Tim Kaine

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the reality of the shutdown that we are in and the efforts underway to find a path out, which I am optimistic we can, particularly after discussions among so many colleagues of both parties today on the floor of the Senate. This is the third time during my nearly 13 years in the Senate that I have been involved in a shutdown. The first occurred in the fall of 2013. I had been in the Senate for less than a year. Senator Cruz sort of forced us into a shutdown mode over the Affordable Care Act. Interestingly enough, many years later, that Affordable Care Act is still central to this discussion. In late 2018 and 2019, President Trump forced us into a shutdown of part of the government--the part of government dealing with the Department of Justice and other justice- related Agencies--over border wall funding. The first shutdown lasted for about 2 weeks. The second shutdown-- again, of part of government, not all of government--lasted for about a month. And they are horrible. The consequences for those affected, whether they be Federal workers or the citizens who need services, are horrible. No one relishes that in this body, and I am completely confident that all 100 Senators feel the same way in that this is not a good thing and that there needs to be a path forward. In Virginia, we feel it pretty strongly. We have the second-most Federal employees of any State in the country, and we have an awful lot of Federal contractors whose livelihoods are affected as well. We have also seen in the first nearly 9 months of this calendar year other actions taken, whether it is the cancelation of research grants or the backtracking on economic development proposals or the withdrawal of $400 million from the Virginia Department of Health that was critical to our agency's ability to do contact tracing and help stop the spread of infectious disease. So we have seen since the beginning of January a whole series of actions that have already affected Virginians pretty significantly. We had an unemployment rate that was low by national standards but went up every month for 6, 7 months in a row, largely because of these Federal layoffs. As we reach this moment, it is not a clean break or something new from what was seen earlier in the year; it is sort of a continuation of something that has been a pretty painful chapter in Virginia. So what are we hoping for or, rather, maybe, not to put words in anybody's mouth, what am I hoping for out of this? The House prepared a short-term continuing resolution under instructions from the President: Do not deal with Democrats. And the House, with a simple Republican majority, was able to do that and pass a bill that then came to the Senate. Once we saw that instruction--do not deal with Democrats--Senate Democrats, under the leadership of Senator Murray, the lead Democratic appropriator, said: Well, let's prepare an alternative, not a nonnegotiable demand but an alternative. We put that alternative on the table on September 18. We didn't wait until the 29th of September or the 30th. We felt like, to be fair to the public, to be fair to our colleagues, let's put an alternative on the table with enough time for us to kick the tires on it and have a negotiation before the deadline that we reached at midnight last night. What is the Democratic alternative compared to the Republican alternative? Actually, much of it is the same. But I would say the two elements in the Democratic alternative that are different are two: One, protecting people's healthcare; and, second, protecting the simple notion that everybody understands that a deal is a deal. Let me explain both of these. On the healthcare side, the reconciliation bill that was passed in June, together with some other actions of the administration-- particularly unilateral actions of Secretary Kennedy and the President in withdrawing healthcare funds from Virginia and unilateral actions thrusting uncertainty into areas like vaccines--they have created a huge healthcare challenge for Virginians and for Americans. Again, not to speak for anybody other than Virginians, but I did a lot of travel around the State in April as some of these proposals were on the table. I did a lot of travel in July, a lot of travel in August, and I just did a good bit of travel last week around Virginia. And on the healthcare side, here is what my constituents are saying to me about what is now happening: The effect of the reconciliation bill in Virginia is estimated to cause about 330,000 Virginians to lose their health insurance. Our population is about 8.8 million; 330,000 people losing health insurance is not a small number. This is a big--big--deal. That number of people who lose their health insurance is essentially what I call the top layer of a five-layer cake of consequences to these healthcare bills. That is consequence one, people lose insurance. Consequence two is people who have insurance see their premiums go up dramatically. Premium notices are coming out from insurance companies in Virginia, and they are suggesting that premiums this year in Virginia will go up by at least 20 percent. Why does that happen? There are two reasons: The reconciliation bill that was passed by the Republicans in June phased out premium support for low- and middle-income people buying health insurance on the exchanges. The Republican bill extended tax cuts for the wealthiest but phased out premium support for low- and middle-income people buying health insurance. So that causes premiums to go up. The second thing that causes premiums to go up is when you increase the number of people with no insurance, they go to the emergency room, and they are not able to pay. So providers provide treatment, but then they have to charge that off to somebody, and it tends to get charged off to people who have health insurance. So the combined effect of ACA premium support going away and a whole lot of free care that has to be paid for by somebody causes insurance rates to increase. This is happening in Virginia, and it is happening around the country. That is the second layer of the five-layer cake of consequences of what happens when the reconciliation bill passes. The third layer is this, and this is a really, really troubling one: Providers close down. Hospitals and clinics close down when Medicaid is affected; particularly hospitals, for whom Medicaid is a huge portion of the revenue stream coming into the hospital, find that they can't make it work. A national organization that looks at hospital fiscal soundness has put about 300 hospitals in the United States on a list of hospitals that are in danger because of the Medicaid cuts. Six of those hospitals are in Virginia, and they are all in rural Virginia. Rural Virginia tends to be a little bit older than the rest of Virginia and tends to have a little bit higher Medicaid population than the rest of Virginia. So the hospitals that are in danger by the reconciliation bill are rural hospitals. It is not just hospitals that are on the list of potential closure. Within the last month, a prominent health provider in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia--a rural part of our State--announced that they were closing three primary care clinics in small Virginia communities because of the reconciliation bill. The cuts made to Medicaid in the reconciliation bill made them realize that they could no longer keep these clinics open. So the third consequence of this reconciliation bill is, we have got people losing insurance; we have got premiums going up; and now we have providers closing. The fourth consequence is pretty obvious: When providers close, people get fired, so people lose their jobs. Frontline healthcare workers who are doing good work in the communities and having people rely on them, they lose their jobs. That is consequence four. Then, consequence five is one that I know well as a former mayor and Governor. I kind of call it the loss of your future. It is one thing to lose your health insurance; it is one thing to pay more; it is one thing to lose your provider; it is one thing to lose your job, but if you are a mayor or a chairman of a county board of supervisors or a Governor, for that matter, and you are trying to encourage economic development, a new business to move into a part of the State or a business that is in a part of the State to expand, a question you are going to get asked is: Tell me about the healthcare network in this community. I may be moving executives here. I may be trying to hire people here. And if you have to look them in the eye and say: We used to have a hospital, but we don't now or we had primary clinics that have closed down and now you have to drive farther to get primary medical care, I can tell you, I have been in economic development discussions with businesses over the course of my 31 years in public life and seen the lights just go out in their eyes: You know, you have just told me something that has convinced me I may not know where I am going, but I know where I am not going. One the quickest things you can do to turn that light off is to make a prospect worried about whether the employees and executives and their families will have access to good healthcare. So on the healthcare piece of this, what Democrats are asking for by way of an alternative--not a nonnegotiable but by way of an alternative--is let's go into the changes that were made in the reconciliation bill and fix them. I have Republican colleagues who say: We don't want to completely reverse them because there are some things about the ACA premium tax subsidy we don't like. We would like to design them differently. We would like to negotiate. I am completely open to that, but I do think we ought to try to fix them. I am heartened that a number of Republican colleagues have said: You are right. We should do that. I have said to my Republican colleagues: Coming up with a fix, even if both sides want a fix, I know this is not going to be a snap decision. There are details. You have to dot the i's. You have to cross the t's. You have to analyze what the downstream consequences of any changes in the fix are. I know that that is a substantive discussion where the details matter. I am not expecting that we would all reach an agreement immediately. So on the first point, where the Democratic proposal is different