Tim Kaine

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, just over a year ago, I attended a dual celebration in the Town of Reston, VA--50 years since the town's founding and 100 years since the birth of its founder. That founder, Robert E. Simon, Jr., whose initials were the basis for naming the town, passed away on September 21st at the age of 101. Bob Simon was a visionary who recognized that all humans ought to be able to live together and be neighbors. His vision was of a community in which people could live, work, and play in the same general area. He believed that features like natural landscaping, open plazas, and public art were important to building a vibrant community and fostering a sense of place. Today we would call that ``smart growth,'' but to Bob, it was simply common-sense. His vision was ahead of its time in another way. It was a vision of a community in which people of all races and income levels could coexist--a vision that was not yet shared by all in the segregated Virginia of the early 1960s. The legacy of Bob Simon will live on in the community he created and loved. I and my Virginia colleague Senator Mark Warner ask the Senate to formally commemorate Bob and the ideals he championed in his life's work of a better and more just America.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, in today's increasingly competitive global economy, America's success will depend on the talent of its workforce. In cultivating the workforce necessary to succeed, we need to look at ways to expand opportunities for students, and refocus our Nation's education strategy to meet the demands of the industry in the 21st century. Career and technical education, CTE, programs play a vital role in increasing student engagement, continuing our nation's economic competitiveness, and building the skills of our country's workforce. We are beginning to see a renaissance of student interest in career and technical education, but school districts across the Nation are facing critical shortages in high-quality CTE teachers. While the Higher Education and Opportunity Act of 2008 provides grants for teacher residency partnership programs to colleges and universities who work with high-needs school districts to train prospective teachers, no CTE-focused partnerships exist. That is why I am introducing with my colleagues, Senator Baldwin, Senator Portman and Senator Capito the Creating Quality Technical Educators Act, which would create a CTE teacher-training grant partnership to give aspiring CTE teachers the experience necessary to mirror their success in the business world with that in the classroom. This legislation would foster teacher training partnerships between high-needs secondary schools and post-secondary institutions to create a 1-year residency initiative for teachers and includes teacher mentorship for a minimum of 2 years. When CTE teachers have work experience in a related industry before entering the classroom, students not only benefit from their hands-on knowledge, but also look to them as career models. The Creating Quality Technical Educators Act would amend the Higher Education and Opportunity Act to give aspiring CTE teachers real-world experience and develop credible skills to apply in the classroom. This bipartisan bill takes a proactive approach to recruiting and training more high-quality CTE teachers. In addition to mid-career professionals in related technical fields, CTE teacher residencies would target teacher candidates who are recent college graduates, veterans, and currently licensed teachers with a need for technical skills training who seek to become transition into CTE fields. As co-chair of the Senate CTE Caucus, I am proud to introduce this commonsense, bipartisan legislation to recruit and train talented teachers to meet the rising need for CTE. The Creating Quality Technical Educators Act takes an important step to ensure students in communities of all sizes have access to high-quality CTE teachers and career-training programs.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, in today's increasingly competitive global economy, America's success will depend on the talent of its workforce. In cultivating the workforce necessary to succeed, we need to look at ways to expand opportunities for students, and refocus our Nation's education strategy to meet the demands of the industry in the 21st century. Career and technical education, CTE, programs play a vital role in increasing student engagement, continuing our nation's economic competitiveness, and building the skills of our country's workforce. We are beginning to see a renaissance of student interest in career and technical education, but school districts across the Nation are facing critical shortages in high-quality CTE teachers. While the Higher Education and Opportunity Act of 2008 provides grants for teacher residency partnership programs to colleges and universities who work with high-needs school districts to train prospective teachers, no CTE-focused partnerships exist. That is why I am introducing with my colleagues, Senator Baldwin, Senator Portman and Senator Capito the Creating Quality Technical Educators Act, which would create a CTE teacher-training grant partnership to give aspiring CTE teachers the experience necessary to mirror their success in the business world with that in the classroom. This legislation would foster teacher training partnerships between high-needs secondary schools and post-secondary institutions to create a 1-year residency initiative for teachers and includes teacher mentorship for a minimum of 2 years. When CTE teachers have work experience in a related industry before entering the classroom, students not only benefit from their hands-on knowledge, but also look to them as career models. The Creating Quality Technical Educators Act would amend the Higher Education and Opportunity Act to give aspiring CTE teachers real-world experience and develop credible skills to apply in the classroom. This bipartisan bill takes a proactive approach to recruiting and training more high-quality CTE teachers. In addition to mid-career professionals in related technical fields, CTE teacher residencies would target teacher candidates who are recent college graduates, veterans, and currently licensed teachers with a need for technical skills training who seek to become transition into CTE fields. As co-chair of the Senate CTE Caucus, I am proud to introduce this commonsense, bipartisan legislation to recruit and train talented teachers to meet the rising need for CTE. The Creating Quality Technical Educators Act takes an important step to ensure students in communities of all sizes have access to high-quality CTE teachers and career-training programs.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I want to rise and offer some thoughts on the comments we just heard from the majority leader and from our leader. I want to say a word about process, and I want to say a word about partisanship. Let me start with a word to all of my colleagues. I respect your position on this deal however you voted. I am not here to stand and name-call or chastise anybody who reaches a different position on this bill than I do because it is a hard matter, and I don't think we serve the body well by challenging folks who reach a different position. Let me say a word about process. The allegation has been made on the floor in recent days that this vote, including the vote that was just taken, was somehow a procedural blocking of the vote on the deal. That is just not the case. I was one of the coauthors of the review act that is currently before us, and as we worked on the act in the Foreign Relations Committee, everyone understood that it would take 60 votes to pass either a motion of approval or disapproval. We worked on the act in January and February--months before a framework was on the table. Democrats wanted a 60-vote threshold for a motion of disapproval, but Republicans wanted a 60-vote threshold for a motion of approval, and that was the understanding of everyone in the committee when we cast a 19-to-0 vote to pass this in early April, and it was clearly understood when we cast a 98-to-1 vote on the floor of this body. A 60-vote threshold was understood. It was so clearly understood that that is the way we do things around here that 47 Members of the Senate put that in a letter to the leaders of Iran. So this is not an unusual thing to ask for a 60-vote threshold. In fact, the Democrats have asked twice in last 3 days: Let's have an up-or-down vote on the motion of disapproval with a 60-vote threshold--and our request for a vote on the merits has been twice blocked by the majority. I hope we will have a chance to vote on the merits again next week under the 60-vote threshold that we all agreed to, but regardless of whether we do or whether we don't, this is a completely transparent vote because all 100 Members of the Senate have indicated what their position is. I respect everybody's position, but it is very clear, and the clear rule is, under the review act we just passed, by this vote this deal will now go forward as we agreed it would a few months back. Partisanship. The majority leader suggested the position that is being taken on this side of the aisle is just to protect the President. I find that insulting. That is basically saying that on this side of the aisle my colleagues didn't do the work to dig into the deal. So let me just say a word about my colleagues--my colleagues in the minority in this body. This deal was announced on the 15th of July. Did anyone on this side of the aisle run out and take a position on the deal within hours after it was out? Did anyone on this side of the aisle say, yes, I know what I am going to do and I haven't even read the bill. Has this side of the aisle in lockstep all taken exactly the same position with respect to this bill? No. On this side of the aisle, we haven't approached it in a partisan way. On this side of the aisle, every Member took the time to master the details and make their own decision. Some announced their decision a few days after the deal was announced, some announced their decision 7 weeks after the deal was announced. On this side of the aisle there is a difference of opinion--42 of us support the deal, 4 of us do not support the deal--but we respect each other's opinions, and we have approached it as a matter of conscience. So I categorically reject the statement and the implication by the majority leader that this is just something over here that is being done casually to protect the President. I would ask my colleagues in the majority: Compare the diversity of opinion and the time it took to reach an opinion and the respect that we have for each other's position--compare that on this side of the aisle with your own track record on this bill, with the speed with which people announced that they were opposing it, some even admitting they were opposing it before they read it. Contrary to the claim of the majority leader that there is no bipartisan support for this deal, I have to say, Senator John Warner, Republican, 36-year Member of the Senate, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote with Senator Carl Levin, former chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, ``Why Hawks Should Support the Iran Deal''; Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor for two Republican Presidents and general, strongly supports this deal; GEN Colin Powell, Republican, Secretary of State, strongly supports this deal. There is bipartisan support for this deal. It is just that in this body the minority has been willing to have differences of opinion and respect those differences and not approach this in a partisan manner. That is not exactly the case with respect to the other side. I applaud my colleagues for treating this as a matter of conscience, for reaching the conclusions they reached, even differences of opinion, and respecting each other's views. Under the terms of the review act, as we agreed to it, we have now taken a vote. Unless the majority will allow us to have a vote on the merits, pursuant to the 60-vote threshold, this vote will stand and the deal will go forward. I hope we can vote on the merits. I hope the majority will agree to let us do what we agreed to do when we passed the review act just a couple of months ago. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for Michael Pascual, a fellow in my office, to be granted floor privileges during today's session.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I thank my ranking member and friend, the Senator from Maryland, for those kind words. