will not hold us accountable. I have seen that tendency throughout my 21 years in elected service, when a tough vote is on the table, when something is hard and complicated--and this certainly is--if I can avoid it, well, I would like to avoid it, but that is so disrespectful to the oath we took, where we pledged to live up to the laws, including article 1 responsibilities of Congress. It is so disrespectful to the volunteer military deployed overseas, risking their lives, and the families of those who have already lost their lives. After all, what is our fear of a tough vote, in the grand scheme of things, as against the sacrifice our troops are making overseas? Now, that is something that is really hard. Having to cast a tough vote is not that hard. It is not that hard. We can do this. We can do this. The only action that has been taken since this war started 18 months ago was on a bill I introduced, an authorization for military force against ISIL. I introduced it in September of 2014, 1 month after the war started. It got a 10-to-8 vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sadly, it was a partisan vote. It was right at the end of the previous Congress and expired with no action. A number of those who voted against it said: Look, the majority is about to change. Why do this now with 2 weeks left in the session? When the majority changes, we can take it up. Some said the President hasn't even sent a draft authorization yet. It is premature to do it. Now we have the President's draft authorization. We have had it for 11 months and done nothing. Now we have seen--and there can be no doubt at this point--the evil nature of this threat we face and the expanding and complicating nature of this threat we face. Now is the time, finally, for Congress to step up to our responsibility and do our job. I have used a couple of literary references, so let me close with one. A great Irish poet--I am biased--William Butler Yeats, wrote a poem at the end of World War I. He surveyed the wreckage of World War I, about 100 years ago. In a lot of historians' views, World War I was kind of one of the most needless wars in some ways. It was unclear what it was about, but what it was really about was decaying monarchies that wouldn't change. Instead of changing, they let a terrorist action in the assassination of a nobleman--a leader in the Balkans--trigger the start of World War I. It was mechanized slaughter, and millions lost their lives. The United States came in and played a very important role, and at the end of the day, they were the peacemaker who had to come in to resolve it. Yeats wrote a poem after World War I surveying this wreckage of these societies. It is called ``The Second Coming.'' He expressed a real concern about the state of society at the time because what he noticed at that time was that ``the best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity.'' We have an enemy, ISIL, and I think we can all agree that they are filled with a passionate intensity. They are the worst in their human rights violations, their atrocities, and their complete disrespect for human life. They are the worst. They are the enemy. We should be debating about them. The best lack all conviction. We are the best Nation in the world. I firmly and deeply believe that. I have believed it every day of the 58 years that I have been alive. We are the best. We have the best system of government in the world. While that system of government is often described as three coequal branches, there is a reason they put the legislative branch in article I, the executive in article II, and the judiciary in article III. This is the first among the coequal branches because we are direct representatives of the people. That is how it was structured so that we would be the best of the best--the best branch in the best government in the best Nation in the history of the world. Do we lack all conviction? If we are willing to call refugees fleeing from violence our enemies but we are afraid to take up a debate about whether ISIL is an enemy to support our troops in harm's way--that is the question I am asking today. I know we are the best. Where is our conviction? So I ask my colleagues, in connection with this bill, let's keep the title to it. Let's secure America against foreign enemies. Let's secure America against ISIL. But let's not turn our backs on the victims of the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II. 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. KAINE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware for the opportunity to engage in a colloquy. It was a remarkable visit with eight Senators to Israel, Vienna, Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia, to dig into two issues that I would like to address. The issues are Iran and the war against ISIL. With respect to Iran, since the conclusion of the negotiation and the green light for the deal to go forward, there have been some positive developments and there have been some troubling developments. I wish to spend time talking about both. On the positive development side, because of the deal that the United States and other nations entered into with Iran, as of yesterday they have permanently decommissioned the plutonium reactor at Arak, which is one half for them to make a nuclear weapon. That is a very positive result of the negotiation. Second, they have disabled a huge percentage of the centrifuges, which was also a requirement under the agreement--the centrifuges that are used to enrich uranium, another path to nuclear weapons. Third, Iran has worked with the IAEA to structure the level of inspections. Under the inspections required by the agreement, Iran will be the most inspected nation in the world, because the inspections will not only go to nuclear sites, but they will go to the entire supply chain of uranium mills and uranium mines. Those are inspections not required of any other nation. The IAEA is ready to move forward on those inspections. Finally, there is the last bit of positive news, which in my view, personally, is the most compelling. Iran took more than 28,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium, which is sufficient for multiple nuclear weapons. Because of this deal, they have shipped that uranium out of Iran. It is held in a facility in Russia that is closely monitored 24/7, 365 by the IAEA. So any movement of that material will be understood. Having that nuclear material--sufficient for multiple nuclear weapons--out of Iran's hands and out of that country would not have happened without this deal, and it makes the world safer. There are some challenges. In October, Iran fired a missile, and a number of us on the Foreign Relations Committee immediately wrote to the President and Secretary of State that we think this violates a separate U.N. Security Council resolution. The United Nations empaneled a team of exports to dig into the factual and technical evidence, and they concluded in mid-December that Iran had in fact fired a missile in violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution separate from this deal. We all think it is very important--for both Congress and the administration and our global partners--to make sure that there is a consequence for that. Whether we supported the deal or didn't, the strategy should be strict enforcement and strict implementation, requiring that Iran meet every last detail--not only of the deal but of their other international obligations. We need to continue to press the administration and Congress to do that. So on Iran, that was basically the gist of the conversation. We had a lengthy discussion with Prime Minister Netanyahu, where we said: Look, we disagreed on the deal. But now the important thing is to make sure we implement it and we are strong and united on implementation issues. I think that is critically important. Finally, I have a word about ISIL. Everywhere we went in the region we heard about the threat of ISIL. The bombing this morning in a tourist square in Istanbul, where some of us were standing just 72 hours ago, although all of the investigative work hasn't yet been done, clearly has the earmarks of an ISIL-related bombing, much as the bombings in the Sinai, in Beirut, and the attacks in Paris. So it is very critical that we take this seriously because we are not only seeing ISIL extend their field of battle beyond Syria and Iraq; we are seeing them engage in one-off or rogue terrorist activities around the globe. The U.S. is at war with ISIL, and we have been at war since August 8, 2014. We are in the 17th month of that war. We have spent billions of dollars, we have deployed thousands of troops, and we have seen both American hostages and servicemembers killed in this war. But as I hand it back to my colleague, I will conclude and say that Congress has been strangely silent during this war. It is Congress under article I that should declare war, and yet we have not been willing to have a debate and vote--even as we are deploying people, even as Americans are being killed, even as we are spending billions of taxpayer dollars. The only vote that has taken place in this body on the war directly on the authorization question was in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in December of 2014. It was a vote to move forward to an authorization. But when it came to the floor, it got no action. I am reminded of the great Irish poet W.B. Yeats, who talked about a time where ``the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.'' We see every day efforts that ISIL is, at worst, filled with passionate intensity. I believe America is the best. I believe Congress should be the best. Yet we have been strangely silent and have lacked conviction in the face of an enemy that is dangerous and threatens us abroad and at home. With that, I hand it back to my colleague, the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I want to speak today about the Omnibus appropriations and tax bill. First, I want to applaud my colleagues who have worked tirelessly towards this deal for over a year now. Our leadership and the leaders of our Appropriations, Finance, and Budget Committees have been setting the stage for this action and I want to thank them. This bill, H.R. 2029, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, addresses many priorities that I have been fighting for since joining the Senate in 2013. It comes on the heels of the Bipartisan Budget Act we passed in October of this year, which addressed for 2 years the arbitrary budget caps set by sequestration and implements the first year of that agreement. First enacted as part of the Bipartisan Budget Control Act of 2011, these arbitrary budget caps have been hurting our national defense and domestic priorities since sequestration went into effect in 2013 by arbitrarily forcing critical agencies such as the Department of Defense to set strategy and policy based on artificial caps. As a former mayor and Governor I have a lot of experience with budgets and decisionmaking. I understand using budgets gimmicks to set policy is the opposite of what we should be doing. It is a strategy that is unsustainable and must be addressed if we are to properly manage our finances. In 2013, on the heels of the devastating government shutdown, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 to reduce uncertainty, adjust the