than the Republican proposal, I fully expect that this would be a negotiation that would take some time. We needn't wait to open the government until that negotiation is completely done. We should commit to the negotiation and get in the middle of it and sit around the table and figure it out. But we needn't wait, in my view--again, this is me, not the caucus, not anybody else. This is me. We needn't solve the entire problem in order to reach a position where we fund the government and reopen it. We can do it over the course of a time period that I think is being discussed in this body. The second feature of the Democratic proposal that is important to reach an accord on, I believe, is a simple notion that a deal is a deal. A deal is a deal. If we reach a funding agreement--and some have characterized the Republican proposal as a clean CR, but I would actually say it is not a clean CR unless you are guaranteed that the parties will honor it. Whatever we do--if we do something for 30 days or if we do something for 45 days--I think it is only fair to ask that a deal be a deal; that Congress fully live up to it but the White House fully live up to it as well. We have seen, throughout this year already, congressional deals undone by the President unilaterally: tens of thousands of people fired, economic development projects that had been announced and celebrated canceled, funds to public health Agencies taken back. Again and again and again, we have seen, in Virginia, unilateral actions taken by the President that, in our view, undo what Congress and the White House had agreed to in previous budget resolutions. So it is not unreasonable for us to say: Well, if we are going to do a short-term CR to try to find the path for a full-year appropriations bill, we would just want an agreement during that 30 or 45 days--whatever it is--that a deal is a deal; that we not write it, agree to it, celebrate reopening the government, and then have President Trump on day two start to fire a whole lot of people or claw back more money from the Virginia Department of Health or cancel more economic development projects in Virginia. Let's just say a deal is a deal. Congress will live by our piece of it, and the White House would live by its piece of it. Virginians get this. I was traveling around this weekend, and Virginians do not want the government to be closed. They want it open. They said to me: Keep the government open. I said: We want to get that deal just like you do. We want to get a deal. But if I said to Virginians: And on that deal, Congress should live up to it, right? Right. And on that deal, the President should live up to it, right? Right. People get that a deal is a deal. It is not a complicated theory of government or an argument about democracy; it is just basic fairness that when parties reach an agreement and shake hands, that both parties have to honor it. So what I am looking for very significantly in these discussions is an agreement from the White House that whatever the short-term period is, they will not take punitive actions against my State, against the State of Indiana, against the city of New York, or against anyone, or against any particular program that is part of a congressional appropriations bill that is already in process; that they will not selectively pick out programs to attack or individuals to fire during the course of that agreement. I think we have to have that longer discussion about an alternate yearlong appropriations bill, about a deal is a deal, but all I am looking for here and all Virginians are looking for here is that we would reach that agreement during the pendency of some short-term CR as we try to negotiate a full-year agreement. We can do this. We can do this. We ought to do it. For a reason of fiscal conservatism, during the last shutdown in 2018-2019, I was able to sort of strategically put a bill on the floor on a day much like today, a Thursday during the shutdown, and get colleagues to unanimously agree with the principle that in the event of any shutdown, Federal employees would get backpay. It used to be, in the old days, if there was a shutdown, you had to fight about backpay after, but now there is a backpay guarantee. When there is a shutdown, people are guaranteed backpay. So that makes shutdowns really foolish, like, you are going to shut down; you are going to lock people out of their office; you are going to tell them they can't do the work; and then you are going to write them a paycheck anyway. The fiscally conservative answer, when there is a backpay guarantee, is to end this quickly so people can go back in their office and serve their fellow Americans. The fact that we, I believe, have narrowed the point of division down to can we find a path forward to negotiate healthcare fixes, even if we don't agree on all the details right now, and can we reach an agreement that a deal is a deal, which is a reasonable request--I believe those are the two issues that are on the table. And they are issues that we are eminently capable of solving and solving very soon. And I am going to do everything I can with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure we do. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a vote that the Senate will take later this week on en bloc Executive nominations. The vote will likely come either tomorrow or possibly Friday. There is an en bloc of approximately 100 nominations that we will be considering, and I rise to talk about the nomination of one individual--Bill White to be the U.S. Ambassador to Belgium. I regret that we are taking up nominations en bloc. I think there are good reasons to reform the nominations process. I think we probably have to have Senate confirmation for too many people. But I didn't believe a few weeks ago in the Senate action that allowed people to be lumped together because my view was that that causes individuals who were in the en bloc not to get the appropriate scrutiny they should get. I viewed the action, bluntly, as a little less about advancing nominations as raising the risk of hiding nominations in large groups where individuals would not get the appropriate scrutiny, and I believe that very strongly to be the case with Mr. White. Mr. White is President Trump's nominee to be Ambassador to an important U.S. ally, Belgium, the headquarters of NATO. Mr. White has done some good things in his life, and I don't dispute that, and I know he has been a strong supporter of President Trump, as are virtually all of the Trump appointees, many of whom I have voted for. I haven't done this calculation, but I probably have a track record on the Democratic side of voting for as high a percentage of President Trump's nominees, both in term 1 and term 2, as just about anyone because I do believe as a former Governor that your election does carry with it a mandate to be able to assemble a team of like-minded people. Even if I might disagree with you, President Trump was elected, and he should have the ability to assemble a team of like-minded people. But I do carefully scrutinize the character, judgment, and qualifications of the individuals who are put before us for important positions, and this nomination of this individual for this country at this time I view as so uniquely bad that I wanted to take the time to come to the floor and talk about why. What I am going to talk about is Mr. White's judgment as evidenced by his social media postings. I have a whole lot of examples I could use, but I am going to just narrow it down to the ones that I think are a true window into this individual's judgment and character and that demonstrate that he is not suitable to represent the United States in a critical ambassadorial position. On May 16, 2023, he tweeted out about one of our colleagues, Senator Graham of South Carolina: Graham is a snake. He has tweeted out many bad things about Democratic colleagues that I am not going to post before you, but someone who says about Lindsey Graham that he is a snake is not demonstrating the judgment you need to be an ambassador representing the United States in Belgium. Mr. White fell down the rabbit hole of election conspiracy in 2020 and has repeatedly tweeted and posted his belief that the 2020 election was not accurately called and that Donald Trump actually won rather than President Biden. Now, I think any intelligent person recognizes that as a conspiracy theory that most fourth graders wouldn't be gullible enough to fall for, but Mr. White has tweeted it over and over and over again. He has gone beyond just asserting that Donald Trump won the election in 2020. He has actually gone much, much further than that. In the runup to the election of 2024--so this is now 4 years after the 2020 election--Mr. White was posting material and reposting material about Georgia's secretary of state Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, claiming that he had acted improperly in the 2020 election. Lock [Georgia's secretary of state]-- And forgive me; this is a quote. Lock . . . this mother effer up. That is what he is calling to happen to the Republican secretary of state in Georgia. And this was recent. This was in August of 2024. This is not years and years and years ago. Mr. White went on to continue in this extreme rhetoric in the aftermath of President Trump's election in 2024. Within the days to follow, shortly after the election, he basically says Donald Trump won Georgia--that is referring to the 2024 election--and that it is high time now to legitimately prosecute the Georgia secretary of state and Governor Kemp, the Republican Governor of Georgia. Mr. White is calling for them both to be prosecuted, and this was just at the time that Donald Trump won the 2024 election. OK. Donald Trump was elected President in 2024. Why are you still so focused on a campaign of retribution against Georgia Republicans whom you were urging to be locked up and prosecuted? To be an ambassador, you need to have some judgment, you need to have some diplomacy. You will deal with tough issues. Belgium is not a big country, but Belgium is a very important country. It has been a U.S. ally for a very long time, and it is the headquarters of NATO, which has a huge importance in the world right now. Putting somebody into a position like this who puts out negative tweets about Lindsey Graham and who is encouraging Republican officials