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Iran deal currently being debated in the Senate. We have not had a national security issue during my time in the Senate that has received so much attention in committee and on the floor of this body as this, and that is appropriate. The debate has been, and will continue to be, thorough and vigorous. That is appropriate, and I respect the views of my colleagues regardless of how they will vote on this matter. I wish to spend a few minutes recapping why I support the deal. I did speak on the floor early in August about this. Since that time, a number of leaders have come out in support of the deal: former Senators John Warner, Richard Lugar, Sam Nunn, and Carl Levin; General Brent Scowcroft, General Colin Powell; and today, former head of the IAEA Commission Uzi Eilam. After I briefly talk about my reasons for support, I want to address three final points: one, the Republican argument on the floor today that it is wrong to have a 60-vote threshold for the vote on a resolution of disapproval; two, the arguments that Vice President Cheney made against the deal yesterday; three, finally, the place of vigorous diplomacy as a tool of American strength. So first, to quickly recap why I support the deal: I support it because it is better than the status quo for 15 to 25 years. I don't compare it with a hypothetical alternative. We can create a hypothetical to justify a position. If we can, let's talk about the status quo. Before diplomacy started, Iran had rocketed ahead to 19,000 centrifuges and 12,000 kilograms of enriched uranium, a plutonium reprocessing facility under construction, and we had very few inspections. The system was very opaque. That was the status quo. The best description of the Iranian status quo was the description that Prime Minister Netanyahu made to the U.N. in September of 2012. That was a speech known because he drew a bomb dialogue, and that sort of cartoon was known. But if we go into the guts of his speech, he gave a description of where the Iranian program was, and then he concluded and he said this: I want to thank the international community because the sanctions you have imposed together have hurt the Iranian economy, but ``we have to face the truth.'' The sanctions have not stopped the Iranian nuclear program. In fact, there is a pretty good argument that the sanctions accelerated the program. So if we go back to the status quo, it is an accelerated program, with 19,000 centrifuges and enough enriched uranium for multiple weapons. What we get with this deal, for 15 years disabling two-thirds of the centrifuges, for 15 years rolling back enriched uranium to 300 kilograms--not even enough for one weapon--for permanently disabling the plutonium facility, for 25 years enhanced inspections--more than any nation has to comply with--we get in this deal much better than we would have with the status quo that existed before diplomacy, and that is why I support it. The second point, the argument about the 60-vote threshold. I am surprised to hear arguments on the floor that it is somehow wrong to use a 60-vote threshold on this bill. When I was in my first 2 years in the Senate and in the majority, the 60-vote threshold was used on everything--immigration, minimum wage, turning off the sequester. Sometimes we exceeded the 60-vote threshold. Many times we exceeded 50 votes, but we couldn't get to 60 on minimum wage. We couldn't get to 60 on turning off the threshold, but there was an insistence: We need to get to 60 votes. I can't think of a single issue of importance in my first 2 years in the Senate where the 60-vote threshold wasn't invoked. As my ranking member, Senator Cardin, mentioned, I was one of the coauthors of the Review Act under which we are now proceeding. The act was clear, and it was understood by all that action in the Senate to pass either a motion of approval or a motion of disapproval, either one, would be by a 60-vote threshold. We talked about this explicitly in committee, we talked about it before the vote on the floor, and we voted in favor of the act by a 98-to-1 margin. I think the current majority party understood that. As was indicated in the letter of 47 to the leadership of Iran, it was stated very plainly we would understand this would be a three-fifths, 60-vote threshold. That is what happens in the Senate, so we shouldn't change the rules now. The debate has been full, vigorous, and fair. We have spent a lot of time on this and we are going to spend more, and that is appropriate. There is now a complete accountability because all 100 Senators have declared exactly where they are and their position. We should stick with the agreement we made a few months ago, and treat this Resolution of Disapproval under a 60-vote rule. Point No. 3, the Vice President's arguments yesterday. I respond to them because I think Vice President Cheney basically made two arguments, and they are the two arguments that have been repeated in different ways on the floor. Let me address those two main arguments. No. 1, we can't trust Iran. I agree. I think everyone on the Democratic side agrees, and there is nothing about this deal that involves trust. That is why we have insisted that Iran subject itself to intrusive inspections by the IAEA for 25 years, and then, following that, to the additional protocol inspections required of all NPT members. The IAEA inspections--130-plus inspectors in the country--will enable us to catch Iran cheating and give us the intel that will be incredibly helpful if we ever need to take military action against them. It is that inspections intel that caused our two former colleagues, Senators John Warner and Carl Levin--chairs of the Armed Services Committee--to write an article recently, ``Why Hawks Should Also Back the Iran Deal.'' It is because inspections give us intel, which increases the credibility of our military threat. Now, the Vice President's response to this, interestingly enough, is: Wait. We can't trust IAEA inspections. They are going to do it wrong. They have the wrong protocols, and we can't trust them. Folks, that argument has been made in this body before by the Vice President and others. Vice President Cheney promoted that we go to war with Iraq, and he repeatedly made the case in 2002 and 2003 that we had to do that to stop Iraq's nuclear weapons program. Two weeks before the war began, in early March, the IAEA issued a report indicating, ``we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq.'' The Vice President then went to the airwaves with others and led a campaign to trash the credibility of the IAEA, to say that neither the integrity of their inspections nor their accuracy could be trusted. After that, we entered into war against Iraq saying that the IAEA was wrong. And what did we find? What we found was the inspectors and investigators and engineers and scientists of the IAEA were right, and Vice President Cheney and others were wrong. We have been down the path before of trying to trash the IAEA and said they couldn't be trusted, and it was a horrible disservice to America and the world that we didn't give those inspections a chance. We shouldn't go down that path again. The Vice President made a second argument yesterday--here is a different and better strategy for dealing with Iran--the same strategy that the previous administration followed: Heavy sanctions, threats of military force, but no diplomacy. But the Cheney doctrine didn't work with Iran. Under that strategy, the Iranian nuclear program rocketed ahead, centrifuges, enriched uranium, growing by the day. The Prime Minister of Israel, Prime Minister Netenyahu, acknowledged this before the U.N. in September of 2012. And when the Vice President was confronted with this by Chris Wallace over the weekend on television, he had no answer for it. He couldn't answer for it because the advance of the Iranian program under the Cheney doctrine cannot be disputed. I was interested in his speech yesterday when he tried to justify that the strategy had worked when they tried it. Again, he ignored it. So if we go back to the preferred doctrine of no diplomacy, sanctions, and military threat, we are likely to get what we just got before, and that is an acceleration of the Iranian nuclear program. We should not go back down that path. Let me conclude with a story about my favorite President, Harry Truman. Truman was a bold and courageous wartime President. He fought in World War I as a captain. He made tough decisions to use the atomic weapons in Japan. He came back to a war-weary Congress and said: Give military support to Greece against Soviet bloc expansion. He came to a war-weary Congress and said: We have to put troops into North Korea. Nobody would say Harry Truman was a softy. He had military bona fides. Truman also was the President who made sure that America was the first nation to recognize the State of Israel, and he always held that as one of his proudest accomplishments. It is one of the reasons that he is my favorite President. In October 1945, 70 years ago next month, President Truman did something that seems minor but was really important. He called reporters into his office at the White House and said: I have something to show you. He unveiled that he had redesigned the seal of the Presidency of the United States. The seal is the eagle. The seal has the arrows of war in one claw and the olive branches of diplomacy in the other claw. Truman had redesigned the seal so that the eagle was now turned to face the olive branches of diplomacy before the arrows of war--this wartime President. He explained: Look, I am a wartime President and I will use military force, but American values are such that we should always prefer diplomacy before the military. We have the strongest military in the world. As a Virginian, I am so proud of it. We use it when needed. I have voted twice in 2\1/2\ years in the Senate as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to use military force. When I cast that vote, it is a very personal one for my State, for me, and my family. These votes are the hardest votes we take. But Truman believed--and I believe--that it is fundamentally a part of our values that we prefer diplomacy first. Before we use military action, we have to be engaged in vigorous diplomacy with allies and adversaries if we can see a path to possibly create a more peaceful world. Other Presidents have reached the same conclusion, not only President Truman--President Kennedy, in negotiating the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union; President Nixon, in going to China when China was supporting the North Vietnamese against us; President Reagan, in negotiating against the evil empire, the Soviet Union, over their nuclear program; and now President Obama. Our great Presidents have realized that diplomacy isn't just for friends. Diplomacy is important, even and especially with adversaries if you can see a path--a possibility--to a more peaceful world. Here is something that is fascinating. Just as a strong military enhances diplomacy, strong diplomacy enhances our military might. That is true in this case. If we do a deal, we get an Iranian pledge that they will never pursue, develop or acquire nuclear weapons, caps on their programs for 15 years, and inspections forever. These tools will increase our intelligence. They will increase our legal justification to take military action if they break the pledge that is in paragraph 1 of the agreement. It will also increase the likelihood that America will have global support if military action is necessary. But what if we walk away from diplomacy now? We lose the military intelligence that inspections will give us. We give up a clear legal justification for military action if--God forbid--we should need it. We weaken the likelihood that other nations will support military action if it is necessary. In this case, diplomacy strengthens--not weakens--the American credibility of our military threat. Trying diplomacy here will keep the world's attention on Iranian behavior. Walking away from diplomacy here will put the world's attention on American negotiating tactics and why we decided that we would rather go it alone. I believe the article I branch should send the message that we value diplomacy as a first option, just as President Truman did 70 years ago. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today for a sad occasion, and that is to remember the lives of two Virginians, Alison Parker and Adam Ward, the journalists who were gunned down on live TV in Roanoke, VA, just a couple of weeks ago, as they covered a local news story. There was a third victim in that shooting, Vicki Gardner, the president of the local chamber of commerce at Smith Mountain Lake, who is recovering. She was released from the hospital today, but she still has a long recovery ahead of her. We saw during the summer a set of these tragedies in Roanoke, VA, my wife's hometown, in Charleston, SC, in Lafayette, LA, and in Chattanooga, TN. My friend, the Senator from Tennessee, is on the floor. In Virginia, the shooting in Roanoke, which was carried out on live television, was horrific in itself, but it also was horrific because it brought up a lot of bad memories. The Roanoke community is within about 25 miles from Virginia Tech, where the horrible shooting happened in 2007 that killed 32 people and wounded dozens of others. I spoke on the Senate floor in April on the eighth anniversary of that shooting. I talked, as is my habit to do in April, about the lives of those who lost their lives but also about some who survived and what they are doing today. I am saddened to be here because it is just another example of a horrible shooting in my Commonwealth. It is also sad because we really haven't made any progress in this body since I came to it in terms of trying to address this issue. There is a lot of work to be done--legislative and otherwise--to try to address the growing litany of these horrific crimes, which deeply scar our own psyche and, frankly, I think, portray a picture of who we are as a nation to the rest of the world that is not accurate about who we are. I am going to introduce a bill that I think can help us address it. It is not the end-all solution because there isn't a single solution. But I am going to talk a little bit about Alison and Adam, and then I wish to talk about the bill. Alison and Adam worked on a show on WDBJ, the ``Mornin'' program. They were sort of hometown heroes. Not only were they popular because they worked for the station, they were both from the hometown. Roanoke is where my wife grew up. I am very, very familiar with the wonderful Roanoke community. They both interned at WDBJ when they were in college. They were passionate members of this journalistic profession, and they were just starting on these great careers. Alison Parker grew up in Martinsville, which is just up the road from Roanoke, about a 45-minute drive. She played the trumpet and French horn in high school. She graduated from James Madison University. When she was at James Madison, she interned at WDBJ. They loved her work, and they gave her a recommendation. Her first job was not there at WDBJ, but it was in North Carolina. But as soon as she could move from North Carolina back to Virginia, that is what she did. She came back to her hometown station. She covered all kinds of news and human interest stories, including a recent piece on child abuse that was a very powerful one. Her colleagues describe her as ``proactive'' and ``wise beyond her years.'' She met her boyfriend, whom she was planning to marry, while working at WDBJ. Adam Ward went to Salem High School. Salem is the city that adjoins Roanoke. He graduated in 2007 and played football on two State championship football teams. Teachers there describe him as ``vivacious,'' ``kind,'' ``giving,'' ``respectful,'' and ``genuine.'' He had passion for Virginia Tech, the local college. He started to go to Tech football games with his dad when he was 3 years old. He interned also at WDBJ when he was a communications student at Tech. His colleagues remembered him as somebody willing to get the image that reporters need. We all know in this line of work the guys behind the camera are so important to it. They make the on-camera talent shine, and that was the way Adam was. He loved to play tricks on the on-camera talent, kind of tweak them and make them not get above their station in life, but he was a wonderful guy. He found love at the station too. He had become engaged to a producer at the station who sadly was watching in the station the day that the footage of him