budget caps to reflect current needs, and put the idea of another government shutdown behind us. That deal was a bipartisan compromise, heralded by Members from both sides of the aisle. We learned from that exercise that both parties can come together to give budget certainty to families and businesses. This year, we faced the prospect of another harmful episode of sequestration whereby Congress's priority setting was once again to be determined by the budget law passed in 2011. Once again, lawmakers came together, and we passed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, another 2- year bill which set appropriate spending targets and gave appropriators time to write full appropriations bills for the remainder of this fiscal year, thereby avoiding the risk of shutdowns or fiscal cliffs at the end of the year. Because of all that activity, we find ourselves here today with this bill. Within this bill there is a lot of good: strong funding for Defense Department priorities like shipbuilding and the Ohio-class replacement; strong funding for educational programs like Head Start, Preschool Development Grants, and Teacher Quality Partnership Grants; strong funding for State Department embassy security training programs; strong funding for military construction projects around Virginia; strong commitments for the environment such as the American Battlefield Protection Act, Chesapeake Bay Program, and the Army Corps programs in Norfolk; strong funding for the National Park Service and for NASA's programs at Wallops Island; and strong funding for Plan Central America. This bill also includes critically important programs on the revenue side. Three critical low- and middle-income tax programs--the child tax credit, earned income tax credit, and American opportunity tax credit-- have been made permanent in this bill, so has the research and development tax credit, along with an expansion in this credit for startups championed by Senator Coons that I have cosponsored. Also made permanent are tax programs for teachers, for conservation, and for military families. We have made other programs last for another 5 years. And others will be extended for 2 years, a step forward for these programs we have been extending for only 1 year at a time. This package also contains energy policy that will advance our national goal of generating energy cleaner tomorrow than today, while ensuring that our short-term need for fossil fuels is met by American supplies and developed by American workers. The deal lifts the 40-year old ban on export of U.S. crude oil, which will create American jobs. The deal extends wind and solar tax incentives for 5 years. The deal also hikes funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund by 50 percent this year, which will support open space preservation efforts around the country and in Virginia at Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson National Forests, the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historical Trail, and elsewhere. Finally, it includes assistance for U.S. oil refineries, while stopping virtually all policy riders seeking to undermine critical air and water pollution laws. This bill is by no means perfect. In particular, while I agree with many of the tax provisions included in this bill, a must-pass government funding bill is not the place to have the important tax policy debates facing this country. By passing this bill with so many tax provisions with little debate, we put off a broader agreement on comprehensive tax reform. I do agree with many aspects of this tax deal. But by taking this action now, we leave other critical tax policy decisions on the table with no debate on how we as a body should prioritize these issues. And I am struck by the irony that all year long we debated how to provide sequester relief of about $100 billion for our national security and for education and health and research funding that will improve our economy. Those policies needed offsets. But this tax package will increase the deficit by nearly $700 billion, and there has not been discussion of offsetting this cost. That seems to me to be a bad precedent and an unfair distinction. In an era dominated by conversations about our national debt and deficits, we should do better to seek ways address these changes in a fiscally responsible way. In the end, I choose to support this bill. The good in this legislation and the need for our Federal agencies to be able to plan and set the priorities of this country makes support the right decision. And the bipartisan character of the agreement will hopefully encourage more such cooperation.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Every Student Succeeds Act. I know we have had one vote on this today already, and we will have another vote tomorrow. I will begin by applauding Senators Murray and Alexander and Congressmen Klein and Scott for reaching across the aisle and working with their committee colleagues and the Members of both bodies to fixing a long expired and broken law. I think we all understand that education is key to both individual success and to our economic success. ESSA gives parents, school districts, and States flexibility to close the achievement gaps that the No Child Left Behind helped us explore. ESSA maintains critical assessment requirements, but it also requires schools to track the progress of every child while also allowing States and school districts to set their own goals for improvement and determine what interventions are best when these achievement gaps persist. It invests in early childhood education, it permanently authorizes the Preschool Development Grant Program, and Virginia was one of the first States to receive a challenge grant. The bill recognizes there are factors other than test scores that describe students' success, and that is a significant advance past No Child Left Behind. I rise particularly because I am proud that a number of provisions that I worked on and that the Presiding Officer worked on were included in the final bill. Let me talk about two of them: Teach safe relationships and career and technical education. Senator McCaskill and I introduced a bill called the Teach Safe Relationships Act that came out of a conversation that I had with students a year ago at the University of Virginia. These students were members of a student organization called One Less, which advocates for survivors of campus rape and sexual assault. There had been a story in the Rolling Stone magazine about the scourge of campus sexual assault. Many of the statistics were correct, but the story was controversial because it focused on a particular allegation of sexual assault that was later discredited, and Rolling Stone retracted the article. I sat down with a group of about 30 students--no press, no faculty, no administrators--to talk about the problem of campus sexual assault. It has been a long time since I was a college student, and I wanted to hear them talk about the challenges they face. It was a robust discussion. These students didn't all agree with each other about various points. But the goal was to get a sense from them about what we in Congress could do that would be helpful and what were things that we might want to do that would make us feel good but that wouldn't be helpful. Many great ideas came out of that discussion, but there was one in particular that grabbed my attention. Students talked about the fact that they wished when they came to college, living away from home for the first time in their lives, that they knew more about issues such as coercion or consent to intimate behavior or especially where to go for help or what to do if you felt like somebody was pressuring you. I kind of naively said to the students: Well, don't you have an orientation about sexual assault? And they said: We do. Here is what it is. It is 15 minutes about campus sexual assault, and it is 15 minutes about not getting too many credit cards, and it is 15 minutes about not drinking too much. Basically, we are new on campus, and it is just not enough. Then I asked a follow up question: Don't you learn about this in sex ed classes in high school? One of the young ladies in the room said: We get a sex ed curriculum in high school, but it is about reproductive biology, not about behaviors and relationships and strategies and sort of the right and wrong issues. I thought that was really interesting. So I came back after hearing from them--and, again, I honor these students, because from the idea to the passage, hopefully tomorrow, it has been a year from hearing from them, and now, because of them, there is going to be an important advance in public safety. What the students basically forced me to do was to come back and analyze the problem of sexual assault. We have been dealing with it in the military. We deal with it on college campuses. We deal with it in the society at large. We can either have strategies that are specific to the military or college campuses or the workplace or society, or we can actually acknowledge campus sexual assault. Instead of focusing on where it happens, let's focus on when it happens. If you are a young person--let me put it differently. The most likely time in your life when you will be a victim of a sexual assault is age 16 to 24. It doesn't make a difference whether you are in the military or on a college campus or anywhere else. It is at a time in your life when you are kind of new to adult sexuality issues and kind of grappling with it that you are most likely to be a victim of sexual assaults, and also many perpetrators of sexual assaults are in the same age range. The students said: What if we had better education in the K-12 space. In February, Senator McCaskill and I introduced a bill taking the campus sexual assault problem and trying to do something about it during the K-12 educational timeframe, and we called it the Teach Safe Relationships Act. The bill was rolled into the Senate version of the rewrite of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the final compromise conference report includes it. Provisions are included so that title IV Federal educational funding can now be used specifically for instruction and training on safe relationship behavior among students, and this should help us deal with the issue of sexual assault. I want to thank the conference committee for including it in the bill. It is my hope that school systems will now take advantage of this title IV funding--most school systems receive it--to prevent sexual assault not just on college campuses but for anybody in that age 16 to 24 age range that is vulnerable. Second, the Presiding Officer, Senator Baldwin, and I introduced a number of pieces of legislation dealing with career and technical education that have been included in the bill. The provisions include encouragement to States to use more career readiness indicators in their accountability systems to define what educational success is. This gives the States the opportunity to recognize schools that are successfully preparing students for postsecondary education and workforce tools such as technical skills and college credits. It shouldn't be just about performance on multiple choice tests. If you are getting a validated industry certificate or other measure of success, that should count. We encourage States and school districts to support the development