in Georgia to be prosecuted and locked up--I think those would be disqualifying in and of themselves, but as I was looking at this individual's social media account, I came upon something else that a lot of people didn't notice, because it seemed odd, but I did a little bit of research into it, and I want to focus on it. Mr. White, in May of 2024--months before President Trump's election-- retweeted a post from an individual named Dries Van Langenhove, with a video from this individual. The video is a lengthy video wherein this individual, Dries Van Langenhove, says: This Friday, they may send me to prison for years, so this video is my last chance. They are trying to destroy me, but with your help, we will destroy them. Free Dries. Among the other tweets of calling a colleague a snake and calling for people to be locked up, this one seemed odd. Who is Dries Van Langenhove? Who is Dries Van Langenhove? Dries Van Langenhove is a convicted, Holocaust-denying, pro-violence anti-Semite in Belgium. The tweet that Mr. White posted was his video the night before he was sentenced to a year in prison for inciting violence and denying the Holocaust. This is an article from POLITICO Europe in March of 2024, and it talks about Mr. Van Langenhove. Title: ``Belgium's far-right prodigy gets prison term for inciting violence.'' Dries Van Langenhove, a political activist and leader of a Flemish-nationalist youth movement called Schild & Vrienden, was convicted of inciting violence and denying the Holocaust, the Ghent criminal court [ruled]. [He]"revelled in Nazi ideas that caused much suffering. He wants to undermine society,'' a judge said when announcing the ruling. Why would Mr. White, in March of 2024, even know who Dries Van Langenhove was? When I saw this, as I was researching this prior to the hearing on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I had no idea who Dries Van Langenhove was. I wondered, Why is Mr. White platforming this individual I know nothing about? Then, as I read it, I find that he is a notorious violence-promoting, Holocaust-denying anti-Semite criminal convict in Belgium. This is a big deal. The ADL says that of any nation in Europe, Belgium may have seen the most spike in anti-Semitic behavior since October 7. Some of you might remember the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris a couple of years ago, pre-October 7. There was a similar attack on the same day in Belgium, an anti-Semitic attack. Belgians have been charged with crimes of vandalism and religious-based violence and attacks on the Holocaust museum in both Belgium, Brussels, and Paris. And the Belgian Government is really working hard to try to deal with this cancer of anti-Semitism in this nation. As far as I know, Mr. Langenhove is the only individual who has been successfully prosecuted in Belgium for Holocaust-denying, inciting violence, and reveling in pro-Nazi ideas. The material that Bill White posted was Mr. Van Langenhove seeking support in donations to help him avoid accountability for his words and actions. Mr. White's work in the past might qualify him to serve in some capacities. I am not saying there isn't a position, one that doesn't require diplomacy, where his skills might be necessary, but this particular appointment is an insult to Belgium--a nation that is trying to deal with a deep, deep challenge in anti-Semitism. For the United States to send as an ambassador to that nation someone who has platformed the far-right prodigy who has received a prison term for inciting anti-Semitic violence is a slap in the face of this important ally. I started by saying I am worried that the fact that this nomination is being slid into the middle of a big block of nominations means it won't get the attention that it deserves. Traditionally, on a nomination like this, we might get 1 or 2 hours on the floor to focus on this particular individual. My colleague Senator Merkley, as we were discussing the change that allowed en bloc nominations, proposed an alternative where you could remove a name from the en bloc if you wanted to actually have some ability to focus on it. That effort was unsuccessful. But I want to raise this today. This is already getting press in Belgium. The hearing itself, where it came to light that Mr. White was platforming Dries Van Langenhove, is getting press in Belgium; it is getting press elsewhere in Europe; and it is being examined as: Wait. How does the United States feel about this country and this relationship? How does the United States feel about qualifications for diplomats if someone who is so intrepid in his speech but also is platforming Belgian Holocaust deniers gets the plum position to be our Ambassador to Belgium? So my hope--and in life, I have often learned that high hopes are great and so are low expectations. I will say in standing here today, I stand here with high hopes and low expectations. My hope is that some of my Republican colleagues might look at this and say: This is a bridge too far. This is too important a country and anti-Semitism is too important an issue to send, with the imprimatur of U.S. Ambassador and to this ally of the United States, somebody who is platforming and promoting an anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying convicted criminal. That is my hope that when we have this vote later in the week, we might decide that the United States can do better by our ally. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to discuss the Democratic continuing resolution proposal that was on the floor earlier. Neither proposal gained sufficient votes, and that means we have work to do to find a compromise that will enable the government to stay open, and I want to make clear why I believe the Democratic proposal has some real strong merit for Virginians and for Members of this body, both Democratic and Republican, and why I think this is such a strong proposal. My advocacy for the Democratic position is basically focused on two issues: healthcare and the underlying basic notion that we all get-- that a deal should be a deal. During August, I think, as most of us did, I traveled around my home State of Virginia a lot and talked to many people. The Senate had passed the reconciliation bill--that partisan bill--in July, and during the August recess, I heard a boatload from Virginians about their concerns. Because of that reconciliation bill, six hospitals in Virginia are at risk of closure. These hospitals are all in the rural parts of the Commonwealth. There are 302,000-plus Virginians who will likely completely lose their health insurance, 136,000 will lose the health insurance that they are currently able to access through the Affordable Care Act, and another 166,000 will likely lose health insurance because of cuts to the Medicaid Program. Virginia has a population of about 8\1/2\ million; 302,000 people losing their health insurance is pretty significant. Those who continue to have health insurance will see significant premium increases. According to the State Corporation Commission, which is the body in Virginia that regulates industries like insurance companies, the 10 insurers that participate in the Virginia individual market in 2026 have requested rate increases from their 2025 rates, with most insurers proposing average increases of 20 percent or higher. What would that mean? The Kaiser Family Foundation says a family of four, with two adults aged 50 and two kids under 21, are likely to pay an additional $311 per month, or $3,729 per year, because of the reconciliation reduction of ACA tax credits. Virginia hospitals stand to lose up to $26 billion in Medicaid cuts over the course of the next 14 years because of the reconciliation bill. That is the reason why a number of rural hospitals that are sort of on the edge in terms of their financial situation are on the list of concerns about closure. Just within the last 2 weeks, we actually had the first closures in Virginia. A well-respected healthcare network in the Shenandoah Valley that has a hospital in Augusta County but then has primary care clinics sort of throughout the region that serves patients who can be served there instead of a hospital announced that three of the primary care clinics are closing, and the CEO of the Healthcare Network said they are closing because of the Medicaid cuts made in the reconciliation bill that this body passed in July. I also heard a lot of stories just from individuals. These are the statistics about what is going to happen in Virginia because of the reconciliation bill, but we talk to constituents all the time. Mary from Springfield, VA--Northern Virginia--and Kim from Mecklenburg County on the North Carolina border both have children with disabilities who rely on Medicaid for access to care to allow their children to remain in their homes instead of in institutional settings. These moms are very worried that Medicaid cuts won't be available for their children's long-term care. Brenda is a mother in Salem, VA, near Roanoke. She relies on Medicaid to help her remain in her home and not have to be institutionalized, and she worries that the Medicaid cuts will cost her access to the supports that she needs. William in Virginia Beach, VA, on our eastern coast, says that his son has Marketplace coverage but is worried that the cuts to the ACA premiums mean that the son will no longer have access to that insurance now that the reconciliation bill has put those premium subsidies on a path to expiration. Maria works as an employee of an affordable housing community for seniors in Fairfax, right here in the DC area. She said that since the passage of the reconciliation bill, she has seen a growing number of low-income seniors come into her office frightened that their Medicaid coverage will be reduced or terminated. Sharon lives in Lancaster County, which is in a part of Virginia called the Northern Neck, near the Chesapeake Bay. She has called to ask my office if Rappahannock General Hospital was in jeopardy of closing due to the reconciliation bill. Rappahannock hospital is a facility I know well because my in-laws lived right there in Lancaster before they passed away in the last couple of years. It is one of the six hospitals that is listed on the national list as a hospital in jeopardy as Medicaid cuts phase in. Then, finally, Caroline from Lynchburg, VA, in Central Virginia, has had