being killed was shown, which shocked the world. I really feel for these families. I know we all do. You couldn't have watched that without having a feeling, even if you were a thousand miles away from the Ward and Parker families. I remember having said to the Virginia Tech families this: It would be presumptuous of me, and so I am not going to say I know what you have lost, because I don't know what you have lost. But when you hear about these people, I do feel like I have a sense of what the world lost, I have a sense of what the community lost. I don't know what the parents and the siblings lost, but you kind of have a sense when you hear about these people from those at WDBJ, the Roanoke community, the community of journalists. You kind of have a sense of what we lost as a society when they were killed. I should just say a word. Since 2002, Vicki Gardner has worked at the Smith Mountain Lake Regional Chamber of Commerce. It is a major tourism area in Virginia, a State park. It is a feature that was created by a hydroelectric dam, and they were celebrating its 35th anniversary. She was deeply involved in the planning. Again, she was badly wounded. She has described maneuvering around to try to duck bullets as she was shot in her back. She has had a couple of operations, but, thank God, she has been released to go home today, and we are thinking about her too. I said the shooting opened a lot of old wounds in Virginia, and especially in this community, sadly, because Virginia Tech is so close. When I spoke on the floor in April, I talked about two of these young people, Colin Goddard and Lily Habtu, who survived that shooting. Just think of the effect upon their lives 8 years later, as they deal with injuries that continue to be a challenge, and they deal with the horrible memories of that day. That was probably one of the most scarring events in modern history in Virginia. Everybody knows where they were, and everybody knew somebody connected to it. We have revisited the cycle of shock, then anger, then calls for change, then wondering what the right changes were, and sympathy for the families. But we haven't really changed, and I would just humbly submit that I think there are things that we can do--reasonable things we can do that will bring some accountability. It will not eliminate these instances. It is beyond our power to eliminate evil. We cannot do that. We have to be humble about it. But in every area we work on, we can work in this body with the thought that we can do things that will make situations better and that will promote incremental improvements. Responsible Transfer of Firearms Act Mr. President, I wish to speak about a bill that I am going to introduce called the Responsible Transfer of Firearms Act. As we all know, current Federal law prohibits nine categories of people from getting weapons. Probably the most known are convicted felons, people who have been adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous, and people who are under domestic violence prevention orders. This is a bipartisan Federal law. Categories have been added over time in a bipartisan way by the House and the Senate. As far as I know, there is bipartisan support for this provision because you never see bills introduced to eliminate these categories of what I will call prohibited persons. These are people whom many in Congress--bicamerally and bipartisanly--have determined should not possess weapons. Now, the problem is a whole lot of those people do get weapons because folks either give or sell them to them. What is the current law with respect to giving or selling a weapon to somebody who is prohibited? The current law basically is kind of a no-responsibility law. You are criminally liable if you give or sell a weapon to somebody who is in those nine prohibited categories, but you are only criminally liable if you knew or should have known that they were prohibited. I practiced law for a while. That makes prosecution virtually impossible, because somebody will give somebody a weapon or sell it to them and then they will say: Well, I didn't know he was a felon. I didn't know he had been adjudicated mentally ill or dangerous. There is no obligation on behalf of the seller. Now, we have put obligations on sellers all the time--affirmative duties and obligations--but in this area, we don't put an obligation on the part of a seller other than a registered and licensed gun dealer, who must go through a background check. We don't put any kind of obligation on anybody to do even minimal, reasonable steps to make sure that somebody is lawfully able to possess a weapon. So what the Responsible Transfer of Firearms Act would do is it would revise the current formula. The current formula does have a liability for sellers but only under an elevated standard that really is almost impossible to meet. We would amend the Federal code, not to change the nine categories--those are the same--not to change the punishments for selling or transferring to them--that would stay the same--but we adjust the responsibility. It is a responsibility and accountability act. So if you are putting a weapon in somebody's hands, either selling it or transferring it, you have to take ``reasonable steps'' to determine that the recipient is not prohibited from having that weapon. ``Reasonable steps'' is included in the statute--just those words. We don't say: You can only do that by showing one of the following five things. You can take any reasonable steps you think are necessary, but you have to take reasonable steps. That is what this change in law would do. If you cannot show satisfaction to a court that you have taken reasonable steps, then you will be liable for putting the weapon into somebody's hands whom the Federal Government has said is not able to possess such a weapon. This shift from the current framework would promote accountability and responsibility. Why should we let a seller just casually put a firearm into the hands of somebody who is prohibited by law from having it? Why should we do that? Why shouldn't there be some minimal accountability for a seller who is putting a weapon in the hands of somebody who has been determined not able to possess a weapon? We put burdens on sellers. This is not a precise analogy, but if you go in and try to buy beer in a place, you are going to get carded. Why is that? Well, because we have put an affirmative burden on the sale of alcohol so that the seller has to make some effort to determine that the recipient is not prohibited from having it. We do the same thing with tobacco. There are other laws that put burdens on sellers as well, and this a minimal one--take reasonable steps. To me the lives of some of these people who have been gunned down in those horrible crimes are just worth it. Let's just take reasonable steps. The reasonable steps won't solve all the cases, but it will help keep weapons out of the hands of those whom we have determined, in this body, shouldn't have them. I close and just say this: Of course, we have to be humble enough to acknowledge there is no one solution to the epidemic of gun violence nor is there a complete solution to it. There is nothing that we can do that will eliminate the possibility that we could wake up tomorrow and see the same thing on TV. Human beings will do evil things. That is not going to change. That is not going to be eliminated by what we do here. But what we do as legislators in legislation is basically believe-- and if we didn't believe this, we wouldn't be in this body--that as we legislate, we can improve situations. We cannot eliminate the possibility, but we can improve it. We can make it less likely that one of these prohibited individuals will get a weapon in their hands and use it against others. So I just conclude where I started. Alison and Adam were wonderful people. This is a community that is still really grieving. What compounds grief in my experience--not as a legislator but as a person--what compounds and deepens grief is a sense of hopelessness. Wow, this horrible thing happened. We have had this horrible loss, and there is nothing we can do about it. That tends to turn grief into despair and depression. Sadly, I was Governor when the shooting at Virginia Tech took place, and I had to deal with 32 families and more who had been injured, and the broader community was hurting so much. When you have gone through an experience--and we see this in our own personal life because everybody has had grief in their own personal lives. If you go through an experience where there is a lot of grief and loss and you feel that it is pointless or there is nothing you can do to improve it or transform it into something better or improve it so that maybe somebody else won't have to suffer through the same experience, that tends to take grief and turn it into something even more damaging--despair and hopelessness. I think one of the things we are called to do as legislators in situations where there is grief is to show there is some hope we can improve, because I believe we can improve. I have seen too many instances legislatively and in the lives of people that we can improve and we can get better, and as a nation we need to get better on this issue. This bill won't do it all, but I think it will be a sensible way to get better and to show those who are suffering and maybe even despairing under this epidemic of gun violence that we are not just going to accept it and sink deeper into despair and grief, but grab on to it and try to make improvements. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, we are about to start our traditional August recess. Congress is in an interesting place because we not only get a recess--a vacation--as many Americans do, but we are legally required to take one. That is right. By an act of Congress, Congress is required, absent a separate agreement, to take a month off during August. I learned that just yesterday during a great presentation from one of our Senate Historians, Kate Scott. This mandated August adjournment is part of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970. The act provides that in odd-numbered years, the Houses adjourn from the first Friday in August until the Tuesday after Labor Day. There is an exception: The mandated recess ``shall not be applicable if on July 31 of such year a state of war exists pursuant to a declaration of war by Congress.'' Again, the mandated recess is not applicable if on July 31 of such year a state of war exists pursuant to a declaration of war by Congress. This provision makes basic sense, doesn't it? Congress shouldn't go out for a mandatory 30-day vacation when the Nation is at war. It is not right that American troops should risk their lives overseas far from home while Congress takes a month off. The Congress that passed this bill in 1970 had an expectation about how serious war was and how Congress--the institution charged with declaring war--would treat such a serious obligation. Well, we are about to go on a 1-month adjournment with the Nation at war. In fact, this Saturday, August 8, marks 1 year since President Obama initiated U.S. airstrikes against the Islamic State in northern Iraq. In the past year, more than 3,000 members of the U.S. military have served in Operation Inherent Resolve--and thousands are there now-- launching more than 4,500 airstrikes, carrying out Special Forces operations, and assisting the Iraqi military, the Kurdish Peshmerga, and Syrians fighting the Islamic State. Virginians connected with the USS Roosevelt carrier group are stationed there right now. We have made major gains in northern Iraq and, more recently, in northern Syria, but the threat posed by the Islamic State continues to spread in the region and beyond. The war has cost over $3.2 billion through mid-July--an average of $9.5 million a day--and seven American servicemembers have lost their lives serving in support of the mission. Recently we have heard that the administration may be expanding the scope of the war to defend U.S.-trained Syrian fighters against attacks, including from the Assad regime. We are expanding our cooperation with Turkey in the region. We even hear rumors of a U.S.- Turkish humanitarian zone in northern Syria. Each of these steps is potentially significant and could lead to even more unforeseen expansions of the ongoing war. We have already had testimony by military leaders to suggest that the war will likely go on for years. But as the war expands and our troops risk their lives far from home and as we prepare to go on our traditional 1-month recess, a tacit agreement to avoid debating this war persists in Washington. The President maintains that he can conduct this war without authorization from Congress. He waited more than 6 months after the war started to even send Congress a draft authorization of the mission. Congressional behavior has been even more unusual. Although vested with the sole power to declare war by article I of the Constitution, Congress has refused to meaningfully debate or vote on the war against the Islamic State. A Congress quick to criticize any Executive action by the President has nevertheless encouraged him to carry out an unauthorized war. As far as our allies, the Islamic State, or our troops know, Congress is indifferent to this war. I first introduced a resolution to force Congress to do its job and to debate this war in September of 2014. That led in December to an affirmative vote by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to authorize the war with specific limitations. But the matter wasn't taken up on the floor because the Senate was about to change to a new majority, and that party wanted to analyze the issue afresh. Six months then went by, and Senator Jeff Flake and I introduced, finally, a bipartisan war resolution in June to prod the Senate to take its constitutional responsibility seriously after so many months of inaction. We wanted to show there is a bipartisan consensus against the Islamic State. The result: a few discussions in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but otherwise silence. One year of war against the Islamic State has transformed a President who was elected in part because of his early opposition to the Iraq War into an Executive war President. It has stretched the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force that was passed to defeat the perpetrators of 9/11 far beyond its original meaning or intent. It has shown to all that neither the Congress nor the President feels obliged to follow the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which requires the President to cease any unilateral