of a specialized teacher core to help teachers integrate career and technical education into their normal academic subjects. We allow schools to use title IV funds for career counseling, programming, and training on local workforce needs, and for options for postsecondary and career pathways. Finally, we include CTE in the definition of a well-rounded education. Traditionally, under No Child Left Behind, it was just math, English, social studies, and science. Career and technical education and some other subjects ought to be included in the definition of a well-rounded education. CTE is an important pathway for students to prepare for the workforce by integrating practical, applied purposes with work-based knowledge and hands-on learning experiences. I am the son of an iron worker and welder. I ran a school in Honduras that taught kids to be carpenters and welders. I believe deeply in the power of CTE. In fact, I see it every day across the Commonwealth of Virginia, just as I know the Presiding Officer sees it every day in the State of Ohio. Carroll County in rural, southern Virginia, right on the border with North Carolina, has a state-of-the-art agriculture CTE program, which I visited this summer, set up with Virginia Tech, as good as any college campus. It not only helps students who want to be farmers, but those students who want to be farmers suddenly find that when they are studying soil chemistry in a CTE lab, their chemistry grades go up as well. In Ashburn I saw a robotics program in Loudoun County that was successful. In Virginia Beach a CTE program helps students learn how to build houses, training them for construction careers, and the houses they build are pretty impressive. In closing, this year marks the 50th anniversary that President Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act into law. Our Nation's prosperity is dependent upon students' educational success, and this rewrite is incredibly important. I am excited about the reauthorization and these provisions. Again, I thank Senators Murray and Alexander and their staffs, and let me extend thanks to my staff, two of whom are here. Let me extend thanks to my wife, who is the Secretary of Education in Virginia. She sat down with the committee staffs in the Senate to share some Virginia experiences that then factored into the rewrite of the ultimate bill. It is my hope that this is going to pass with a big bipartisan margin tomorrow. This is a tough, complicated area that was 8 years overdue to be reauthorized because it is so controversial. Yet we found a path forward that is bipartisan, and that tells me we can do it not only on this issue but on other issues as well. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act of 2015. This act was passed by the House shortly before we recessed for Thanksgiving--an act dealing with the refugee crisis from Syria and Iraq. It is an act that is sort of pending before the body now as we try to decide whether to take up the House bill or take up the topic of the House bill as part of the deliberations in which we are engaged. First, I think everyone in this body and everyone in the House acknowledges the security needs of America in this challenging time as we are engaged in a battle against ISIL. As we have seen in recent weeks, the reach of ISIL--whether it is a passenger aircraft in Sinai, a neighborhood in southern Beirut, or multiple neighborhoods in Paris, ISIL's strength is expanding and mutating, and we have to take those concerns seriously. I applaud the work that has already been done to try to make sure the vetting process for refugees who entered the United States is pretty intense. Four million refugees left Syria during the course of the Syrian civil war. Of those 4 million who have left and registered with the U.N., after a fairly extensive review process, the U.N. has referred 20,000 to the United States for possible consideration to be refugees. Of those 20,000, after an 18-month vetting process, we have allowed approximately 2,000 into the United States. So the vetting process for refugees is pretty intense. If we can make it better, we need to do that, but it is already fairly significant. I also applaud efforts the administration announced yesterday and that other colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, are working on to ensure that the visa waiver program we currently have, which allows citizens from 38 countries to come to the United States without visas, is tight. We have to do our best in a careful and deliberate way to make sure our security in the midst of this battle against ISIL is strong. I rise today to speak particularly about this act because I think it is problematic, and I think it is problematic from the very title of the act. I think it raises some questions we have to be very careful about. Syrian and Iraqi refugees are not foreign enemies. Refugees are not the enemies of the United States. We have an enemy. The enemy is ISIL. We are coming up on the start of a 17-month war against ISIL that Congress has been unwilling to debate, vote on, and declare. ISIL is an enemy, and we would all acknowledge that, but the refugees who are leaving Syria and Iraq are not our enemies. They are victims. They are victims. I think before we go down the path of quickly--and this bill was passed in the House in just a couple of days--painting with a broad brush as our enemies these poor people who have suffered so much, we really need to reflect on what they have been through. This refugee crisis in Syria has been called by most NGOs and other organizations like the U.N. the greatest humanitarian crisis since World War II. In a country of between 25 and 30 million people, 4 million have had to flee because of the atrocities of the Assad regime and the atrocities of the civil war carried out by ISIL and other terrorist organizations. Four million had to leave their homes and 8 million more had to leave their homes and move to other places in their country where they would prefer not to live because their homes are unsafe because of the civil war. Nearly 300,000 Syrians have been killed in this civil war, and the atrocities are horrible. The Assad regime uses barrel bombs in civilian neighborhoods to kill innocents without any rhyme or reason as to where or when they are going to fall, creating psychological terror as well as physical danger. ISIL in Syria is carrying out beheadings and the forced subjugation of people and selling them into sexual slavery. It is the oppression of religious minorities, virtually any religion other than that of the Sunni extremists who would fit within ISIL's narrow definition of who they think true believers are. This is what people are fleeing from. This Senator emphasizes this point: Refugees are not our enemies. They are not foreign enemies. They are victims who deserve compassion. This is a fairly famous photograph from a suburb of Damascus, Yarmouk, that is filled with Palestinian refugees who have been waiting for food. The Assad regime had cordoned them off and would not allow humanitarian aid because they thought there were opponents to the regime in this neighborhood. This was a photo that was taken in January of 2014 when the U.N. could finally come in to try to deliver humanitarian food aid to these folks. You can see the tens of thousands of people who are waiting in the midst of their bombed-out neighborhood for a delivery of basic food aid, which has been very episodic during the course of this war. This neighborhood has gone back under blockade, and it has been extremely difficult to get them the food they need. These are not enemies; these are people who are worthy of the compassion of any person and especially of a nation as compassionate as the United States. More recently, we were all stunned to see this horrible photograph of a 3-year-old Syrian boy who, with his family and a group of 12 Syrians, tried to make it across water to Greece, fleeing atrocities in the battle between Kurds and ISIL in northern Syria. Twelve members of this family in a boat were killed and drowned, including this 3-year-old and his 5-year-old brother. These are not enemies. To have an act that purports to deal with this refugee crisis and to call this an act that is an act about foreign enemies--they are not enemies. There is no way we should allow the kind of tar brush approach that would paint these poor unfortunates who are victims of the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II as if they are somehow enemies. We should have a compassionate response that protects American security but is nevertheless compassionate. These photographs really grab me, and the rhetoric surrounding these refugees--that they are enemies--when this act passed really grabbed me. I found myself thinking about it not so much even in just a policy way--what is the right policy, what is the right mixture of things to keep the country safe? That is very important, but these pictures make one think about something more fundamental: Why does this happen? Since the beginning of time, human beings have asked: Why is there suffering of this kind? Why must hundreds of thousands be huddled into a bombed-out neighborhood and be nearly starved to death to wait for a delivery episodically from the United Nations? Why would a family have to flee from their home, with their children killed, to try to get away from atrocities? If you are a student from California State University, on a semester-abroad program in Paris, sitting in a cafe, why are you gunned down by ISIL terrorists? If you are a tourist coming back from a vacation in the Sinai with your family, why is your plane suddenly bombed out of the sky? Humans have asked this question since the beginning of time. Why do these things happen? There are two conventional answers to the question of why these things occur, and there is a nonconventional answer that is a challenging one that we as a body and as a country really have to grapple with. The two conventional answers as to why there is horrible suffering such as this is obviously there is evil in the world and there is evil within. There is evil out in the world and there is evil within and we make mistakes. Clearly there is evil in the world. ISIL is evil. Refugees are not evil. I think it is interesting that one of the bodies here could come up with a piece of legislation, draft it, debate it, and vote on it in a couple of days to label refugees as ``foreign enemies'' when we have been at war for 17 months against ISIL and we haven't been able to have a debate in this body to authorize military force and declare that they are an enemy. There is evil in the world, and part of what we must do is call it out and be willing to stand against it. The great Irish poet Yeats talked about a situation where the best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity. I worry that this legislative body has not shown the conviction to call out evil in the way that we should call it out, and mistakenly we are calling people evil who aren't evil but who are deserving of compassionate help from us and from other nations. That is the first explanation of why evil occurs. There is evil out in the world, and ISIL is evil, the atrocities of Assad are evil, and we ought to call it out. The second explanation is our own weakness. When bad things happen, whether to yourself or to your country, you