coverage through the Virginia Marketplace and is concerned that she will no longer have access to the tax credits and subsidies that have helped her afford health insurance. These are just seven examples of citizens from all over the Commonwealth whom the reconciliation bill--I read the big statistics about it, but these are individual families who have significant challenges. What the Democratic CR proposal does is something that many Republicans in this body have said needs to be done. In the aftermath of the reconciliation bill, we are hearing similar stories from our constituents and that we need to fix especially the ACA premium support so that people do not lose health insurance, and we also need to fix some of the Medicaid cuts that caused the concerns that I expressed from these seven individuals. My visit around Virginia in August sort of made me see this healthcare concern as sort of a spectrum. When you make cuts to Medicaid or to these premiums, five different things happen: People lose health insurance. Those who retain health insurance see their premiums go up often because the folks without insurance go to the emergency rooms. That is more expensive care. It has to be paid for, and that tends to assist in driving up the premium cost of those who retain insurance. Third, as I have indicated has already happened in Virginia, providers close. And when providers close, there is a fourth effect, which is people lose their jobs. Then the fifth effect is one that I think we should talk about as well. It is not just people losing health insurance and having their premiums go up and seeing their providers close and seeing healthcare professionals lose their jobs; there is a fifth effect. I was a mayor, and I was a Governor. I did a lot of economic development work in Virginia. I know that one of the things that businesses really care about, if they are looking for places to locate or expand, is what is the local availability of healthcare? It is really difficult to be in a community and try to pitch an economic development project but have the question asked: ``Tell us about your hospital. Tell us about your healthcare network'' and to explain that ``we had a hospital, but it closed. We have had healthcare clinics that closed.'' That makes it very, very difficult. This fifth effect is an economic effect. The decline in healthcare clinics and hospitals, actually, is sort of like a theft of a community's future because it makes it very difficult to get people to come. That is why I think the Democratic proposal is a solid one. And I do recognize that in the aftermath of the passage of the reconciliation bill, many Republican colleagues--both in this Chamber and the House-- have said that it is important to come back and fix particularly the expiration of the ACA premium tax subsidies. I think that would be a very smart thing for us all to do. Finally, there is a second reason I really like the Democratic proposal, and it is this: A deal should be a deal. The Democratic proposal has some components in it that would ensure that when Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate reach a deal that goes to the President's desk and he signs it, that the President then can't immediately take the money away unilaterally. I think everybody around my Commonwealth--Democrat, Republican, Independent, or the vast majority who don't really care that much about politics--they get that a deal should be a deal. When you negotiate and you shake hands, a deal should be a deal. This actually is related to healthcare as well. In last year's budget, we had a deal about spending on healthcare priorities. Early in this administration, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., announced that he was clawing back billions of dollars of healthcare funding. To Virginia, it was $400 million--$400 million of healthcare funding that we had planned on using during the worst increase in measles, for example, in recent years. It got clawed back from Virginia, and 500 workers and contractors lost their jobs as we were trying to deal with measles and other health epidemics. I have communities in Virginia that had had economic development projects announced, and they were counting on them for their future. Often, the announcements were attended with great fanfare by our Governor--Governor Youngkin, who is a Republican, who believed these economic deals were a good thing. They were reliant on funding from the Inflation Reduction Act or from the CHIPS manufacturing bill, but those funds, in many instances, have been clawed back. A deal should be a deal. When we reach a deal, it should be honored so that communities do not plan for healthcare workers, do not plan for economic development projects and feel the rug pulled out from under them. So those two features of the Democratic proposal: fixing some of the healthcare cuts in the reconciliation bill that, even by many Republicans' accounts, have gone too far; that have already led to closures of clinics in Virginia and great anxiety among individuals. We can fix those, and we can establish a principle that should be one that we would all agree on that a deal should be a deal. I hope as we grapple with the two proposals on the table, neither of which we were able to get 60 votes and be passed, we can take some of the wisdom in these Democratic proposals that would serve Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all over this country and make sure that we include them going forward. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that floor privileges be granted to Anel Galvez, Radhika Prabhu, and Jacob Baldus for the duration of their legislative fellowships.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, on February 25, 1975, Resolution No. 371 was presented to the City Council of Alexandria, VA, to establish the Alexandria Archaeological Commission. It was the first in the Nation. The commission, composed of Alexandria residents, was tasked with developing goals and priorities relating to the preservation and public interpretation of sites and artifacts that contribute to the history and heritage of the city of Alexandria, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the United States. To this day, the Alexandria Archaeological Commission remains a model for public archaeology in the country. Over the past 50 years, more than 100 commissioners have served on the Alexandria Archaeological Commission. Working with city officials and staff, developers, homeowners, nonprofit organizations, volunteers, and residents, the commission has unearthed and honored history in many ways, including by: Advocating for the hiring of the first City Archaeologist and the creation of the Alexandria Archaeology Museum, which is today the most visited museum in the city and is nationally recognized for its pioneering work in urban archaeology. Ensuring that the full history of Alexandria is told by supporting the creation of the African American Heritage Park and the preservation of the Contrabands and Freedmen Cemetery Memorial. Advising on the establishment of the Archaeological Protection Code that requires developers to adhere to archaeological preservation measures. Developing plans for the interpretation of history and archaeology along Alexandria's waterfront, including the remnants of four excavated 18th-century ship hulls and tens of thousands of artifacts that tell the story of commerce during the colonial era. I join countless Virginians in recognizing the extraordinary vision of the residents of Alexandria and the city council in 1975 and the commitment today's local leadership maintains to preserve Alexandria's historic and cultural artifacts for future generations.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I will only take 1 minute. A little over a year ago, the Senate voted for $18 billion in defense aid to Israel. On the Democratic side, the vote was 47 to 4. On the Republican side, the vote was 22 to 27. Democrats support defense aid to Israel. This is not a vote to retract a single dollar of that $18 billion in aid; it is a vote to say that defense aid to Israel, which Democrats overwhelmingly supported, should be defensive in nature, not offensive weapons that are likely to lead to unnecessary civilian suffering and destabilization in the region. I support defensive aid to Israel. I will support Senator Sanders' resolutions to not allow the transfer of these offensive weapons. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the remarkable legacy and ongoing contributions of Hampden-Sydney College as it celebrates the 250th anniversary of its founding on November 10, 2025. Founded in 1775 on the eve of the American Revolution, Hampden-Sydney is our Nation's 10th-oldest college and the oldest privately chartered college in the southern United States. Its founding mission, ``to form good men and good citizens,'' has remained steadfast for two and a half centuries, shaping generations of young men who have gone on to serve their communities, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Nation with distinction. Hampden-Sydney College has also played a formative role in the development of other important institutions. Both the Union Theological Seminary and the Medical College of Virginia, now part of Virginia Commonwealth University, trace their roots back to Hampden-Sydney. These connections underscore the college's far-reaching impact on education, health, and public service in the Commonwealth and beyond. The college's liberal arts curriculum continues to foster critical thinking, moral character, and civil discourse. Through its nationally respected rhetoric program, Hampden-Sydney places a premium on clear communication, thoughtful debate, and lifelong learning--values more vital today than ever. The college also remains home to the Union- Philanthropic Literary Society, the second-oldest college debating society in the United States. For 250 years, Hampden-Sydney has prepared students for leadership in fields ranging from law and medicine to education, science, religion, business, the arts, and the military. Its alumni include statesmen, scholars, public servants, and countless individuals whose quiet contributions have strengthened the civic and cultural fabric of our society. As it steps into the next era of its proud tradition, Hampden-Sydney College remains deeply committed to its founding ideals. Its pursuit of excellence in education, its cultivation of civic responsibility and character, and its unwavering defense of free expression ensure that it will continue to play a meaningful role in shaping the leaders of tomorrow. I extend my heartfelt congratulations to the leadership, faculty, alumni, and students of Hampden-Sydney College on this milestone anniversary. Thank you for your enduring service to the Commonwealth and to our country.