military action within 90 days unless Congress votes to approve it. And it has demonstrated that Congress would rather avoid its constitutional duty to declare war than have a meaningful debate about whether and how the United States should militarily confront the Islamic State. This 1-year anniversary also coincides a few minutes ago with a vigorous congressional effort to challenge U.S. diplomacy regarding the Iranian nuclear agreement. The contrast between congressional indifference to war and its energetic challenge to diplomacy is most disturbing. So, why isn't Congress doing its job? Last month I asked Marine Commandant Joseph Dunford, nominated to be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whether congressional action to finally authorize the war against the Islamic State would be well received by American troops. His answer said it all. ``I think what our young men and women need--and it's really all they need to do what we ask them to do--is a sense that what they're doing has purpose, has meaning, and has the support of the American people.'' A debate in Congress by the people's elected representatives and a vote to authorize the most solemn act of war is how we tell our troops that what they are doing--what they are risking their lives for--``has purpose, has meaning, and has the support of the American people.'' Otherwise, we are asking them to risk their lives without even bothering to discuss whether the mission is something we support. Can there be anything-- anything--more immoral than that--to order troops to risk their lives in support of a military mission that we are unwilling even to discuss? One year in, our servicemembers are doing their jobs, but they are still waiting on us to do ours. And as I conclude--oh, yeah, what about that August recess? How can we go away and adjourn for a month in the midst of an ongoing war? Why, that is easy. The part of the statute that creates an exception for the mandatory August adjournment applies only if there has been ``a declaration of war by the Congress.'' Because we haven't even bothered to debate or authorize this war in the year since it started, we are still entitled by statute to take the month of August off. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes, recognizing that it is after 12:30 p.m.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, in November 2013, the United States and five global powers, the P5+1, announced an interim deal to freeze Iran's nuclear program and negotiate a diplomatic resolution to one of the most challenging issues affecting global security. Since then, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, I participated in scores of hearings, classified briefings, meetings, and calls about this topic in Virginia, Washington, and during five trips to the Middle East, including two trips to Israel. I have listened to the administration, to allies in the Middle East and elsewhere, to current and former Senate colleagues--especially former Armed Services Chairmen John Warner and Carl Levin--to national security and foreign policy experts, to critics and proponents of the deal, to American military leaders and troops, and also to my constituents. I helped write the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, under which Congress is currently engaging in a 60-day review period to approve or disapprove of the suspension of congressional sanctions as part of the final deal announced July 15. Based on my review of this complex matter, I acknowledge that every option before us involves risk with upside and downside consequences. I understand how people of good will can reach different conclusions, but I also conclude that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is a dramatic improvement over the status quo at improving global security for the next 15 years and, likely, longer. In this deal, America has honored its best traditions and shown that patient diplomacy can achieve what isolation and hostility cannot. For this reason, I will support the deal. Prior to the interim negotiation in November of 2013, and even in the face of a punishing international sanctions regime, Iran's nuclear program was marching ahead. Iran had amassed more than 19,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium, and that number was growing. Iran had produced more than 11,000 kilograms of enriched uranium, and that stockpile was growing. Iran had perfected the ability to enrich uranium to the 20-percent level, and that enrichment level was growing. Iran was constructing a heavy-water facility at Arak capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium, and Iran only allowed limited IAEA access to its declared nuclear facilities, shielding its operation and inspection of covert nuclear sites. The program, when diplomacy began, was months away from being able to produce enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the United Nations in 2012: For over seven years, the international community has tried sanctions with Iran. Under the leadership of President Obama, the international community has passed some of the strongest sanctions to date. . . . It's had an effect on the economy, but we must face the truth. Sanctions have not stopped Iran's nuclear program. We must face the truth. A punishing sanctions regime did not stop Iran's nuclear program. The nuclear program will only stop by a diplomatic agreement or by military action. While military action has to be an option, it is in America's interest--and in the interest of the entire world--to use every effort to find a diplomatic resolution. In fact, that was the purpose of the Iranian sanctions to begin with-- to open a path to a diplomatic solution. We now have a diplomatic solution on the table. The JCPOA is not perfect because all parties made concessions, as is the case in any serious diplomatic negotiation. But it has gained broad international support because it prevents Iran from getting sufficient uranium for a bomb for at least 15 years. It also stops any pathway to a plutonium weapon for that period, and it exposes Iranian covert activity to enhanced scrutiny by the international community forever. Under the deal, Iran does the following: It affirms that ``under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons,'' it reduces its quantity of centrifuges by more than two- thirds, and it slashes its uranium stockpile by 97 percent to 300 kilograms for 15 years. This is dramatically less than what Iran would need to produce even a single weapon. It caps the enrichment level of the remaining uranium stockpile at 3.67 percent. It reconfigures the Iraq reactor so that it can no longer produce weapons-grade plutonium. It commits to a series of limitations on R&D activities to guarantee that any nuclear program will be ``for exclusively peaceful purposes'' in full compliance with international nonproliferation rules. Finally, Iran agrees to a robust set of international inspections of its declared nuclear facilities, its entire uranium supply chain, and its suspected covert facilities by a team of more than 130 international inspectors. After year 15, the unique caps and requirements imposed on Iran are progressively lifted through year 2025. After year 25, Iran is permanently obligated to abide by all international nonproliferation treaty requirements, including the extensive inspections required by the NPT Additional Protocol, and its agreement that it will never ``seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons'' continues forever. If Iran breaks this agreement, nuclear sanctions may be reimposed. The United States reserves the right to sanction Iran for activities unrelated to its nuclear program, including support for terrorism, arms shipments, and human rights violations. Finally, and importantly, the United States and our partners maintain the ability to use military action if Iran seeks to obtain a nuclear weapon in violation of this deal. The knowledge of the Iranian program gained through extensive inspections will improve the effectiveness of any military action, and the clarity of Iran's commitment to the world--in the first paragraph of the agreement--that it will never pursue nuclear weapons will make it easier to gain international support for military action should Iran violate their unequivocal pledge. This deal does not solve all outstanding issues with an adversarial regime. In that sense, it is similar to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty President Kennedy negotiated with the Soviet Union in the midst of the Cold War. Iran's support for terrorism remains a major concern, and we must increase efforts with our regional allies to counter those malign activities. But at the end of the day, this agreement is not about making an ally out of an adversary, it is about denying an adversary a path to obtaining nuclear weapons. This deal takes a nuclear weapons program that was on the verge of success and disables it for many years through peaceful diplomatic means with sufficient tools for the international community to verify whether Iran is meeting its commitments. I hope this resolution might open the door to diplomatic discussion of other tough issues with Iran. In conclusion, monitoring this agreement and countering Iran's nonnuclear activity will require great diligence by the United States, our allies, and the IAEA, and there will be an important role for Congress in this ongoing work. I look forward to working with my colleagues on measures to guarantee close supervision and enforcement of this deal. That work will be arduous, but it is far preferable to allowing Iran to return to a march toward nuclear weapons. It is also far preferable to any other alternative, including war. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join my bipartisan Virginia colleagues Senator Mark Warner and Congressmen Robert Hurt and Morgan Griffith in introducing the Commonsense Permitting for Job Creation Act of 2015, a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation to address an aspect of water permitting law that has touched several economic development projects in Virginia. Southern Virginia has seen great economic challenges in recent years due to the overall economic downturn compounded by fundamental changes to the region's traditional industries such as manufacturing, textiles, and tobacco. Throughout this region there are several business park sites that could be developed to accommodate one or multiple manufacturing operations. County economic development authorities have worked to secure all necessary permits and authorities to develop these sites but have encountered an issue pertaining to Clean Water Act Section 404 permits. Several of these counties have had difficulty securing approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for 404 permits because the Corps is reluctant to issue a permit without a company that has committed to the site and prepared detailed development blueprints. In speaking to potential companies, county officials have heard that it is difficult for a company to commit to a site without assurance that all government permits are secured. This has created a ``chicken and egg'' conundrum-- a company will not relocate to the site without an approved permit, but a permit cannot be approved without a company willing to relocate. This legislation simply addresses that regulatory ambiguity by specifying that the lack of a committed end-user shall not be the sole reason to deny a Corps permit that meets all other legal requirements under Section 404. I believe Federal, State, and local stakeholders can work in good faith to follow all laws protecting our water resources, while taking reasonable steps to make it easier to pursue economic development opportunities in economically distressed communities. My colleagues and I introduced a version of this bill in the previous Congress, and we were pleased to help speed the process that led to the approval of a permit for the Commonwealth Crossing Business Center in Henry County, VA, last year. I am optimistic that this bill will help expedite approval of important economic development projects in a manner that is acceptable to all stakeholders. We are proud to be able to work across the aisle and with state and local officials on this commonsense, bipartisan solution.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, by 2020, it is estimated that 65 percent of all jobs will require at least some form of postsecondary education and training. The National Skills Coalition estimates that nearly half of all job openings between now and 2022 will be middle skill jobs that require education beyond high school, but not a 4-year degree. While the number of students pursuing postsecondary education is growing, the supply of skilled workers still falls short of industry demand. According to one estimate, the U.S. faces a shortfall of as many as 4.7 million new workers with postsecondary certificates by the year 2018 and according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 3.7 million U.S. jobs are currently vacant because of a shortage of qualified workers. Our current Federal higher education policy could be improved to help solve this problem. Pell Grants--the primary form of Federal tuition assistance for low-income and working students--can only be awarded towards programs that are over 600 clock hours or at least 15 weeks in length. These grants cannot be used to support many of the short-term occupational training programs at community and technical colleges and other institutions that provide skills and credentials employers need and recognize. When it comes to higher education, Federal policies need to support the demands of the changing labor market and support alternate career pathways that align with industry demand. According the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, shorter-term educational investments pay off--the average postsecondary certificate holder has 20 percent higher lifetime earnings than individuals with only a high school diploma. I am pleased to introduce the Jumpstart Our Businesses by Supporting Students or JOBS Act. The JOBS Act would amend the Higher Education Act by expanding Pell Grant eligibility to students enrolled in short-term skills and job training programs that lead to industry-based credentials and ultimately employment in in-demand industry sectors or careers. Since job training programs are shorter and less costly, Pell Grant awards would be half of the current discretionary Pell amount. The legislation defines eligible job training programs as those providing career and technical education instruction at an institution that provides at least 150 clock hours of instruction time over a period of at least 8 weeks and that provides training that meets the needs of the local or regional workforce. These programs must also provide students with licenses, certifications, or credentials that meet the hiring requirements of multiple employers in the field for which the job training is offered. The JOBS Act also ensures that students who receive Pell Grants are earning high-quality postsecondary credentials by requiring that the credentials meet the standards under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, are recognized by employers, industry, or sector partnerships, and align with the skill needs of industries in the States or local economies. We need to make sure that Federal student aid supports the demand of a 21st century economy. As Congress works to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, I hope that my colleagues ensure that Pell Grants are accessible for individuals participating in high-quality, short-term occupational training programs that are leading to industry-recognized credentials and certificates.