have to look in the mirror and ask: Did we do anything wrong? And I have a concern that when the chapter on the Syrian refugee crisis is written, neither the United States nor other nations are going to look that good. It is going to be like looking into the 1990s and looking at why the United States was able to intervene and stop atrocities in the Balkans and chose not to in Rwanda. The answer to why we did in one instance and not the other-- I don't think that looks good in retrospect. I worry with respect to this refugee crisis, the 4 to 8 million killed, these children and their families--we have to look in the mirror and ask ourselves whether we have done enough or whether we can do more. Last, there is a nonconventional explanation of why suffering like this occurs that is a challenging one. It is in the Book of Job. There is a Bible on the Presiding Officer's desk. It is there because it is a book of wisdom. I know you know the story. It is an interesting story, as we grapple with suffering like this and we have to ask why it occurs. Job was an upright and righteous man. He was a blameless person, a person of integrity. The story was written in about 500 BC and posits this debate between God and Satan. God is talking about how great Job is. Satan says that he is great because he is wealthy and has a great family, and if he lost that, he would cease being so faithful. God says: I think he would be faithful anyway. Satan says: Let's have a wager and see what happens. That is how the Book of Job begins. This upright and blameless man who has everything proceeds to very quickly lose everything. He loses his wealth, he loses his family, he loses his health--not because of his own sin, his own weakness, or his own error, his own mistakes, and not because of evil in the world; he suffers because he is being tested. That is the reason he suffers. As the story goes on, he is tested. He is tested. He argues with God, he fights with God, he fights with the faith, but he doesn't let go of his faith. At the end of the story, this Book of Job--and this is a book which is not only in the Old Testament and studied by Jews and Christians alike, this is in the Koran. This is a story which all the Abrahamic faith traditions have grabbed on to because it has a fundamental piece of wisdom to it. Sometimes when suffering such as this occurs, it is not just because there is evil in the world or because of our own sin, it is because bad things happen to test us as individuals. Bad things happen and sometimes test us as a country. I look at this refugee crisis as a test. It is a test on whether we, like Job, will be true to our principles or whether we will abandon them. Job was true to his principles, and things came back to him multiplied. Are we going to be true to our principles? My State of Virginia began when the English who were starving were helped out by Indians down near Jamestown Island. There was the extension of a hand to strangers in a strange land that enabled them to survive, unlike earlier parties who had been wiped out by starvation or battles with Indians. My people came from Ireland in the 1840s. They were chased out by oppression. They were chased out by hunger. My people have the same story that virtually everybody who came to the United States has. Some came under much worse conditions, brought over in slavery and servitude. The nation of France recognized the United States for what it was--a beacon of liberty for people from around the world--when France gave to the United States the Statue of Liberty, which we planted in New York Harbor right next to Ellis Island, where so many people came into this country. Nobody who came here had it easy. People faced signs that said ``No Irish need apply'' or they faced discrimination or oppression, but they didn't face a door being shut in their face and being told they were foreign enemies when they were really refugees looking for a better situation in life. As I think about what we are grappling with and what we may be called to vote on in the next 10 days in this body, I think about this massive scale of human suffering that is going on with respect to Syria, and I think about that wisdom from the Book of Job, which is that sometimes suffering and adversity is to test us. Are we going to abandon our principles? Are we not going to be the Statue of Liberty nation? Are we not going to be the nation that will extend a hand of welcome or friendship for those who suffer? Are we going to be true to our principles? Again and again in our Nation's history and in the history of nations, it has been shown that if you are true to your principles-- especially true to them during times of adversity--then you are worthy of respect. You teach important lessons to your kids and to the generations that follow, and usually things work out. I think our Nation's principles are solid. They are rock solid. In the heat of the moment, we shouldn't abandon them, and we shouldn't abandon people who have suffered and are suffering with the kind of hot legislative language that would label them as ``foreign enemies'' when they are just refugees in the same way that people throughout history have been refugees needing a compassionate response from others. Thank you, Mr. President. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, children raised in loving and supportive households grow up to become more productive individuals, benefiting both the individual child and society at large. However, housing instability is linked to poor outcomes for children. Unsafe housing conditions and homelessness can threaten a child's safety. These conditions are often the reason for an investigation by the local child welfare agency, out-of-home placement, or a delay in family reunification. Homelessness can also lead parents to voluntarily place their children in foster care while they search for housing. Families may also be separated because of shelter policies that exclude teenagers, especially boys. Further, youth aging out of the foster care system are particularly vulnerable to homelessness because they must make the transition to adulthood without support, financial or otherwise, from parents or other trusted guardians. In Virginia, the Governor's office reported that as of September 2015 there were 5,140 total children in the Virginia foster care program. For fiscal year 2015, the average annual cost of foster care in Virginia was almost $47,000. Further, in 2013 Virginia had approximately 550 youth age out of the foster care system at age 18 without being connected to families. Nationally, over one-fifth of children who age out of the foster care system will experience homelessness at some time after age 18. The Family Unification Program, FUP, an interagency collaboration between the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, and the Department of Health and Human Services to provide housing vouchers to youth aging out of foster care and families involved with the child welfare system. Some of these vouchers also include supportive services, such as money management skills, job preparation, educational counseling, and proper nutrition and meal preparation. Research has shown that housing vouchers, coupled with supportive services, promotes family stabilization and reduces youth homelessness. While these vouchers have yielded some success, the connections between HUD and HHS are often inadequate to provide effective assistance. Further, no dedicated source of funding is available for the supportive services promised, and too often families and youth are left without the help they need. That is why I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues Senator Collins, Senator Schatz, and Senator Murray, the Family Unification, Preservation and Modernization Act. This legislation modernizes and improves FUP vouchers, as well as creates and provides supportive housing for at-risk youth and families involved with the child welfare system. By utilizing a housing first model, similar to the one used to combat veterans' homelessness, this legislation will ensure safe and stable housing for youth and families. This bill also strengthens the connections between local public housing agencies and child welfare agencies to promote family stabilization and reunification, replaces the arbitrary 18-month time limit for youth vouchers with a more workable 36-month time limit, expands youth eligibility to those who are 18 to 24 who have left foster care at age 14 or older or will leave foster care within 90 days and are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless, provides competitive grants for supportive services specifically targeted to FUP recipients, and promotes self-sufficiency by providing incentive payments to successful, data-driven interventions that improve outcomes. My wife Anne and I have been long-term supporters in improving our child welfare system. When I served as Governor, we worked together to reform Virginia's foster care system. I am proud to introduce this commonsense, bipartisan legislation that will ensure family preservation and reduce youth homelessness.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, children raised in loving and supportive households grow up to become more productive individuals, benefiting both the individual child and society at large. However, housing instability is linked to poor outcomes for children. Unsafe housing conditions and homelessness can threaten a child's safety. These conditions are often the reason for an investigation by the local child welfare agency, out-of-home placement, or a delay in family reunification. Homelessness can also lead parents to voluntarily place their children in foster care while they search for housing. Families may also be separated because of shelter policies that exclude teenagers, especially boys. Further, youth aging out of the foster care system are particularly vulnerable to homelessness because they must make the transition to adulthood without support, financial or otherwise, from parents or other trusted guardians. In Virginia, the Governor's office reported that as of September 2015 there were 5,140 total children in the Virginia foster care program. For fiscal year 2015, the average annual cost of foster care in Virginia was almost $47,000. Further, in 2013 Virginia had approximately 550 youth age out of the foster care system at age 18 without being connected to families. Nationally, over one-fifth of children who age out of the foster care system will experience homelessness at some time after age 18. The Family Unification Program, FUP, an interagency collaboration between the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, and the Department of Health and Human Services to provide housing vouchers to youth aging out of foster care and families involved with the child welfare system. Some of these vouchers also include supportive services, such as money management skills, job preparation, educational counseling, and proper nutrition and meal preparation. Research has shown that housing vouchers, coupled with supportive services, promotes family stabilization and reduces youth homelessness. While these vouchers have yielded some success, the connections between HUD and HHS are often inadequate to provide effective assistance. Further, no dedicated source of funding is available for the supportive services promised, and too often families and youth are left without the help they need. That is why I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues Senator Collins, Senator Schatz, and Senator Murray, the Family Unification, Preservation and Modernization Act. This legislation modernizes and improves FUP vouchers, as well as creates and provides supportive housing for at-risk youth and families involved with the child welfare system. By utilizing a housing first model, similar to the one used to combat veterans' homelessness, this legislation will ensure safe and stable housing for youth and families. This bill also strengthens the connections between local public housing agencies and child welfare agencies to promote family stabilization and reunification, replaces the arbitrary 18-month time limit for youth vouchers with a more workable 36-month time limit, expands youth eligibility to those who are 18 to 24 who have left foster care at age 14 or older or will leave foster care within 90 days and are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless, provides competitive grants for supportive services specifically targeted to FUP recipients, and promotes self-sufficiency by providing incentive payments to successful, data-driven interventions that improve outcomes. My wife Anne and I have been long-term supporters in improving our child welfare system. When I served as Governor, we worked together to reform Virginia's foster care system. I am proud to introduce this commonsense, bipartisan legislation that will ensure family preservation and reduce youth homelessness.