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I would like to honor and recognize Michael S. Treppel for his nearly quarter century of distinguished service to the U.S. Congress. Throughout his tenure, Mr. Treppel has tirelessly supported the safety and well-being of more than 30,000 congressional staff, security personnel, and Members of the House and Senate. His work--often behind the scenes--has allowed others to carry out their duties with the confidence that their health and safety were in expert hands. From the daycare centers to the Chambers of the U.S. Capitol, Mr. Treppel's impact has been both broad and profound. As an environmental health specialist and later as director of environmental health within the Office of Attending Physician--OAP--he has been the trusted adviser, evaluator, and implementer of critical health and safety policies that shaped the day-to-day environment of Congress. Mr. Treppel conducted over 5,000 inspections across nine congressional buildings, ensuring strict adherence to food safety standards and pathogen prevention protocols. His work was central to staff welfare, and he quickly corrected any discrepancies while establishing preventative measures to ensure long-term compliance. He worked closely with leading experts from the Department of Defense, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and internal leadership from the Architect of the Capitol--AOC--and OAP. During the anthrax and ricin incidents at the U.S. Capitol, Mr. Treppel played a pivotal role in evaluating ventilation systems and contamination risks, providing vital guidance to protect occupants. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he led the environmental health response for the entire Capitol complex. He singlehandedly recommended and guided sanitation and remediation requirements for all nine buildings and the U.S. Capitol, helping to restore safe occupancy in offices, common areas, committee rooms, eateries, and the House and Senate Chambers. He also facilitated the delivery of critical Personal Protective Equipment--PPE--including plexiglass shields, N-95 respirators, and medical-grade disinfectants. When the return-to-work transition began, he assessed and approved the use of physical barriers, distancing protocols, and sanitation measures. His knowledge and calm guidance became a trusted source for thousands navigating uncertainty during a global health crisis. He also developed and led PPE training for clinical staff for COVID-19, H1N1, SARS, Ebola, etc., ensuring that frontline medical personnel were equipped to protect themselves and others--and he made proper donning and doffing of protective equipment second nature to the Capitol's medical teams. He also played a vital role in the planning and reopening of the new House Child Daycare Center in the O'Neill Building, providing input on space requirements, sanitation procedures, and illness policies. His oversight extended to the Library of Congress and Senate daycare centers as well, where he continued to ensure safe environments through inspections and guidance on evolving health standards. Mr. Treppel oversaw the occupational health division and served as a contracting officer representative. He was instrumental in managing hundreds of thousands of dollars of contracts for health surveillance programs for AOC tunnel workers, power plant employees, and U.S. Capitol Police. During the pandemic, when services were paused due to social distancing, he facilitated a smooth transition to mobile medical units, ensuring uninterrupted OSHA-compliant care for at-risk workers. In addition to his environmental expertise, he helped interview and evaluate hundreds of nursing candidates to support both routine care and mass casualty preparedness for the congressional community. Few individuals have had such a lasting and comprehensive impact on the operational safety of the U.S. Capitol. Mr. Treppel's unwavering dedication, depth of knowledge, and calm presence during times of crisis have made him an invaluable part of the congressional community. As he retires, we offer our sincere gratitude for his exceptional service. His legacy of leadership and care will be felt for many years to come. We thank Michael S. Treppel and wish him the very best in his well- deserved retirement.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the remarkable life and career of Ambassador Lino Gutierrez, a dedicated public servant whose decades of diplomacy helped shape U.S. engagement across the Western Hemisphere. He passed away on May 3, 2025, leaving behind a legacy defined by service and impact. Born in Havana, Cuba, Ambassador Gutierrez came to the United States as a young boy, fleeing Castro's regime and beginning a journey that would see him rise to some of the highest ranks of American diplomacy. Gutierrez served in the Foreign Service under five Presidents and 11 Secretaries of State, including as U.S. Ambassador to both Nicaragua and Argentina. In those roles, Ambassador Gutierrez led and oversaw a number of significant achievements. During his tenure as U.S. Ambassador to Argentina, the United States and Argentina signed agreements on counterterrorism and counternarcotics cooperation and container security. As Acting Assistant Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Gutierrez led the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs on September 11, 2001, and beyond. He accompanied Secretary of State Colin Powell to Lima, Peru, for the signing of the Inter-American Democratic Charter and returned with the Secretary's party to the United States on September 11, 2001. During his tenure in Nicaragua, Gutierrez oversaw efforts to demobilize and reintegrate the Contra fighters into civil society, strengthen the country's newly established democratic government after years of authoritarian rule, and coordinated the U.S. relief effort following the deadly devastation of Hurricane Mitch. After retiring from the State Department, Ambassador Gutierrez remained deeply committed to strengthening the Foreign Service. As executive director of the Una Chapman Cox Foundation, he championed initiatives to enhance recruitment, professional development, and public understanding of diplomacy. He also taught as an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins and George Washington Universities, served on the board of Georgetown's Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, was appointed by Secretary of State John Kerry to the Foreign Service Grievance Board, and provided expert guidance to DACOR on fostering strong U.S.-Latin America relations. Through these endeavors, Ambassador Gutierrez leaves behind a remarkable legacy which will continue to shape the next generation of U.S. diplomatic and foreign policy leaders. Ambassador Gutierrez embodied the American ideal of public service. I extend my deepest condolences to his wife Miriam, their three daughters, and six grandchildren. May his example continue to inspire all who believe in diplomacy as a force for peace, security, and opportunity.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. KAINE. I ask that further reading be dispensed with.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, my motion would require the bill to come back with no cuts to faith-based organizations in the International Development account and the Migration and Refugee Assistance accounts. These two accounts, on the refugee side, provide service to lawful immigrants of the United States overwhelmingly by faith-based organizations in this country, and the development assistance is disaster relief by faith-based organizations. Whose funds are being cut by this? Catholic Relief Services--been doing this for 80 years; Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; World Vision; World Relief Corporation of the Evangelical Association; Lutheran Social Services; Lutheran World Relief; the Episcopal Church; Bethany Christian Services; Jesuit Refugee Services; Samaritans First. This is a war on faith-based workers who are providing services in many instances for decades, even over a century. I would ask the support of my colleagues that we not cut faith-based organizations doing work in accordance with their faith.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I just ask that you join with these organizations that support my motion, and I ask for the yeas and nays. Vote on Motion to Recommit