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I also rise to celebrate this important anniversary. Fifty years ago today, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed into law Medicaid and Medicare with my favorite President sitting next to him, President Harry S. Truman. Mr. President, I came up and asked you a question, and I am proud to tell the whole Chamber, as everybody is listening, there is only, I think, one Member of the current U.S. Senate who was at the inauguration of LBJ, and it is the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Wyoming, who was at that inauguration in January of 1964. Clearly, the signature of Medicare and Medicaid was one of President Johnson's and one of our Nation's proudest legislative achievements. Medicare is the landmark program which makes sure seniors have access to health care, and Medicaid is equally critical. It helps low-income seniors, children, and people with disabilities get their necessary health care. Today I wish to talk about Medicaid. Others have spoken about Medicare earlier. Senator Casey did a good job speaking about Medicaid, and I want to do the same because I have seen the success of Medicaid as a mayor and as a Governor, and now as a Senator, it is absolutely critical. In 2014, as Senator Casey mentioned, Medicaid provided health coverage to nearly 70 million Americans, including 1 million Virginians. In Virginia, about 600,000 children, 2 out of every 7 kids, are covered through Medicaid or its companion program CHIP. Medicaid is important. The Presiding Officer is a physician, so he knows that Medicaid is not just coverage to get health care when you need it, it is also about financial security because health care bills are often what push families into bankruptcy or into financially stressful situations, so the Medicaid coverage that covers 70 million Americans gives them financial stability. Medicaid is about peace of mind. If you are completely healthy, but you are going to sleep at night wondering what will happen if your wife is in an auto accident or if your child becomes ill, that is a source of anxiety that is helped a little bit by having the coverage that Medicaid provides. It is also for people with disabilities. This is important to note. It is about independence. A lot of citizens with disabilities, because they are able to be on Medicaid, are able to work part time because Medicaid provides them with coverage that enables them to live independent lives. That is what Medicaid is about. Now, today at 50, we think Medicaid is a given, but let me remind everybody that Medicaid was controversial when it was passed 50 years ago. In the House and Senate there were a lot of ``no'' votes, and Medicaid was an opt-in program, not a mandate. States could decide whether to opt-in or not. A lot of States chose not to be a part of Medicaid. They were the slowpoke States. I think every family knows what I mean. Every family probably has a slowpoke. Frankly, I have a sister-in-law who is a slowpoke. If we are trying to go to church, a restaurant, or anywhere, we can always know that whatever time we say we will go, we will have this one family member who will likely be the slowpoke and hold everybody back. Well, States were like that in 1965. A lot of States wouldn't sign on to Medicaid. By 1972, 7 years later, 49 States had embraced Medicaid, but the 50th State, Arizona, didn't embrace Medicaid until 1982. It took them 17 years to embrace Medicaid. Arizona was the original Medicaid slowpoke. So Medicaid is now 50 years old. It was controversial at first, increasingly accepted, and later embraced. It kind of sounds familiar to me. The biggest change in the health care system since the signing of Medicaid and Medicare was the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act has so many benefits, such as protecting people with preexisting conditions, rebating premiums back to folks if they have to overpay their health insurers, making sure women don't have to pay different premiums than men, and there are so many other benefits. But the biggest benefit of the Affordable Care Act is that in the United States right now there are 16 million people with health insurance coverage who didn't have it before and are now able to walk around, go to work, and be with their families because of the expansion of Medicaid. Sixteen million is a very big number. I will put that in perspective. There are 16 million people who didn't have health insurance before and now have health insurance coverage because of the ACA. Sixteen million is the combined population of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The combined population of 15 States, plus the District of Columbia, has health care coverage because of the Affordable Care Act. But there is more to do. One piece of the ACA is the ability of States to expand Medicaid to cover those who make up to $16,000 a year. It is optional, just as Medicaid was in 1965. Thirty-one States have embraced the Medicaid expansion, but as of today, we have 19 slowpokes, and I am sad to say that Virginia is one of the slowpokes. Despite the best efforts of our current Governor, working so hard to try to get the State to accept Medicaid expansion, so far the legislature has blocked him from doing so. This is just like 1965, 50 years ago. There are States that get it and embrace the program, and then there are the slowpoke States. I am here today not just to say happy birthday to Medicaid and Medicare, but to urge Virginia and the other slowpokes to get with the program. Here is what it would mean in Virginia: If Virginia accepts the Medicaid expansion, it will open up the possibility of health care coverage to another 400,000 people. It would provide health care, financial security, independence for those with disabilities, and peace of mind even when you are well. If all 19 slowpoke States get on board, an additional 4 million Americans would get health insurance, which would take the ACA coverage number up to 20. Those are all the States I mentioned earlier, plus the State of Nevada--16 States and the District of Columbia. Now, you shouldn't be consigned to second-class health status in this country because you live in one of the 19 slowpoke States, especially since your taxpayers are paying taxes to provide you coverage. Senator Brown and I have authored a letter, which has been signed by many in this body, to the 19 slowpoke States. We asked them to join the program during Medicaid's 50th year. The program has an amazing legacy and a bright future. Don't be a slowpoke. Remember how I said that Arizona was the original slowpoke? It was the last State--17 years later--to embrace Medicaid in 1982. Well, they may have been the original slowpoke, but when it came to the ACA, they learned something. Arizona--with a Republican Governor, two Republican Senators, a Republican State legislature, an overwhelmingly Republican congressional delegation, and votes for Republican candidates in Presidential elections--is not a slowpoke. Arizona has embraced the ACA. They are now a jackrabbit. Good for them. I hope Virginia joins them soon. I hope that all remaining 19 States join them soon, and I hope that 4 million more Americans can have health insurance coverage with the health, financial security, and peace of mind that that will provide. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, by 2020, it is estimated that 65 percent of all jobs will require at least some form of postsecondary education and training. The National Skills Coalition estimates that nearly half of all job openings between now and 2022 will be middle skill jobs that require education beyond high school, but not a 4-year degree. While the number of students pursuing postsecondary education is growing, the supply of skilled workers still falls short of industry demand. According to one estimate, the U.S. faces a shortfall of as many as 4.7 million new workers with postsecondary certificates by the year 2018 and according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 3.7 million U.S. jobs are currently vacant because of a shortage of qualified workers. Our current Federal higher education policy could be improved to help solve this problem. Pell Grants--the primary form of Federal tuition assistance for low-income and working students--can only be awarded towards programs that are over 600 clock hours or at least 15 weeks in length. These grants cannot be used to support many of the short-term occupational training programs at community and technical colleges and other institutions that provide skills and credentials employers need and recognize. When it comes to higher education, Federal policies need to support the demands of the changing labor market and support alternate career pathways that align with industry demand. According the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, shorter-term educational investments pay off--the average postsecondary certificate holder has 20 percent higher lifetime earnings than individuals with only a high school diploma. I am pleased to introduce the Jumpstart Our Businesses by Supporting Students or JOBS Act. The JOBS Act would amend the Higher Education Act by expanding Pell Grant eligibility to students enrolled in short-term skills and job training programs that lead to industry-based credentials and ultimately employment in in-demand industry sectors or careers. Since job training programs are shorter and less costly, Pell Grant awards would be half of the current discretionary Pell amount. The legislation defines eligible job training programs as those providing career and technical education instruction at an institution that provides at least 150 clock hours of instruction time over a period of at least 8 weeks and that provides training that meets the needs of the local or regional workforce. These programs must also provide students with licenses, certifications, or credentials that meet the hiring requirements of multiple employers in the field for which the job training is offered. The JOBS Act also ensures that students who receive Pell Grants are earning high-quality postsecondary credentials by requiring that the credentials meet the standards under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, are recognized by employers, industry, or sector partnerships, and align with the skill needs of industries in the States or local economies. We need to make sure that Federal student aid supports the demand of a 21st century economy. As Congress works to reauthorize the Higher Education Act, I hope that my colleagues ensure that Pell Grants are accessible for individuals participating in high-quality, short-term occupational training programs that are leading to industry-recognized credentials and certificates.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join my bipartisan Virginia colleagues Senator Mark Warner and Congressmen Robert Hurt and Morgan Griffith in introducing the Commonsense Permitting for Job Creation Act of 2015, a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation to address an aspect of water permitting law that has touched several economic development projects in Virginia. Southern Virginia has seen great economic challenges in recent years due to the overall economic downturn compounded by fundamental changes to the region's traditional industries such as manufacturing, textiles, and tobacco. Throughout this region there are several business park sites that could be developed to accommodate one or multiple manufacturing operations. County economic development authorities have worked to secure all necessary permits and authorities to develop these sites but have encountered an issue pertaining to Clean Water Act Section 404 permits. Several of these counties have had difficulty securing approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for 404 permits because the Corps is reluctant to issue a permit without a company that has committed to the site and prepared detailed development blueprints. In speaking to potential companies, county officials have heard that it is difficult for a company to commit to a site without assurance that all government permits are secured. This has created a ``chicken and egg'' conundrum-- a company will not relocate to the site without an approved permit, but a permit cannot be approved without a company willing to relocate. This legislation simply addresses that regulatory ambiguity by specifying that the lack of a committed end-user shall not be the sole reason to deny a Corps permit that meets all other legal requirements under Section 404. I believe Federal, State, and local stakeholders can work in good faith to follow all laws protecting our water resources, while taking reasonable steps to make it easier to pursue economic development opportunities in economically distressed communities. My colleagues and I introduced a version of this bill in the previous Congress, and we were pleased to help speed the process that led to the approval of a permit for the Commonwealth Crossing Business Center in Henry County, VA, last year. I am optimistic that this bill will help expedite approval of important economic development projects in a manner that is acceptable to all stakeholders. We are proud to be able to work across the aisle and with state and local officials on this commonsense, bipartisan solution.