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arizona for working so closely. This does not have to be a partisan issue. In fact, it should not be a partisan issue. My sense is that in this Congress, in both Houses, 80-plus percent of the Members believe strongly that the United States should be engaged in military action under some circumstances against this horrible threat of ISIL. Yet, despite that overwhelming consensus and despite the clear constitutional command in article I that we should not be at war without a vote of Congress, there has been a strange conspiracy of silence about this in the legislative branch for the last 16 months. The Senator from Arizona and I introduced a resolution in January to authorize military force, building upon previous efforts in the Foreign Relations Committee, the President's submitted authorization. We did it knowing that it is not perfect, knowing that not everyone would agree with every word, but we did it to show that we can be bipartisan and stand up against a threat such as ISIL. As the Senator did, let's review what has happened since August 8, 2014. The President on that day started airstrikes against ISIL and said he was doing it for two reasons: first, to protect American personnel who were jeopardized at a consulate in Erbil, and second, to provide humanitarian support for members of a minority religious sect, the Yazidis, who were basically being hemmed in by ISIL in Sinjar in northern Iraq. Those were the two reasons. At that point in August of 2014, ISIL and their activities were limited to Iraq and Syria. Sixteen months later, we have lost four American hostages who have been executed by ISIL. We have lost 10 American service men and women who were deployed to that theater. We have about 3,600 American troops who are deployed thousands of miles from home, risking their lives every day. We have spent $5 billion--$11 million a day--in the battle against ISIL. We have flown nearly 6,300 airstrikes with American aircraft against ISIL--ISIL, which was at first limited to Iraq and Syria and now has presence in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. They have undertaken attacks that they claim credit for in the Sinai in Egypt and in Lebanon. This threat is mutating and growing. At the end of last week, on Friday the 13th, we saw the horror of ISIL with the grim assassination of innocents as they were enjoying dinner or going to music concerts or watching soccer games in Paris. ISIL put out a video a few days ago threatening similar attacks on Washington. ISIL is not going away. This is a threat. The President started military action for a narrow and limited reason, but the threat has mutated. Like a cancer, it has grown, and it is now affecting nations all over the world. The question is, How long will Congress continue to be silent about this? I will say that I think this is a malady you can lay at the feet of both parties in both Houses. Congress has seemed to prefer a strategy of criticizing what the President is doing. And look, I am critical of some of the things the President is doing. In an earlier speech, the senior Senator from Arizona laid out some challenges with this strategy. But it is not enough for this body that has a constitutional authority in matters of war to just criticize the Commander in Chief. What we have done is sat on the sidelines and criticized, but we have not been willing either to vote to authorize what is going on, vote to stop what is going on, or vote to refine or revise what is going on. It is easy to be a critic. It is easy to sit in the stands and watch a play and say: Well, why didn't the coach call a different play? But we are not fans here, We are the owners of the team. We are the article I branch, and we are not supposed to be at war without a vote of Congress. I will hand it back to my colleague from Arizona, and then perhaps I can say a few concluding words that would be more about the kind of emotional rather than the legal side of this as we are thinking about the challenges in Paris. I think the events of last week--Egypt, Beirut, Paris--demonstrate that the voice of Congress is needed. The voice of Congress is needed to fulfill our article I responsibility. The voice of Congress is needed, as the Senator from Arizona mentioned, because we send a message by our voice to our allies, to the adversary, and to our troops. The voice of Congress is also needed because it has the effect of solving some of the problems Senator McCain mentioned earlier. To the extent that the administration's strategy is not what we would want it to be, they have to present a strategy to Congress. We ask tough questions of the witnesses, and we refine it and it gets better. We do that all in the view of the American public so they can be educated about what is at stake. When you don't have the debate, you don't put before the American public the reasons for the involvement, and that is desperately needed. With that, I thank my colleague from Arizona. I would like to say a few words at the end about why this is a matter of emotional significance to me. I now defer to my colleague.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for joining together in this important area. I had a sad epiphany on Friday as I was thinking about this. I think Senator Flake and I have children who are about the same age. I was thinking about young people--looking at our pages here, thinking about young people. Like many, when the attacks happened Friday, my first thoughts were, whom do I know in Paris? A lot of folks have relatives or have family or coworkers or former coworkers who were in Paris. Like a lot of people, I got on the phone and I got on text to try to track down my niece. I have a niece who is a student at law school, a third-year law student. She is in Paris for a semester studying at the Sciences PO. She was in the restaurant area where the shootings occurred so close that she could hear them. She was not immediately affected, but she and her friends had to barricade themselves in the restaurant for a while, wondering what was going on. We were able to determine that Elizabeth was fine. She assured all the family and the people who wanted to send her a plane ticket to come home that, no, she was fine. But over the weekend I started to think about how fine she really is, how fine our young people really are. Elizabeth was a Peace Corps volunteer in Cameroon a few years ago. After she came home, the village she lived in was essentially wiped out by Boko Haram. The next door neighbor, who was her protector and the protector of all the Peace Corps volunteers who came before, was killed, along with a lot of her other friends. Boko Haram has now pledged allegiance to ISIL. She had the experience of losing friends in a terrorist attack in Cameroon, and now she has had the experience of being near a terrorist attack in Paris. It started to work on my conscience a little bit that this for her is now a norm. For me, at age 57, these events are not the norm. They are the extreme. But for Elizabeth or for my children--I have three kids, one in the military, and they all came of age after 9/ 11--we are living in a world that for so many of our young people, the norm is not peace and safety and complacency; the norm is war or terrorist attacks all over the globe. If that can be said about America's young people, it is certainly the case for young people in France and young people in Syria and all over the region. I hate that we are living in a world where young people are starting to think this is the norm rather than the exception. It seems to me as an adult, as somebody in a leadership position, that a part of what we need to do is rather than just allow us to drift without taking a position into the world where this is more and more normal, while acknowledging that we are humble people and we can't completely control our destiny, we have to take charge of a situation and not stand by and lob in criticism but try to shape it to the best of our ability. I think that was the genius of the drafters of the Constitution. James Madison, a Virginian who drafted many of these provisions, was trying to do something incredibly radical. At the time, war was for the King or the Monarch or the Emperor, and Madison and the others who drafted the American Constitution, said: We are going to take that power to initiate war away from the Executive. Nobody else has really done this, and we are going to put the power in the hands of the people's elected representatives so that they will debate and soberly analyze when you should take that step of authorizing military action where, even under the best of circumstances, horrible things can happen and people can lose their lives. Well, we have allowed this war to go on long enough without putting a congressional fingerprint on it. For our young people, for our troops, for our allies, and for our adversaries, it is my prayer that we in Congress will now take up that leadership mantle and try to shape this mutating and growing threat to the greatest degree we can. With that, I yield the floor and again thank my colleague from Arizona.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a bill I am introducing called the Co-prescribing Saves Lives Act. All across the Nation, and certainly all across my Commonwealth, we are seeing the scourge of prescription drug abuse and a heroin epidemic. These opioids are having major impact in communities everywhere in Virginia, from the coal mines of Appalachia to rural communities in the Shenandoah Valley, to right here in suburban Fairfax County. I have heard, as have my colleagues, stories from parents who have buried children, from companies that can't find employees who can pass drug tests, and certainly from law enforcement officials, including judges, prosecutors, police officials, and sheriffs, who talk about the dramatic expansion of opioid addiction in this country. The numbers are kind of shocking. When I came to the Senate and started doing tours around the State in the spring of 2013, I really wasn't schooled about this, and I started to hear stories. Heroin and opioids now account for 25,000 American deaths a year. In Virginia, and in much of the United States, the deaths from opioid overdoses are now exceeding deaths from motor vehicle accidents. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in the United States fatal opioid-related drug overdose rates have quadrupled since 1990 and have never been higher than they are right now. The question is, How do we address this crisis? Obviously, the answer is there is no single answer. There are a lot of things that have to be done. The Federal Government, State and local communities, faith communities, nonprofit organizations, families, individuals educating themselves--there are a lot of answers, but we have to move forward with steps that we know can reduce overdose deaths. There is some good news. There are advances that can help us do this, and one of the advances has been the development of a drug called naloxone, which is a medicine that is safe and effective as an antidote to all opioid-related overdoses, including heroin, prescription opioids, and fentanyl. It is a critical tool--it has been proven to be a critical tool since its development in preventing fatal opioid overdoses. One of the neat things about naloxone is if you come across somebody who is in respiratory failure from an overdose or for some other reason, you can administer naloxone to that individual, and if it is not an overdose, it doesn't have any side effects. It can bring somebody back from the overdose-caused respiratory failure, but it doesn't have any negative side effects if it turns out the person is suffering from something else. In Virginia there is an organization called Project REVIVE! that trains people to administer naloxone. In one of our communities in Russell County in Southwest Virginia, about a year ago I took the training with a lot of family members and others--just 2 hours of training--to learn how to do this. Since naloxone has been developed and come into more common usage beginning in the late 1990s, it has saved more than 26,000 people who have been in the throes of an overdose. Naloxone has brought them back to life. I think a lot of professionals--public safety professionals and health care professionals around the country--have seen how effective it is. One answer to our overdose problem is to co-prescribe naloxone when someone is getting a prescription for an opioid. Opioids have legitimate uses, to manage pain. So when somebody is getting a prescription for that, co-prescribe naloxone so they have the antidote right there in case of an overdose. There are overdoses from people who are using drugs inappropriately and grabbing somebody else's prescriptions and using opioids, but there are also quite a few overdoses where people who are legitimately prescribed the drug--and they are usually prescribed it for pain--they develop a tolerance to the drug. The package may say to take one pill every 6 hours, but the pain is strong, and after 3 hours they start to feel it again and somebody thinks, OK, the drug has worn off now so I can take another one. So a person can start to take too many because of pain symptoms, and they get into an overdose situation for that reason too. If a person has a naloxone co-prescribed, they can have the antidote right there that they can administer themselves, or someone else can, if they get into an overdose situation. Many communities, States, national organizations, and medical organizations have supported co-prescribing naloxone to patients who are taking opioids as a critical part of this overdose problem, and we have guidelines. Not everybody who gets an opioid prescription needs naloxone. My wife broke and dislocated her shoulder two Good Fridays ago, and she was prescribed a powerful opioid pain killer. She used about a day and a half's worth of it. It made her sick to her stomach so she quit using it. Not everybody who gets prescribed a prescription opioid needs naloxone, but there are certain warning signs--the medical profession has developed the warning signs--and if you have the warning signs, you should get the co-prescription. Developing these guidelines helps physicians, pharmacists, and other providers determine who is at risk and whom we should be proactive with regarding a co-prescription. What this bill does is the following: It improves access to naloxone by encouraging physicians to co-prescribe in a couple of circumstances, to co-prescribe this lifesaving drug alongside opioid prescriptions and make it more widely available in Federal health settings. The Co-prescribing Saves Lives Act would require that the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Defense, and Veterans Affairs would establish physician education co-prescribing guidelines for all Federal health centers, including VA hospitals, DOD hospitals, the Indian Health Service, and federally qualified health centers. So within Federal health care facilities, if there is going to be an opioid prescription to somebody in a high-risk situation, there would be a mandate that naloxone would be prescribed as well. This bill is based upon work that has already been done in the Federal Government. The VA especially has been a real leader in setting up these co-prescription guidelines. In addition, the bill would provide a program of grants through State departments of health that are interested in doing the co-prescribing guidelines for private physicians not in Federal settings in their States. The funding would allow States to purchase naloxone, to provide copay assistance for uninsured patients, and to fund training for health professionals and patients. Grant funding could also support State innovation and provide for community outreach. The kind of program where I trained last summer, Project REVIVE!, is just a community program trying to battle opioid overdose deaths in the coalfields of Appalachia. That would be the kind of program that if other States wanted to do that, could be eligible for grant funding. In closing, this is just one solution. Obviously, the real solutions, the important ones, are still around prevention. Why do Americans get prescribed so many more opioids than folks in other nations? What do we do about prescriptions when the quantities that are given are too big and then we end up with a lot of unused opioids that can be taken by young people or stolen and sold? There are a lot of issues we have to solve, but there is this bit of good news; that naloxone saves lives and it is easy to administer. It doesn't have a negative effect. If we can broaden access to naloxone for those who have been prescribed opioids--we have saved lives in the past and we are going to save a lot more. I will conclude by saying there is a dad in Northern Virginia--a guy by the name of Don Flattery--who has been very public about the loss of his son, Kevin, who was a 26-year-old graduate of UVA in 2014. He talked about his son, the family, the advantages they had, and his educational track record of success at UVA, but then he fell into the just bottomless pit of opioid prescription, opioid addiction, and he perished in 2014. What Don said is that ``I feel we need to keep personalizing what is happening. We are not addressing shocking, obtuse statistics--we are speaking about my son, your daughter, our neighbors . . . they are real people with real lives, and their losses are the face of the epidemic we must stop.'' That is what this bill intends to play a part in.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a bill I am introducing called the Co-prescribing Saves Lives Act. All across the Nation, and certainly all across my Commonwealth, we are seeing the scourge of prescription drug abuse and a heroin epidemic. These opioids are having major impact in communities everywhere in Virginia, from the coal mines of Appalachia to rural communities in the Shenandoah Valley, to right here in suburban Fairfax County. I have heard, as have my colleagues, stories from parents who have buried children, from companies that can't find employees who can pass drug tests, and certainly from law enforcement officials, including judges, prosecutors, police officials, and sheriffs, who talk about the dramatic expansion of opioid addiction in this country. The numbers are kind of shocking. When I came to the Senate and started doing tours around the State in the spring of 2013, I really wasn't schooled about this, and I started to hear stories. Heroin and opioids now account for 25,000 American deaths a year. In Virginia, and in much of the United States, the deaths from opioid overdoses are now exceeding deaths from motor vehicle accidents. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in the United States fatal opioid-related drug overdose rates have quadrupled since 1990 and have never been higher than they are right now. The question is, How do we address this crisis? Obviously, the answer is there is no single answer. There are a lot of things that have to be done. The Federal Government, State and local communities, faith communities, nonprofit organizations, families, individuals educating themselves--there are a lot of answers, but we have to move forward with steps that we know can reduce overdose deaths. There is some good news. There are advances that can help us do this, and one of the advances has been the development of a drug called naloxone, which is a medicine that is safe and effective as an antidote to all opioid-related overdoses, including heroin, prescription opioids, and fentanyl. It is a critical tool--it has been proven to be a critical tool since its development in preventing fatal opioid overdoses. One of the neat things about naloxone is if you come across somebody who is in respiratory failure from an overdose or for some other reason, you can administer naloxone to that individual, and if it is not an overdose, it doesn't have any side effects. It can bring somebody back from the overdose-caused respiratory failure, but it doesn't have any negative side effects if it turns out the person is suffering from something else. In Virginia there is an organization called Project REVIVE! that trains people to administer naloxone. In one of our communities in Russell County in Southwest Virginia, about a year ago I took the training with a lot of family members and others--just 2 hours of training--to learn how to do this. Since naloxone has been developed and come into more common usage beginning in the late 1990s, it has saved more than 26,000 people who have been in the throes of an overdose. Naloxone has brought them back to life. I think a lot of professionals--public safety professionals and health care professionals around the country--have seen how effective it is. One answer to our overdose problem is to co-prescribe naloxone when someone is getting a prescription for an opioid. Opioids have legitimate uses, to manage pain. So when somebody is getting a prescription for that, co-prescribe naloxone so they have the antidote right there in case of an overdose. There are overdoses