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I oppose H.R. 4 and believe it reflects profoundly misplaced priorities for America. Accordingly, it is my intention to make the following motions to recommit the bill: A motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report back to the Senate with changes that include eliminating the rescission of Migration and Refugee Assistance funds and International Disaster Assistance funds, including such funds that support activities of faith-based organizations or their local partners. A motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report back to the Senate with changes that include eliminating the rescission of any funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that supports pre-K educational programming. A motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report back to the Senate with changes that include eliminating the rescission of any funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for any broadcasts and media stations that disseminate information during natural disasters and national emergencies.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, the good news is that I am the last speaker of the day. I wish I could tell you my speech will be short. I don't think it will be long, but I will try to make it interesting. I want to tell you a story. It is not a story about anything that has happened in this building. It is a story about a very humble Catholic parish in Northside Richmond, VA, called St. Elizabeth of Hungary. It is a humble parish. It is a small parish. It is slightly over 100 years old. It is the church where my wife and I were married more than 40 years ago, where all three of our children were baptized, where we attended Mass just this last Sunday to hear the Gospel reading of the story of the Good Samaritan. The church was founded more than 100 years ago in an unusual way. There were Italian and German immigrants in Richmond who felt looked down upon because of where they had come from and because of the accents that they spoke with and that their English wasn't so good. In the aftermath of World War I, people looked at German-Americans and Italian-Americans with some suspicion. German language was being criminalized in some of our States in the aftermath. These immigrant refugee Catholics decided that they wanted a place where they could feel welcomed, loved, and safe as they worshipped in accord with the American value of freedom of worship. So they set up this little parish in the Highland Park neighborhood of Northside Richmond, VA, where they could go and be together and feel safe. They chose an interesting name, St. Elizabeth of Hungary. St. Elizabeth of Hungary lived 1,000 years ago. She was a teenager, and she was a queen in a time of great poverty. Against the wishes of her husband and other officials, she would take bread and put the bread inside of her garments and go out and distribute it to the poor. Once, she was caught, and she was made to open her garment, and when she did open her garment, the bread had turned into roses. That is the miracle that was attributed to her. She lived only a short time and died, but she was made a saint by the Catholic Church. These immigrants who started my parish chose that name because they felt like that was what was needed in the world--people who would try to serve others in need. One hundred years later--we celebrated the centennial of my church a couple of years ago, and I was sitting there--I have now been a member of the parish for 40 years--and I was looking around, and I realized that times change and they don't. Catholic Relief Services, which is one of the largest agencies in the United States that help settle refugees, who are legal immigrants-- refugees are legal immigrants--about 15 years ago settled a Congolese family into my church who had been in a refugee camp after fleeing violence in the Congo. Catholic, French, and Swahili speaking, one Congolese family came to my church. Then, over time, Catholic Relief Services decided ``Well this family likes St. Elizabeth, and they feel welcomed here,'' and other families started to come to my church. So by now, as we were celebrating our centennial and I was looking around the parish where I go--this small, very humble parish--it is a sizably Congolese refugee population, legal immigrants to the United States who have been settled through the Catholic Relief Services, and they have come to a place where they feel loved and cared for and safe and welcomed. The color of their skin, the accent they use, and the fact that they are unfamiliar with American culture might make them feel not so welcomed in other venues, but in my church, they feel welcomed. It made me realize as we celebrated that centennial that my church looks really different in some ways than when it was founded 100 years ago, but in other ways, it is exactly the same. It is a haven for people who are legal immigrants to the United States but need a place where they can gather with others and feel welcomed. Why do I tell that story? How is it connected to the rescission bill that we are going to be voting on tomorrow? President Trump has sent a bill to Congress, and one of the pillars of that bill is to rescind the funding for refugee resettlement programs in the United States run by churches. Seven of the ten organizations that resettle refugees in the United States are faith- based organizations. The largest two are the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, operating through the Catholic Relief Services, and the evangelical organization World Vision. But it is not just them. There is Church World Service, Lutheran Social Services, the Episcopal Church of the United States, and World Relief. The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society was founded more than 100 years ago to try to bring Jews at that point from Europe to the United States and make sure that, as legal immigrants--yes, they would be allowed to be here legally, but they needed someone to teach them about American culture and integrating into American life. The practice of American religious organizations assisting in legal immigration goes back more than a century, and President Trump's rescission package that is before us wipes out funding to a dramatic degree for virtually all of them. Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society has had to lay off hundreds of staff. World Relief said this: President Trump [has] said he will defend persecuted Christians. [But] the U.S. refugee resettlement program is one of the primary ways that the U.S. government protects Christians and others fleeing persecution. The Episcopal Church of the United States has had to end its longstanding refugee resettlement program because of President Trump's budget cuts. Lutheran Social Services has had to--they have struggled to make payroll. They have had to lay off so many people. They reduced the services they are able to provide, especially to Afghan allies who are in the United States because they worked with the U.S. military in Afghanistan to protect our troops. Catholic Charities has laid off all kinds of staff. The families at my church come up to me after mass on Sunday, and they are so frightened about what might happen because many of them have family still in refugee camps who might want to come here as legal refugees, as legal immigrants. I don't know of a President who has attacked religious organizations--Catholic, evangelical, Jewish--that have been doing this work in many instances for more than a century, in such an orchestrated, intentional, and calculated way as President Trump. Matthew: ``I was a stranger and you welcomed me in. I was sick and you cared for me. I was hungry and you fed me.'' This is a bedrock belief of our Nation's religious organizations: that they will follow the law--legal refugee program--but they will help the person who is accessing legal refugee programs to be able to integrate into a society so they can live with some sense of dignity and have some chance of success. Why cut these programs? Why look in the face of these religious organizations that, out of a motivation of conscience, for decades, even a century, have decided that they will try to smooth that path to integrate people into American life who are here lawfully? Why cut their funding? Why force them to be laid off? Why debilitate their ability to provide services? It is an attack on the religious organizations so that they cannot do the work that their faith and their Creator compels them to do. I am not surprised that President Trump would propose this. The language and the rhetoric and the behavior that he has exhibited toward even legal refugees, legal immigrants to this country lead me to not be surprised that this important funding is on the chopping block in the bill that he has sent to the Senate. But I have to admit that I am surprised that it seems to be just moving on a path to being accepted. It was accepted in the House without much drama, including by a whole lot of people who go to churches, just like me, and hear sermons preached about the Good Samaritan, just like I do every Sunday. We will have an opportunity tomorrow to grapple with it here. I intend to at least offer an amendment to try to strip this piece of the bill out so that the bill will not be an attack on religious organizations doing what they feel compelled by their faith to do. It is my prayer that the entire rescission bill fail for the reasons my colleagues have said--a deal is a deal, and we shouldn't backtrack on it. But if we can't defeat the entire rescission bill, it is my hope that we will allow organizations like Catholic Relief Services and the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and the Episcopal Church and World Vision and World Relief and Lutheran Social Services--it is my hope that we will at least allow them to practice the faith they sincerely believe and do it in a way consistent with what their practices have been for decades and in some cases more than a century. And so that is what I am going to be praying for tonight, that there is a bit of an epiphany in this body, and we realize that the work that these church-based organizations are doing isn't bad. This work isn't something that should be slashed and cut with these valuable faith workers laid off. My hope is that the Senate will realize this is good work that is really at the core of who we are as Americans--so tiny little parishes like St. Elizabeth of Hungary or synagogues or other churches all over this country who pride themselves on offering a welcoming environment for people who are here lawfully and want to make their way in America will be able to continue to do just that. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask that further reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, 30 percent of the Federal workforce is veterans, compared with only 6 percent of the overall workforce. The Trump administration has fired more veterans than any administration in the history of the United States. Derek Copeland is an example. He is a 20-year Air Force veteran who trained bomb-sniffing dogs. He then took a job with the Department of Agriculture to train dogs to sniff out illegal agricultural products. He was fired 11 days before the end of his probationary year. His termination letter said: You have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest. He said: I gave blood, sweat and tears to this country for 20 years to continue service to the federal government. . . . I . . . feel like I was just thrown out like a piece of trash. My motion hits ``pause'' on this bill and would stop mass firings of veterans because it is wrong. I would ask my colleagues to support my motion.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, do I have any time?