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, Virginia has a proud tradition of academic excellence dating back to Thomas Jefferson and a deep appreciation for our beautiful and bountiful coastal waters that predates that. For 75 years, one Virginia academic institution has built a sterling reputation as a national leader in environmental education and a trusted source of information and analysis for generations of policymakers. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science at the College of William & Mary is celebrating its 75th anniversary in 2015. I am proud to join my bipartisan colleagues Senator Mark Warner and Congressman Rob Wittman in submitting a resolution to commemorate this milestone. VIMS research has yielded critical insights into the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers, informing the work of Virginia and other Chesapeake Bay States in striving to reduce pollution while growing outdoor recreation and the economic activity that goes with it. It has produced data and analysis that has contributed to the development of strategies to maintain robust oyster and crab populations, particularly through cooperative partnership with Virginia's commercial watermen. It has also developed technology and expertise that allows more precise projections than ever before of rates of sea level rise and recurrent flooding in the Hampton Roads region. Elected officials of both parties and at all levels of government in Virginia have benefitted from the expertise and objectivity that this institution brings to environmental policy. I was fortunate to have access to this valuable scientific asset as Governor of Virginia, and I continue to consider its thoughtful views on policy issues that come before Congress. I congratulate VIMS for 75 years of dedication to academic excellence and scientific achievement.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, on Friday, July 24, 2015, as a result of a clerical error, I was inadvertently listed as a cosponsor on McConnell amendment No. 2328. Today, a unanimous consent request was filed by the majority leader's office to remove my name as a cosponsor of this amendment. I did not cosponsor this amendment, do not support it, and voted against invoking cloture on it today.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maryland, and I second the comments she has made about the status of our employees who have been jeopardized. I am excited to work together on the legislation introduced last Friday to provide them some protection. Amendment No. 2118 Mr. President, I do rise on behalf of an amendment that will be voted on within the next hour, Kaine amendment No. 2118, which is a bipartisan amendment to the Every Child Achieves Act. It is an amendment to promote career readiness indicators and make sure our students, when they finish high school, are not just ready for college but they are ready for careers. This is part of a series of amendments I have worked on in a bipartisan basis, some of which have been included in the underlying bill and one of which was passed as a floor amendment last week. I thank the managers, Senators Alexander and Murray, for working together to support this bipartisan amendment. We need to work to make sure we help all of our students graduate from high school ready for postsecondary education and the workforce. Over the past 40 years, the percentage of jobs that require some form of postsecondary education has doubled from 29 percent to now nearly 60 percent, but the education system hasn't kept pace with the demand for a more highly educated and skilled workforce. More importantly, we need to define what that is--highly educated and skilled--to incorporate career and technical training, which, for a variety of reasons in the last generation or so, was sort of an undervalued part of the spectrum of American public education. Within a very few years--by 2020, when our pages are now going to be out in the workforce--two-thirds of jobs will require at least some form of postsecondary education. But projections demonstrate that as a nation we will fall short by nearly 5 million workers. We are already seeing these shortages and having to deal with them, for example, through specialty visas. That is fine for the economy, but wouldn't it be better if we could train those in school right now to be skilled in the areas where the jobs are needed? The career readiness amendment addresses this problem by encouraging--not requiring but encouraging--States to include in their accountability systems the types of indicators that demonstrate students are ready for postsecondary education and the workforce. These indicators would include State-designed measures to integrate rigorous academics, work-based learning and career and technical education, or technical skill attainment and placement. That will be the core of this bill. By doing this, we send a strong message to schools, businesses, parents, and students that it is critical to be prepared for the workforce of the 21st century regardless of postsecondary education plans. As I have talked to educators, counselors, and parents, they have often commented upon the degree to which career and technical training has sort of been downgraded and that students aren't encouraged in that area, even though there are great professions to achieve in this area. Under the amendment, schools and districts would have an incentive to partner with businesses and industries to provide career pathways for students. It is important for State accountability systems. I say this as a Virginian who is very proud of the Virginia accountability system. It is currently kind of managed by my wife, who is the secretary of education in Virginia. But it is important for these systems to measure and reward schools for helping students earn industry-recognized credentials or earn credit for college while in high school. Just as an example, if you are a Virginia student and you take the Virginia Standards of Learning Test and you pass, that doesn't necessarily mean anything in North Carolina, and much less Oregon. But if you are a Virginia high school student and you pass a Cisco Systems administrator exam, you can take that credential, move to Oregon and get a job tomorrow. These industry credentials are, in many ways, more known, more valued, and more portable than high school credentials State by State. Schools across the country are providing this kind of important learning opportunity. Here are just two examples, and then I will conclude. In Alexandria, just across the Potomac, the Academy of Finance at T.C. Williams High School instructs students in money management skills, financial planning, and business development. Students complete a 3-year sequential program, start working at an on- site credit union in the school, and they get early college credit for that financial literacy. At the other end of the State--in southwest Virginia, in Vinton, near the city of Roanoke--William Byrd High School, after struggling during the 1990s to prepare students for college and career, sought input from nearby businesses and implemented programs in engineering, communication, business, and marketing to match local job needs. These partnerships are helpful in helping students find jobs, and they have also engendered student interest in the curriculum. The school has a 90-percent graduation rate, and 83 percent of students go on to postsecondary education. I want to thank Senators Portman and Baldwin--I think Senator Portman was planning on speaking, and may still--for their involvement and working together with me on this particular amendment and on the Senate CTE Caucus. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan initiative, and again, I thank the bill managers for working together with us. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I also rise in support of the Every Child Achieves Act and the good work that is being done in a bipartisan way to move elementary and secondary education forward in this country. I applaud Senators Alexander and Murray and all HELP Committee members and their staff for the good work that has been done on this bill, which is hugely important to our Nation's children but even more importantly to our economy and our global competitiveness. The fact that we are approaching this in a bipartisan manner creates a lot of hope and optimism. I speak from a number of roles. I was well educated in public, private, and parochial schools myself. My three children have gone through the Richmond public school system, an urban public school system in Virginia, during the era of No Child Left Behind. So Federal education policy was coming home in their backpack, crumpled up at the end of every day. My wife and I have kind of lived through that with them. My wife is the current secretary of education in Virginia, with the responsibility of carrying out State and Federal education policy. In my own role, as an elected official--as mayor--education was our biggest expenditure, and I visited a school in our city every Tuesday morning. As Lieutenant Governor, in the State budget education was our biggest priority, and I visited schools in all 134 cities and counties in Virginia. Then, as Governor, I had the opportunity--the great opportunity--to work with our State, our teachers, our PTOs, and other educational stakeholders in the Virginia education system, which 50 years ago was one of the weakest in the United States, and I am proud to say is now one of the best in the United States. I learned a lot as Governor when No Child Left Behind was being implemented in the schools of my State. I saw the good and the bad of No Child Left Behind, and I certainly saw the reason that we need to improve it. That is what the Every Child Achieves Act does. First, I will speak about the good things of No Child Left Behind. There are two notable good things that, frankly, are critically important we maintain. No Child Left Behind made us disaggregate student data so that we couldn't hide behind averages. Averages can be deceiving. Virginia average test scores are great, but that doesn't mean they are great everywhere in Virginia. So we had to dig in and look at whether minority students were performing well or whether rural students were performing well or urban students. No Child Left Behind helped us to do that and not hide behind averages but really make sure that groups of students were not falling behind either statewide or in the individual cities and counties. The second thing No Child Left Behind did--which is pretty amazing-- was that before No Child Left Behind there was not a standardized definition of graduation or dropout rates in this country. So if you wanted to know how your own city was doing or your own county was doing or your own State was doing, and if you wanted to compare that against anywhere else, you couldn't because everybody was using their own measure. Usually folks would try to fuzz up the data because they were afraid of being held accountable around graduation rates and dropout rates. No Child Left Behind, together with some pioneering work from the National Governors Association, ended up standardizing the definition of graduation and dropout rates, which enabled us to compare and compete with each other. Not surprisingly, as President Obama discussed in the State of the Union in the early part of 2015, our graduation rates are better than they have ever been because now we can focus on them, we know who is doing well and who is not, and that sense of focus and competition is enabling us to move ahead. But No Child Left Behind also had some unintended negative consequences. The intense focus on high-stakes testing, which is supposed to help you diagnose and then lead to educational strategies down the road--sometimes testing has become an end in itself rather than a means to an end: better student performance. That creates all kinds of stresses on students and teachers and parents. Similarly, the focus on disaggregating student data which demonstrates that there are achievement gaps in certain communities, whether it be minority communities or rural or urban areas, has often had the perverse consequence, when coupled with high-stakes testing, of encouraging some of our best and brightest teachers not to want to go into the schools where they are most needed. If they feel as if they will be punished because the test scores are not as high with poor kids, for example, then they will often choose not to go to those schools. That is clearly not what we meant to do with No Child Left Behind, but that has been one of its perverse consequences. When I was Governor, I had a very funny--now it is funny; it was not funny at the time--argument with the Federal Department of Education. They absolutely insisted that jurisdictions in northern Virginia were administering certain tests wrong to students who don't speak English as their first language at home. Indeed, some of my cities and counties had a strategy of phasing students in. If they were coming from a background where they did not speak English at home, they would be tested in special ways for the first couple of years they were in the school system and then mainstreamed even in the way they were tested. The Department of Education said: You cannot do that. You cannot do these tests differently. What I would say to the Department of Education: Hey, let me show you the SAT scores of my Latino students. Let me show you how they are doing when they graduate, that they are some of the highest performing students in the country. Clearly, if you measure it by the outcomes, we are doing it the right way. But the Department of Education said: Outcomes do not matter to us. We worry about the processes and the inputs and the way you provide the tests. Well, outcomes should be important. Results should be important. Too often, No Child Left Behind was administered in a way where results did not matter. That is not what should happen. I applaud Senators Alexander and Murray for this bill because I believe the Every Child Achieves Act gives school districts and States the incentive to work for the success of all students but also the flexibility they need to close achievement gaps. The bill maintains critical annual testing requirements to allow us to track progress of students, while letting States set their own goals for improvement. The bill invests in early childhood education, which is critical to give States the authority to determine teacher qualifications in those areas. I am very glad this bill recognizes there are factors other than test scores that determine whether our students will be successful. I applaud this act. I cannot wait to vote for it. I would like to comment on two amendments I have