from people who are using drugs inappropriately and grabbing somebody else's prescriptions and using opioids, but there are also quite a few overdoses where people who are legitimately prescribed the drug--and they are usually prescribed it for pain--they develop a tolerance to the drug. The package may say to take one pill every 6 hours, but the pain is strong, and after 3 hours they start to feel it again and somebody thinks, OK, the drug has worn off now so I can take another one. So a person can start to take too many because of pain symptoms, and they get into an overdose situation for that reason too. If a person has a naloxone co-prescribed, they can have the antidote right there that they can administer themselves, or someone else can, if they get into an overdose situation. Many communities, States, national organizations, and medical organizations have supported co-prescribing naloxone to patients who are taking opioids as a critical part of this overdose problem, and we have guidelines. Not everybody who gets an opioid prescription needs naloxone. My wife broke and dislocated her shoulder two Good Fridays ago, and she was prescribed a powerful opioid pain killer. She used about a day and a half's worth of it. It made her sick to her stomach so she quit using it. Not everybody who gets prescribed a prescription opioid needs naloxone, but there are certain warning signs--the medical profession has developed the warning signs--and if you have the warning signs, you should get the co-prescription. Developing these guidelines helps physicians, pharmacists, and other providers determine who is at risk and whom we should be proactive with regarding a co-prescription. What this bill does is the following: It improves access to naloxone by encouraging physicians to co-prescribe in a couple of circumstances, to co-prescribe this lifesaving drug alongside opioid prescriptions and make it more widely available in Federal health settings. The Co-prescribing Saves Lives Act would require that the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Defense, and Veterans Affairs would establish physician education co-prescribing guidelines for all Federal health centers, including VA hospitals, DOD hospitals, the Indian Health Service, and federally qualified health centers. So within Federal health care facilities, if there is going to be an opioid prescription to somebody in a high-risk situation, there would be a mandate that naloxone would be prescribed as well. This bill is based upon work that has already been done in the Federal Government. The VA especially has been a real leader in setting up these co-prescription guidelines. In addition, the bill would provide a program of grants through State departments of health that are interested in doing the co-prescribing guidelines for private physicians not in Federal settings in their States. The funding would allow States to purchase naloxone, to provide copay assistance for uninsured patients, and to fund training for health professionals and patients. Grant funding could also support State innovation and provide for community outreach. The kind of program where I trained last summer, Project REVIVE!, is just a community program trying to battle opioid overdose deaths in the coalfields of Appalachia. That would be the kind of program that if other States wanted to do that, could be eligible for grant funding. In closing, this is just one solution. Obviously, the real solutions, the important ones, are still around prevention. Why do Americans get prescribed so many more opioids than folks in other nations? What do we do about prescriptions when the quantities that are given are too big and then we end up with a lot of unused opioids that can be taken by young people or stolen and sold? There are a lot of issues we have to solve, but there is this bit of good news; that naloxone saves lives and it is easy to administer. It doesn't have a negative effect. If we can broaden access to naloxone for those who have been prescribed opioids--we have saved lives in the past and we are going to save a lot more. I will conclude by saying there is a dad in Northern Virginia--a guy by the name of Don Flattery--who has been very public about the loss of his son, Kevin, who was a 26-year-old graduate of UVA in 2014. He talked about his son, the family, the advantages they had, and his educational track record of success at UVA, but then he fell into the just bottomless pit of opioid prescription, opioid addiction, and he perished in 2014. What Don said is that ``I feel we need to keep personalizing what is happening. We are not addressing shocking, obtuse statistics--we are speaking about my son, your daughter, our neighbors . . . they are real people with real lives, and their losses are the face of the epidemic we must stop.'' That is what this bill intends to play a part in.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I want to speak about the compromise budget legislation we are debating on the Senate floor. This is a good deal that covers so many important topics: sequester relief for defense and nondefense accounts, the debt limit, Medicare premiums, Social Security Disability Insurance, and many more items. These are all items the Senate needed to address, and I am happy to support this bipartisan budget accord. In my 3 years in the Senate, I have done everything I can to address the nonstrategic sequester cuts that have been hurting our national security and economy. When I was sworn into the Senate and put on the Budget Committee, we were about to let go into effect the arbitrary sequester cuts set forth in the Budget Control Act of 2011. So in 2013, we got to a bipartisan Murray-Ryan budget deal. I supported that deal because it provided sequester relief for 2 years and gave certainty to businesses and families, teachers and shipbuilders, around the Commonwealth and Nation to plan for their needs. Since 2013, we have seen the uncertainty presented by short-term budget deals and continuing resolutions has actually been shown to harm the economy. In addition, the world is a very different place now than it was in 2011 when the Budget Control Act passed, and we need to adjust our budget policies to respond to today's challenges, from the rise of ISIL to increasing cyber attacks. The deal before the Senate today provides more than $100 billion in sequester relief over 2 years for both defense and nondefense accounts, which will provide much-needed certainty to Virginia's families while helping businesses and the defense community better plan for the future. It also prevents certain Medicare beneficiaries from experiencing a significant increase in premiums next year and protects disabled Americans from a potential 20 percent reduction in benefits. It raises the debt ceiling, avoiding a default on our debt and disaster in financial markets. The agreement is not perfect. But that is the nature of compromise. Everyone can find something in this bill they dislike, and that is usually the marker of an honest compromise. I wish we were able to fully replace sequestration and reach that long-term budget deal which would fully replace sequester cuts, make Medicare and Social Security solvent over the long term, and reform the Tax Code. But that budget deal will take time to negotiate, and we face government debt default in less than a week. Given that reality, this compromise is a dramatic improvement over a government debt default, across-the-board budget cuts, and crisis budgeting. I especially applaud the fact that we will do a 2-year budget deal, just like we did when we reached the Murray-Ryan compromise in December 2013. Two-year budgets provide certainty, and that has a significant positive impact on the economy. I came to the Senate a strong supporter of 2-year budgeting due to my experience as Governor, and it is good to see others in Congress finally embracing this helpful reform. I support this budget compromise and look forward to moving this bill to the President's desk.

Mr. KAINE

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

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise today to commemorate an important but largely unheralded anniversary. Seventy years ago yesterday, President Harry Truman changed the design of the Presidential flag and seal. That moment, which is a small moment in the grand scope of American history, was nevertheless very symbolic. I would like to discuss it. First, some context on President Truman. Truman was a great wartime President. He fought bravely in World War I in France, and then he had to make very momentous decisions at the close of World War II. Some would argue, and I think properly, that the decision on whether to use atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been the single most momentous decision ever made by a President. He wasn't even aware of the Manhattan Project and the development of the atomic weapons program until FDR died in April of 1945 and within a very few months had to make the decision whether to use those weapons against Japan. Nobody would question or challenge whether Harry Truman was a softy. In fact, even after World War II, in March of 1947, America was war- weary, but he went to Congress and in an address to Congress said that we need to continue to provide military and economic support to nations that are battling against Soviet influence. In this case, it was the nations of Greece and Turkey. That began the Truman doctrine, the basic strategic principle whereby the United States, for the next 40 years, would sort of check off efforts by the Soviet Union to expand their influence. Harry Truman was a great wartime President. Harry Truman did something on October 25, 1945, that was most unusual. He called the press into his office and said: Look what I have done. He unveiled the fact that he had taken the seal and flag of the Presidency of the United States and redesigned them. That design is essentially the same today with the exception that two stars were added for the States of Alaska and Hawaii that came in after the Truman Presidency. The seal of the President, as everybody knows--if we look around the Chamber, we can see some up on the wall here--was originally an eagle, and the eagle has two claws. In one set of claws the eagle is grasping the arrows of war, and in the other set of claws, the eagle is grasping the olive branches of peace and diplomacy. Prior to the Truman Presidency, the eagle faced toward the arrows of war. Harry Truman, this great wartime President, changed the seal so the olive branches of diplomacy would be in the right claw, the sort of preserved position, and the eagle would be facing toward the olive branches. When he did this he said: ``This new flag faces the eagle toward the staff, which is looking to the front all of the time when you are on the march, and also has it looking at the olive branch for peace, instead of the arrows of war.'' Truman biographer David McCullough stated that Truman meant the shift in the eagle's gaze to be seen as symbolic of a nation that was on the march and dedicated to peace and diplomacy. Significantly, right around the same time President Truman did something else that was notable and symbolical. He renamed the Department we think of as the Pentagon from the Department of War to the Department of Defense, also symbolic of the Nation's