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, we can stop this, and we should. President Trump has only been in office 6 months, and he has already fired more veterans than any President in American history. Please vote yes. Vote on Motion to Commit

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I oppose H.R. 1 and believe it reflects profoundly misplaced priorities for America. Accordingly, it is my intention to make the following motions to commit the bill: A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs with instructions to report back to the Senate with changes that include provisions terminating the mass termination of federal employees who are veterans without a report to Congress 60 days ahead of such action, detailing the positions, agencies, and number of federal employees dismissed. Mass termination is defined as more than 1% of any federal agency's workforce who are veterans as of January 20, 2025. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs with instructions to report back with provisions that provide $882,000,000 to the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grant program within the Federal Emergency Management Agency. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report back with changes that would ensure that no State with a Medicaid expansion trigger law would see a reduction in its Federal Matching Assistance Percentage that would cause such a trigger law to take effect. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report back with provisions that would eliminate estate tax cuts for multi-millionaires and utilize the savings to reduce the number of Americans who would lose health care coverage under the bill. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report back with provisions that would not increase the deficit in years beyond the budget window when measured against a current-law baseline produced by the Congressional Budget Office in consultation with the Joint Committee on Taxation. A motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report back with provisions that would provide small businesses, farmers, and low- and moderate- income families with relief from the duties imposed pursuant to Executive Order 14257 (90 Fed. Reg. 15041; relating to regulating imports with a reciprocal tariff to rectify trade practices that contribute to large and persistent annual United States goods trade deficits).

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, pursuant to section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Control Expert Act, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 59, to direct the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, we will begin a couple of hours of debate on this resolution prior to a vote that I understand is scheduled around 6 or maybe a little bit thereafter. I rise to talk about the resolution for the second time in the last week, and I need to repeat all the points I made when I spoke about it last week. I will just begin with this: I came to the Senate in January of 2013, and I tell people that I came with 100 interests and 10 passions and 1 obsession. The obsession that I brought with me to this body was an obsession that I will do everything possible I can to stop the United States from getting into an unnecessary war. Why did I bring that obsession with me in 2013? I brought it with me because of the experience in Virginia during two wars over the course of 20 years, from 2001 to 2021. I was Governor of Virginia from 2006 to 2010. I was Lieutenant Governor of Virginia before that. Like every State in this country, Virginia was deeply, deeply affected by the global War on Terror. When I was Governor of Virginia, I had the honor and responsibility-- but it was also a burden--of being the commander in chief of the Virginia National Guard. That meant that I was with our Guard men and women when they deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and when they came home. I went to funerals. I went to wakes. These were very, very moving experiences. I visited, as Governor, our troops, our Guard men and women, in both Iraq and Afghanistan during that period where the war was at a huge upsurge. Thousands of Virginia Guard men and women were deployed during those 4 years. Of course, because of who Virginia is, it wasn't just our Guard men and women; it was also our Active-Duty, our DOD civilians, civilians from other parts of the Federal family, reservists, military contractors, DOD civilians and their families. The cost of that 20 years of war on Virginia was very heavy. I came with the obsession not only because of what I had seen in terms of the effect of these wars on my Commonwealth and my country-- the deaths, the injuries, the longstanding mental health needs, the tremendous expenditure of public treasure, the lack of clear and positive results from that 20 years--but I also came with an obsession on this topic because of watching the way the war started, particularly the war in Iraq. The United States was basically--the public and this body were basically lied to about the extent of the Iraqi program of weapons of mass destruction, and then an administration forced a vote on the floor of this body right before a midterm election. The debate and vote occurred in October of 2022. I remember--at the time, I was Lieutenant Governor, and I was paying attention to this, and I thought, what is the urgency about this debate in October of 2022 right before a midterm election? You might remember that the United States didn't even invade Iraq until March of 2023. There was no urgency. There was none. But it was determined to be politically expedient to force a debate before a midterm election to try to give one party an edge in those midterms. Yes, there was a vote, but it was timed and structured for political rather than military reasons, and thousands of Americans, both soldiers and contractors, lost their lives as a result. So I came to this body fully believing that, yes, I am only 1 of 100, but I am going to do everything I can to make sure that the United States doesn't get into an unnecessary war and that if the issue ever arises, Congress needs to fully debate any military mission before we send our sons and daughters into war. Now, I say this as a Senator from--I am going to argue this, and the President will challenge me on this, but I am going to say Virginia is the most pro-military State in the United States. Our military bases, our veteran population, our reservists, our Guard, our military families, our DOD civilians--our map is a map of American military history: Yorktown, Appomattox, the Wilderness, Fredericksburg, the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. Everything about Virginia is connected to our Nation's military mission. I know the President would make the same claim about Florida's connection to our military. This would be a virtuous competition as we would all talk about how pro-military our States are. But I believe this deeply about Virginia. My dad was an Army officer. One of my kids is a Marine officer. I mean, this is family. And I am connected deeply as a member of the Armed Services Committee to all of our military community. I am not a pacifist. Every year, I work on the Armed Services Committee to help write a defense bill and try to get it passed. I whip votes on the floor for military aid packages to allies. There are bad folks in the world. The United States needs to defend itself, and it needs to work with allies to help them defend themselves. But our troops, our sons and daughters, deserve to have wise civilian leadership that only makes the decision to send them into war on the basis of careful consideration and a debate before the entire public. The other night when I spoke on the floor, I pointed out the history of the way the Framers of our Constitution grappled with this question in 1787. To just make it simple, they decided--contrary to the history of the world and the way virtually every other country did it, they decided that war was too big a decision for one person. I mean, they were making this decision at the time that George Washington was President. He was very respected and admired. He was a wartime general. Deeply respected. But as much as they respected leaders like George Washington, they said that war is too big a decision for one person. So they wrote a Constitution and said that the United States should not be at war without a vote of Congress. Defense against an attack or an imminent attack? Yes, the President, as Commander in Chief, has the power to do that. But to go on offense against another nation or an entity, like a terrorist group--and there were terrorist groups back in the days, like the Barbary Coast pirates. From the very beginning, we have confronted threats not just by nation states but by others. But the decision was that it was too big a decision for any one person; we should only go to war after a debate--not only in Congress, where we put our thumbprint on ``This is a national mission we are risking our sons and daughters' lives for,'' we have a debate in front of the entire public so they can understand the stakes. War is too big for any one person. I think the events of this week have demonstrated that war is too big to be consigned to the decisions of any one person. Our current Commander in Chief, on his social media account a day or two after the attack in Iran, put up a music video with lyrics that were matched to a Beach Boys song, ``Barbara Ann,'' but the music video contained these lyrics: ``Bomb bomb Iran; bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran . . . ; went to a mosque, gonna throw some rocks . . . ; time to turn Iran into a parking lot.'' We shouldn't premise a decision to send our sons and daughters into war on the judgment of a single person. The President patted himself on the back, and he compared the attack to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was a most unusual--most unusual-- comparison. I haven't put all the lyrics of the song up on my chart, but one of the other lyrics was about sending the Ayatollah home in a box. I mean, is this some kind of a joke? Is this the way we treat war now? We run a victory lap, overstate it, and we turn it into a funny music video, or we use a Hiroshima and Nagasaki comparison as if that is like a good thing? War is too big to leave the decision to send our sons and daughters and risk their lives on the say-so of one person. We had some turmoil this week in the Senate. We were going to have a briefing on Tuesday from the national security officials in the administration. They had to postpone it until Thursday because they were fighting with themselves and they were fighting with reporters about intelligence that had come out that the President wasn't happy about. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, he said that the Iranian nuclear program had been completely obliterated. All sources--Iranian sources, Israeli sources, the IAEA, the United States--have said ``severe damage,'' but because the President sort of went overboard with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki claims, reporters started to dig into it. Then the President got mad, and then his Secretary of Defense started to name-call reporters who were asking basic questions. War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person. That is why the Founders said that unless it is imminent defense--and in this case, it wasn't. The Israeli Foreign Minister had said before the U.S. attack that their attacks had already set the Iranian program back at least 2 or 3 years. That is a direct quote from the Israelis who follow this very closely. If the program had been set back at least 2 or 3 years, what was the urgency that suggested we needed to take this action without a debate in Congress? It was not only done without congressional authorization, it was also done without congressional consultation, and it was done without congressional notification of Democratic leaders. Republican leaders were given a briefing, but for the first time during my time here, no Democrat in a leadership position on the key committees was given an advance notice of this. Is war now to be a partisan thing where the White House just notifies those of the same party? I have tried to be consistent about this. When I came to the Senate in 2013 with this passion that I am going to do anything I can to stop an unnecessary war, within a few months of arriving here, President Obama, who is a personal friend, was contemplating military action in Syria. I looked my friend in the eye, and I said: You do not have congressional authority to do that. You need to bring this to Congress. Hey, I thought you were my supporter. I thought you were my friend and you would support this. I do support you, and I think you have good judgment, and I think you are likely to make a careful decision, but war is too big an issue to leave in the hands of even a completely careful and deliberative of individual. The Framers didn't want to leave war in the hands of George Washington, for God's sake. They thought Congress should be involved in it. I said to President Obama: You need to bring this to Congress. And guess what. A lot of Members of this body said the same thing. Seven Members of the Senate right now were in the House in 2013. I have a letter that many of them wrote. Six Members who are currently Republican Members of the Senate signed this. August 28, 2013: Dear Mr. President, we strongly urge you to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria. Your responsibility to do so is prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. We were in a recess then--it was August--but they said: If you deem that military action . . . is necessary, Congress can reconvene at your request. We stand ready to come back into session, consider the facts before us, and share the burden of decisions regarding U.S. involvement in the quickly escalading Syrian conflict. Six Republican Members of this body signed that letter in 2013, but based on their public statements, they seem to have a different standard for President Trump than they did for President Obama, a different standard for war against Iran than they did for war against Syria. There is one Member who signed this letter who is consistent: Congressman Peter Welch, who is now in the Senate. He signed this letter to the President of his own party, saying you can't do this without a vote of Congress, come to Congress. And he is taking the same position on the floor today, consistent with what he did then. I am going to conclude and just say this: I know everybody in this body is praying that the cease-fire that is in place now, for a couple of days, works and that it holds. I know everybody is praying that when the administration now says they are interested in a diplomatic resolution to this program, that they will have learned that they shouldn't tear up diplomatic deals that they did in 2018 but instead should prefer diplomacy and step back from war against Iran. I pray that that holds and that we won't need to be back here doing this again, but I do note that the President, even today, said he would certainly bomb Iran again. I am hoping--I am realistic--but I am hoping that Members of this body will stand up for the Constitution, will stand up for the proposition that war is too big to be decided by one person, will stand up for the principles that they articulated pretty clearly when it came to President Obama thinking about taking war into Syria. At that moment, when we urged President Obama to do that, he didn't use military force. He did bring it to Congress. We had a debate in the Foreign Relations Committee. We passed an authorization, and in that debate, Syria stepped forward and said they would give up their chemical weapons program. Diplomacy achieved a result, just as diplomacy achieved a more effective control of the Iranian nuclear program--even than the bombs that we dropped last Saturday--until it was torn up. I pray the cease-fire continues, but I fear we are going to be back here on this floor. And I hope when we are on this floor again, Members of this body will stand for the proposition that has been part of our history that war is too big an issue to allow one person to make the decision that sends our sons and daughters into harm's way. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled vote: Senator Sanders for up to 10 minutes, Senator Graham for up to 10 minutes, Senator Risch for up to 10 minutes, Senator Kaine for up to 3 minutes, and Senator Schumer for up to 3 minutes.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, the remaining two speakers and Senator Schumer have yielded their time to me. I will be the last speaker before the vote. My colleague from Idaho says this is driven by hate and vitriol toward President Trump. He well knows that from my first months in the Senate, I have taken this position, now, against four Presidents, Democratic and Republicans. The principles that have been stated on this floor about the Constitution and War Powers Resolution are very, very clear. Congress declares war. Once declared, the President is the Commander in Chief. There is no war without a declaration of Congress. The President, as Commander in Chief, can defend the United States against imminent attack, but there was no such imminent threat posed by the Iranian nuclear program, as the President's own National Security Advisor testified to Congress shortly before this strike. And as the Israeli Foreign Minister announced before the U.S. strike, that the Israeli actions had set the nuclear program back 2 or 3 years. No imminent attack on the United States, no imminent threat, that means Congress gets to declare war. This is not about hatred for any President; it is about standing up and doing what we took an oath to do. My colleague from South Carolina says we have only declared war five times, ending with World War II. That is not accurate. Congress has had the guts to at least vote on authorizing war up through 2002. But in 2002 something happened in this body; the Senate and the House got lied into a war with bogus intelligence about the weapons program of the nation of Iraq. We should be haunted by that. We should be haunted by that. The claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction led us into a war where thousands of troops and thousands of U.S. contractors were killed. And so what should have been the learning that came out of that is that we should do a good job kicking the tires, as Congress, before we go into a war and not get lied into a war. Instead, what I fear, since there has been no willingness of Congress to vote on any war since 2002, is what Members of this body have decided is, Wow, we got it wrong. We were lied into a war. We voted in a way that we regretted so let's not vote at all. Let's not vote at all. Let's overturn the congressional and constitutional history that says we only go to war with Congress and try to hide in the grass. Many of my colleagues have said things about Iran and how bad Iran is. None of them have ever introduced an authorization for war against Iran. If Iran is so bad, do that. People in this body would rather not vote so they can't be held accountable. I get that. That is a human impulse. It is just a human impulse that so disrespects the service of our men and women in uniform. If we are going to send troops into harm's way, our sons and daughters, whether they are flying bombing missions or ground troops or covert operations, we ought to have the guts in this body to cast a vote saying that that war is necessary, not just act as cheerleaders and hide from culpability, hide from accountability, hide from responsibility. If you vote against S.J. Res. 59, what you are saying is this President should be able to wage war without coming to Congress. If you think the President should have to come to Congress, whether you are for or against the war in Iran, you will support S.J. Res. 59. You will support the Constitution that has stood the test of time. You will support your oath. I urge a positive vote on the resolution. I yield the floor. Vote on Motion