worked with my team and my staff member Karishma Merchant, who is superb, to put into this bill--some that are already in and some that I think are forthcoming or are in the process on the floor. The first is the very important challenge of young people, age 16 to 24, who are in the most vulnerable time in their lives to being the victims of sexual assaults. A kid age 16 to 24--that is the most likely period in their life where they would be vulnerable to any kind of sexual assault or sexual misconduct. That is whether they are in school, college, the military, the workforce, or whether they are somewhere else. We are spending a lot of time working on this issue, but this bill contains an amendment I proposed called the Teach Safe Relationships Act to help tackle this issue. Basically, under the amendment Senator McCaskill and I introduced in February, schools that are receiving title IV funds must report on how they are teaching safe relationship behaviors to students--communication, understanding what coercion is, understanding what consent is, understanding how to avoid pressure, understanding where to go for help. These are matters which we will teach to our students at a younger age so they can keep themselves safe. I need to give praise on this one--the idea for this came from students at the University of Virginia. I went and visited with them about sexual assaults on campus in December. They told me: We wish we came to campus better prepared to deal with these issues. I asked them: Well, don't you take sex education classes in high school? They said: Yes, but the classes are about reproductive biology. There needs to be a little more about safe behavior and relationship strategies. I thought, what a great idea. That led to the amendment. The amendment has now been incorporated. I praise the students at UVA who put this on my radar screen. I thank Senators Alexander and Murray, who worked with me to incorporate this in the base bill. If we teach young kids the right strategies, whether they are in the military or on college campuses or in the workforce or anywhere else, our young students, 16 to 24, will be safer. The second series of amendments--some have been included and others have been voted on--one today and one will be voted on on Monday night--are amendments dealing with career and technical education. I was a principal of a school that taught kids to be welders and carpenters. I grew up the son of a guy who ran an iron-working shop. I am a huge believer in career and technical education. Every job in this country does not need the traditional 4-year bachelor's degree. In fact, there are many jobs in this country--and the unemployment rate is still too high--there are many jobs in this country that are going unfilled. We have to bring welders in on foreign visas and other important career and technical fields because we don't adequately promote and celebrate career and technical education. This is similar to the previous speech about STEM. I have formed a Career and Technical Education Caucus, together with Senators Portman and Baldwin. We introduced the Career Ready Act. Some portions have already been included in the bill, and another portion will be voted on on Monday night. But the idea is basically to make career and technical education every bit as front-and-center as college prep courses because we want our kids to graduate from high school both college- and career-ready. Career and technical education is an important part of that. Earlier today, we passed an amendment to make clear that for Federal purposes, career and technical education is not elective, it is core curriculum, because it is core, important education. Nations around the world recognize it. We need to as well. I have two additional amendments. We will consider one Monday night-- the Career Ready Act, which clarifies and encourages but does not require the use of accountability indicators in State accountability plans to promote readiness for postsecondary education and career readiness. Forty-one States already do this. We will encourage more to do it if we pass the career-ready amendment. Second, I have an amendment that I am still working on and hope to get in on the floor. It is bipartisan by introduction. Senator Ayotte and I have this. It is to create a middle school career and technical exploration program called Middle STEP. Kids in the middle school years, if they get a broader exposure to the careers that are available to them, they will be better equipped to start picking curricular paths when they go to high school. I am so passionate about the need for career and technical education because I lived it growing up in my dad's business and teaching kids in Honduras the value of career and technical fields. Everywhere I go in this country, I have employers who tell me they need workers who are skilled, whether it is allied health professionals, such as EMTs, or culinary training or welding and iron- working training or computer coding. These career and technical fields that require some postsecondary education but not necessarily a 4-year college degree are paths to great livelihoods. We do not often emphasize them enough. This bill will help us do that. I will close and say this: It has been 13 years since Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It is time to update No Child Left Behind, and this is good work to do it. President Kennedy said in a message to Congress in 1961--and these words still ring true: Our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progresses in education. Our requirements for world leadership, our hopes for economic growth, and the demands of citizenship itself in an era such as this all require the maximum development of every young American's capacity. That is almost a great 20th-century paraphrase of what a Virginian, Thomas Jefferson, said in the 1780s: Progress in government and all else depends upon the broadest possible diffusion of knowledge among the general population. Those words were true then. Senator Kennedy's words are true. Education is still the path to success for an individual or for a community and nation. We will advance the cause of education and the cause of success if we pass the Every Child Achieves Act. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 2096. CTE is a core academic subject. I grew up working in my dad's iron- working and welding shop. I ran a school that taught kids to be carpenters and welders in Honduras many years ago, and what I learned is that high-quality technical education is an important part of the educational spectrum. We downgraded it for a number of years, but there is a renaissance now. What my amendment would do is it would go into the current Federal law and specify that career and technical education programs are core curricula. Originally, English, math, and science were. This bill broadens what is a core curriculum to include computer science and foreign languages. This amendment would make plain that high-quality career and technical education is a core academic subject. I wish to thank Senators Ayotte, Merkley, Scott, Baldwin, and Warner as cosponsor. I also thank the chairman and ranking member for bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor. This is commonsense and bipartisan. I hope it will pass.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. I wish to commemorate Alzheimer's & Brain Awareness month. The impact of Alzheimer's is felt in families and communities across Virginia and the Nation, and this month provides an opportunity to stand with those suffering from Alzheimer's and other brain diseases to raise awareness. I am also proud to cosponsor S. 857, the Health Outcomes, Planning, and Education, HOPE, for Alzheimer's Act today. The challenges Alzheimer's poses for families are real. Financially and emotionally, Alzheimer's disease has a devastating impact as patients need to navigate medical information, access community services and prepare for living with this disease. In Virginia there are over 130,000 people living with Alzheimer's and that number is expected to grow to as many as 190,000 by 2025. Alzheimer's does not only impact the individual patient, but also changes the lives of family caregivers. In 2014, an estimated 452,000 family caregivers provided 514 million hours of care for individuals with Alzheimer's disease and dementia in Virginia. The cost is also significant for the Federal Government. Nearly one in every five Medicare dollars is spent on someone with Alzheimer's or dementia, and by 2050, it will be nearly $1 of every $3. In the years between 2015 and 2050, caring for people with Alzheimer's will cost our country $20.8 trillion. Research funding is critical, and action is needed to provide to support for newly diagnosed patients and families. The HOPE for Alzheimer's Act would ensure patients and their families have access to a care planning session with their doctor to help them understand the diagnosis, treatment options, and what medical and community services are available. Studies have shown that providing patients and families with a full range of information and support results in better outcomes for those living with Alzheimer's, including higher quality of care, increased use of needed community services, reduced patient behavioral and psychiatric symptoms, and reduced caregiver stress and depression. According to the Alzheimer's Association, only 45 percent of people with Alzheimer's disease or their caregivers report being told of their diagnosis. This legislation provides for Medicare coverage for comprehensive Alzheimer's disease care planning services. While Medicare covers Alzheimer's disease diagnostic services, it currently does not provide coverage for comprehensive care planning following a diagnosis. These critical services will allow patients and families to understand the diagnosis, receive information about medical and non-medical options for ongoing treatment, services and supports and how to access care. As a member of the Committee on Aging, I am committed to working with my colleagues to raise awareness about this devastating disease, and thank the Alzheimer's Association and other advocates for their strong voices during June and throughout the year.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, as the labor market of the 21st century continues to transform, it will be critical to ensure that American workers are equipped with the skills and expertise needed to meet the variety of demands in the global marketplace It is critical that we continue to reform and update our education system to ensure that America's students are prepared for cutting-edge careers. Today, many students enter high school and postsecondary education with little knowledge of the careers available to them outside of traditional pathways. Research has found that few middle school students have a lack of understanding of how what they are learning in school relates to careers. With college costs continuing to rise, it is critical that students have exposure to the wide range of available work and career choices early in their academic careers so that, by the time they enter high school, they are more informed about future paths and what they need to do to pursue them. Career and technical education, CTE, programs play a pivotal role in preparing students for America's job market, and are proven to help students explore their own strengths and preferences, and match up with potential future careers. However, a lack of Federal investment in middle school CTE programming often means students have to wait until high school for this exposure. Middle school is a critical time when students explore their own strengths, likes, and dislikes, and begin to form long-term career goals. Studies have found that middle school students who participate in career and technical education development programs that promote career exploration skills are able to make more informed career decisions by increasing knowledge of career options and career pathways that match their interests. Additionally, these programs play a positive role in engaging students in the classroom and on their academic success. I am proud to introduce the Middle School Technical Education Program Act, which establishes a pilot program for middle schools to partner with postsecondary institutions and local businesses to develop and implement career and technical exploration programs. This legislation will provide support for middle schools to create career and technical education programs that will provide students with introductory courses, hands-on learning, or afterschool programs. Career guidance and academic counseling is vital to ensuring that our students understand the educational requirements for high-growth, in-demand career fields. Many times students receive this information too late in their academic careers. We need to work to improve middle school education to prepare students for cutting-edge careers and expose students to the variety of career pathways. This legislation also requires that programs helps students draft a high school graduation plan that demonstrates what courses would prepare them for a given career field. If we provide youth with applied career exploration opportunities, they will be more informed about future paths and what they need to do to pursue them. I am hopeful this bill will help highlight current shortcomings in middle schools, and instigate further discussion on the importance of educating youth early on the multitude of educational and career pathways.