postwar dedication to peace. While we want to be the strongest--and we are the strongest military nation in the world, as the Presiding Officer knows so very well--we want to always suggest to the world that our interest is not primarily war; no, our interest is peace and prosperity for all. We always have to preserve and advance America's military strength because we know the connection. Sometimes the better your military strength, the more successful you can be diplomatically, but it is also the case that the strength of your diplomacy can also add to the credibility of your military might. I wish to talk quickly about the olive branches of peace and diplomacy and then the arrows of war. America has a great diplomatic tradition. Let's talk about recent Presidential history. President Truman went to Congress and said: Let's spend, in today's dollars, tens of billions of dollars to rebuild the economies of Japan and Germany, the two nations that had been at war against the United States. Germany had been engaged in two wars with the United States in the previous 30 years. Japan had invaded the United States at Pearl Harbor, but President Truman said: Tomorrow is more important than yesterday. Let's spend dollars to rebuild these economies. It was controversial when he proposed it, but the Marshall Plan ended up being one of the most successful things the United States has done from a foreign policy perspective. Right after the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, President Kennedy engaged in negotiations with the Soviet Union to reduce the nuclear threat, and the result was an agreement in 1963 to ban atmospheric nuclear tests, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. President Reagan was actively engaged in trying to undermine the power of the Soviet Union and communism, but during those very vigorous and aggressive activities, he was also negotiating with the Soviet Union on arms control agreements. Probably the paramount example of that during the Reagan Presidency was the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987 that he successfully negotiated. I happen to believe that history is going to judge the recent Iran nuclear deal in the same way. It is an effort to make tomorrow more important than yesterday and to find--even in the midst of significant challenges between the United States and Iran--a way to reduce nuclear tension. Diplomacy is always a judgment where we should try to let go some of the baggage of the past and see if we can find a better way to tomorrow. I am a little bit worried that the Truman legacy of putting peace and diplomacy first is fraying in this body and maybe nationally. I hope by bringing to mind this anniversary today, it will remind us of our great diplomatic history and the power of our diplomatic principles. A number of times in recent years we have seen bits of evidence of a fraying commitment to diplomacy in this Chamber, in my view. One of the great Truman institutions was the International Monetary Fund which was designed to help nations work together on economic and monetary policy issues. It is a great global institution. When you set up an institution like that in the 1940s, the challenge is that when new nations emerge and rise, how do you incorporate nations that are newly powerful into the Fund? The most recent and challenging example has been the nation of China. As China has gotten more and more important, there were many who advised us to bring China more closely into the Fund so they could assist nations throughout the world, but Congress refused to change the bylaws of the IMF to give China proportionate responsibility given its population and the strength of its economy. What did China do after we would not change the bylaws to allow them a proportionate place at the table? China established their own development bank completely separate from the IMF. There is a debate going on right now in Congress about whether we should reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank--now, this dates back to FDR's Presidency--a premier institution that helps American companies find export markets abroad. Again, it is part of our broad diplomatic effort in outreach, and suddenly it is controversial after 80 years. There are a number of U.N. treaties that we could profitably advance our interests on. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, if the United States had ratified that, we would have an additional diplomatic tool to challenge Chinese island building in the South China Sea. The U.N. treaty on the rights of women and on the rights of those with disabilities are treaties that would, frankly, reflect American values and American principles because we are the leaders in the world in these areas, and yet we will not ratify these treaties. The prospect of trade deals is much less popular in Congress than they were 15 years ago. Trade is going to happen, the question is whether the United States will play a leadership role in writing the rules, and if we step back and don't play a leadership role, some other nations will, but these are getting more and more complicated in this body. Finally, something I feel very strongly about is that it is hard to face the world with this strong diplomatic might when there are a lot of ambassadorial positions that are vacant. Especially in the last 6 or 7 years we have seen efforts to block or delay ambassadorial appointments that have left key posts in many nations around the world vacant. It sends a message to other countries. When they look at us, as the United States, not putting an ambassador in place, they basically conclude that the United States may not think we are important, and that is a very bad signal to send to other nations, especially when many nations that are allies have been without ambassadors for a while. I am hoping we can reembrace on this 70th anniversary the wisdom of Truman, who said: The nation has to be vigorous and forceful and look toward diplomacy first. With respect to the arrows of war--I am on the Armed Services Committee, and just like President Truman, I prefer diplomacy. I think we should lead with diplomacy, but we have to be willing to use military force. I voted for military force twice during my 3 years in the Senate. In 2013, in August, the President asked us to vote for military force against Syria to punish Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons against civilians. The only vote that was taken in either House was a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I voted for it with a kind of foreboding and heavy heart because I knew there would be Virginians, some of whom I might know, who would be affected, but nevertheless I thought it was an important principle for America to stand for. Since September of 2014, I have also been pushing to have Congress cast a vote to authorize the war against ISIL that has been going on for 15 months. There is a lot of critique in this body--and I have critique--about the way that war is being waged about strategic decisions that the President is undertaking with respect to the war, but I think at the end of the day it is hard to just be a critic. Under article I of the Constitution, it is supposed to be Congress that authorizes war rather than a President just doing it on his own. Earlier I mentioned how the Truman olive branches of diplomacy and arrows of war reinforce one another. Obviously, you can be a stronger negotiator at the table in advancing a diplomatic solution if people understand that you have significant military capacity and the willingness to use it in the appropriate instance. The more we can do and the better we can do to empower or military through wise budgeting, for example--as we hope to find an end to sequester and a path forward--the stronger we will make our diplomatic effort. Similarly, the reverse is also true. The more we are vigorous in going after diplomacy, the more moral credibility we have in those instances where we can say, when looking at the world, looking at our citizens, and looking at our own troops, that we now think we need to take military action and we have exhausted the diplomatic alternatives first. That improves the moral credibility behind a military effort. It enables us to make the case better to all about the need for a military effort, and often it even creates a better international justification for a military effort. I believe the Presiding Officer and I were together last week when former Secretary Gates testified before the Armed Services Committee. It was one of the best bits of testimony I have seen in my time in the Senate. He had a word of caution for us. He said: ``While it is tempting to assert that the challenges facing the United States internationally have never been more numerous or complex, the reality is that turbulent, unstable and unpredictable times have recurred to challenge U.S. leaders regularly since World War II.'' We do live in a very complex and challenging world, where we see challenges that are known but also many unpredictable challenges. Other leaders of this country, since our first days, have lived in worlds that looked equally as challenging and confusing to them. We are true to our best traditions if the United States does what Truman so emblematically suggested we should do and we push in a vigorous and creative way all of the diplomatic tools at our disposal, and that involves diplomacy, but it also involves trade and humanitarian assistance. The United States is one of the most generous nations in the world. The strength of our moral example is something that stands as so important. If you live in a nation where journalists are being put in jail, the U.S. freedom of the press stands as a moral example. If you live in a nation where people are prosecuted because of their sexual orientation, the United States stands as a great moral example. We are not exemplary in everything. We have room to improve in everything, but we are exemplary in so many things. People around the world still look at us, and that is in fact a diplomatic area of importance. Let's be exemplary and stand for the principles we expose. Finally, I will say this. So many of the challenges we are facing now are challenges that at the end of the day are about diplomatic solutions. In the Armed Services or the Foreign Relations Committees, we are often talking about the vexing conundrum and humanitarian disaster in Syria, but at the end of the day we hear it has to be about a political solution to the civil war. There has to be a political solution to the conflict in Yemen. There has to be a political solution to the decades-long conflict between the Taliban and the Afghanistan Government. To find a political solution, you have to have strong diplomacy. Military action will not be enough to forge a political consensus moving forward. Ultimately, this was the message of what Harry Truman did 70 years ago. This strong wartime President, who made some of the toughest decisions that have ever been made by anybody in the Oval Office, recognized that America was a great nation because when push came to shove, we would prefer, push, and advocate for diplomacy first knowing that we would be militarily strong if we needed to be. It is my hope that we in Congress will take a lesson from that anniversary and continue to pursue that same path. With that, I yield the floor.