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, as the labor market of the 21st century continues to transform, it will be critical to ensure that American workers are equipped with the skills and expertise needed to meet the variety of demands in the global marketplace It is critical that we continue to reform and update our education system to ensure that America's students are prepared for cutting-edge careers. Today, many students enter high school and postsecondary education with little knowledge of the careers available to them outside of traditional pathways. Research has found that few middle school students have a lack of understanding of how what they are learning in school relates to careers. With college costs continuing to rise, it is critical that students have exposure to the wide range of available work and career choices early in their academic careers so that, by the time they enter high school, they are more informed about future paths and what they need to do to pursue them. Career and technical education, CTE, programs play a pivotal role in preparing students for America's job market, and are proven to help students explore their own strengths and preferences, and match up with potential future careers. However, a lack of Federal investment in middle school CTE programming often means students have to wait until high school for this exposure. Middle school is a critical time when students explore their own strengths, likes, and dislikes, and begin to form long-term career goals. Studies have found that middle school students who participate in career and technical education development programs that promote career exploration skills are able to make more informed career decisions by increasing knowledge of career options and career pathways that match their interests. Additionally, these programs play a positive role in engaging students in the classroom and on their academic success. I am proud to introduce the Middle School Technical Education Program Act, which establishes a pilot program for middle schools to partner with postsecondary institutions and local businesses to develop and implement career and technical exploration programs. This legislation will provide support for middle schools to create career and technical education programs that will provide students with introductory courses, hands-on learning, or afterschool programs. Career guidance and academic counseling is vital to ensuring that our students understand the educational requirements for high-growth, in-demand career fields. Many times students receive this information too late in their academic careers. We need to work to improve middle school education to prepare students for cutting-edge careers and expose students to the variety of career pathways. This legislation also requires that programs helps students draft a high school graduation plan that demonstrates what courses would prepare them for a given career field. If we provide youth with applied career exploration opportunities, they will be more informed about future paths and what they need to do to pursue them. I am hopeful this bill will help highlight current shortcomings in middle schools, and instigate further discussion on the importance of educating youth early on the multitude of educational and career pathways.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise today to thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the debate and votes we will be casting today on the National Defense Authorization Act. We have come together in a bipartisan fashion, and we have spent significant time in committee and now on the floor to deal with countless provisions. This act is nothing if not detailed with countless provisions that are critical to the defense of the Nation. We have a long tradition of bipartisanship in this body on the NDAA. The Senate passes an NDAA in one form or another every year, and that can't be said about any other piece of legislation. I want to congratulate the new chairman, Senator McCain, and the new ranking member, Senator Reed, and I want to congratulate my colleagues who serve together on the committee, including our Presiding Officer, and also all of our staff, both our personal staff and committee staff--I see some committee staff here--because this is a significant amount of work. There are many important provisions in the NDAA that affect our national security, and my Commonwealth of Virginia is deeply connected to the American military. In addition to grand items, the NDAA also examines in some excruciating detail some very, very fine points. Just to give a few examples, the NDAA includes a provision dealing with storage facilities that are needed to help us combat rust on military vehicles, the transmission systems that are used in some army land vehicles, the reflective markings and lights that are used on military air fields, one particular military barracks that has sewage, mold, hot water, and rodent problems, and we even deal in the NDAA with some details of West Point's football program--some of the athletic programs at West Point. But after all this minute analysis and debate and discussion over the past weeks, both in committee and on the floor, I do notice something a little bit strange. While Congress is very willing to debate and vote on all things great and small concerning our military, there is one thing we don't want to debate or vote on--whether the United States should be at war, whether we should be at war with ISIL. We will vote on shipbuilding, we will vote on military pensions, we will vote on vehicle rust, and we will vote on barracks mold. But we don't want to vote on whether the Nation should be at war. I proposed an amendment to the NDAA with Senator Flake and Senator Manchin expressing the sense of the Senate that we should have an authorization debate about whether we should be at war with ISIL, and the amendment that I proposed was ruled nongermane--so barracks mold, yes; vehicle rust, yes; the athletic programs at West Point, yes; whether we should be at war, nongermane to the Defense authorization act. Interestingly, we even took a vote on the floor of the Senate in the NDAA about whether we should arm the Kurds in a war that Congress has not authorized that we could debate and vote on; but whether we should be at war we have not debated and voted upon. So I went back and looked at article I of the Constitution. I found that there is no requirement that Congress vote on barracks mold or rust prevention or military airfield lighting. Certainly we can and should take up those matters because each of those matters--even if they just affect one barracks or one airfield--is about the safety of our troops and military personnel. Of course we should take them up. But there is nothing in the Constitution that requires that we take them up and debate and vote on them. But we are required to debate and vote to authorize war. Article I, section 8, clearly declares that Congress shall have the power to declare war--not the President; Congress. Yet, on this item, on this large item, on this largest of items, we are unwilling to debate and vote. The war against ISIL is now in its 11th month; more than 3,500 U.S. airstrikes, more than 3,000 U.S. forces now in Iraq. U.S. servicemembers and American hostages have lost their lives in the battle against ISIL. The cost of the war to the American taxpayer is now more than $2.5 billion--an average cost of $9 million a day. The ISIL threat is spreading, the mission expanding. In response to ISIL advances in the Anbar Province, the administration recently announced that an additional 450 trainers would be deployed to train and support Iraqi security forces. So my question as a strong supporter of the NDAA is a simple one: How much longer will we allow war to be waged without Congress even being willing to have a debate about the strategy and scope of the mission? How much longer will we keep asking servicemembers to risk their lives without Congress doing the basic job of authorizing this war? U.S. airstrikes started on August 8--313 days ago. Let me put this in a historic perspective. The 1-year anniversary of this war is approaching quickly. Congressional inaction on it is already of historic proportions. World War I: It took President Wilson 33 days to bring an authorization to Congress. Congress acted in 4 days. World War II: It took President Roosevelt 1 day to bring a request to Congress. Congress acted on the same day. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution: President Johnson brought a resolution to Congress within 3 days. Congress acted 5 days thereafter. The invasion of Kuwait in gulf war 1: It took 160 days for the President to bring an authorization to Congress, but Congress acted within 4 days in approving an authorization. The 9/11 attacks: President Bush came the same day to Congress. It took 3 days for Congress to act. In this war against ISIL, it took the President nearly 6 months to bring an authorization to Congress, and it is now more than 4 months since that happened--313 days--and Congress has said virtually nothing. I appreciate that Chairman Corker and Ranking Member Cardin have made a recent commitment to discuss an ISIL authorization in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is the committee of jurisdiction. I understand that. Senator Flake and I have introduced a bipartisan proposal to show that there is bipartisan support for this mission, and we have been pushing to have the matter heard. Yesterday, in a debate on the House floor, the chairman of the HASC committee stated plainly that it is time that we ``ought to have a real AUMF debate.'' So I am here to support the NDAA and the good work our chair and ranking member and all the members have done. But I am here to point out that on day 313, if we are willing to deal with important, narrow, small issues, we should be finally willing to address the most important issue we have before us. I challenge my colleagues to do this and to bring the same amount of attention and bipartisanship to debating whether we should send American troops to war as we are willing to apply to barracks mold and vehicle rust. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the third anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, which was this week. Since 2012, the program the President implemented, which has been known as DACA, has offered temporary relief from deportation to immigrants who arrived in the United States as young children. It has helped almost 665,000 young people since June of 2012, including more than 10,000 in Virginia. The DACA Program announced by the President has allowed young people to contribute to our communities, live without constant fear of deportation, keep families together, and provide economic and educational opportunities for these young recipients. I want to thank President Obama and the administration because DACA has provided relief to thousands of youngsters who seek only to pursue opportunity, provide for their families, and contribute to the only place they have ever known as home--the United States. Immigrants are not the only ones who benefit. DACA enforces the universal reputation of this country that we are proud of, that we value our immigrant heritage and we embrace and celebrate their contributions to American history, industry, and culture. This is a value which is something we feel very deeply in Virginia. We feel it more every day. When I was born in 1958, 1 out of 100 Virginians had been born in another country. Today, in 2015, one out of nine Virginians was born in another country. That period coincides with the moving of the Virginia economy from bottom quarter per capita income to top quarter. Immigration and the contributions of immigrants to our State have been tremendously positive. More than 10,000 youngsters in Virginia have benefited by DACA. We are 13th among all States. Let me just tell you two quick stories. Hareth Andrade exemplifies what DACA recipients, if given the opportunity, can give back to their communities. Hareth arrived in the United States from Bolivia, brought by adults. She arrived without her parents. She excelled in school. She attended Washington-Lee High School right here in Arlington. She took advanced placement and international baccalaureate classes. During a campus visit as she graduated, she learned for the first time that her undocumented status would be a barrier to earning a college education. But instead of giving up on her dream, she organized with other students to form DREAMers of Virginia, an organization that has led efforts to provide students access to instate tuition and college admission for kids just like her. After the President announced the DACA Program in June of 2012, Hareth became a recipient, and she has since transferred from community college to Trinity Washington University, where she expects to graduate with a degree in international affairs next year. Another student, Jung Bin Cho, also has seen doors open to him because of DACA, doors to educational opportunities such as the fine institution of Virginia Tech, where he now attends. Cho arrived in the United States with his parents from South Korea when he was 7 years old. He attended elementary school and graduated high school in Springfield, VA, where he played on the defensive line for the football team. His dream--a lot of Virginians have this dream--was attending Virginia Tech, and he gained admission to the school. But at the same time he first realized that his undocumented status eliminated him from instate tuition or any financial aid. Because he couldn't afford it, he attended community college and worked two jobs to support himself. But following DACA and the decision last year to grant instate tuition to young Virginians--a decision for which I applaud our Governor and general assembly--Cho reapplied to Virginia Tech, won admission, and he now is able to attend Virginia Tech, where he will pursue a degree in business and hopefully participate in this great expansion of the Virginia economy that so many of our immigrants have been proud to lead. For young people such as Hareth and Cho, DACA makes sense. Both came here as young children. They didn't come here on their open volition; they were brought here. They only know Virginia as home, and they seek to study, work, and build a life in this country. As proud Virginians, they want to return the opportunities afforded to them by using their talents to improve their communities and making it a better place for everybody. In addition to the humanitarian aspect, as you heard, these talented students are the kinds of people who accelerate our economy. DACA is good for our economy, too. So I strongly support its continuation, but I also wish to encourage my colleagues--and I think we all agree, Democrat, Republican, Independent--we all agree this program is best not by Executive order but by legislation. We are now almost exactly 2 years from the date when the Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform on this floor in June of 2013. For 2 years, after a strong bipartisan effort, we have waited for action--any action--by the House, not just taking up our bill but doing their own bill and then, in a conference, finding a compromise, which we can do. It is time that the House act. It is time that the Senate and the House sit down together and do comprehensive immigration reform. We can give DREAMers and millions of other families who continue to live in the shadows an earned pathway to citizenship. It is time to pass that reform. It is in the best traditions of our Nation and in the best value traditions of my Commonwealth that we do so. I yield the floor.