Tim Kaine

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. So the Senator will not vote to continue government operations unless ObamaCare is defunded?

Mr. KAINE. I want to switch and ask the Senator a question about ``MakeWashingtonListen.'' That is the second piece. If the Senator will let me get back into a little bit of campaigning activity, he and I were candidates at the same time in 2012, and I gather that he told his constituents that he was opposed to ObamaCare and that he would vote to repeal or defund it if he were elected to office. Is that correct?

Mr. KAINE. I believe I am correct that the Senator won his election not by a small margin but by a large margin. Is that correct?

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 25, 2013, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reauthorizing Tria: The State of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Market.''

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 25, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate office building, to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Need to Invest in America's Infrastructure and Preserve Federal Transportation Funding.''

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 25, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 25, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on September 25, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial Nominations.''

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on National Security and International Trade and Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 25, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Assessing the Investment Climate and Improving Market Access in Financial Services in India''

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 25, 2013, to conduct a hearing entitled ``State of the American Senior: The Changing Retirement Landscape for Baby Boomers.'' The Committee will meet in room SD-562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. In addition, I think I understood, and I agree with a comment the Senator made about potential reforms--that even the whole notion of health care provided through employers is a little bit of a historical anomaly that came up in the aftermath of World War II. I was not sure if the Senator was suggesting that as part of a health care reform he would want to alter that norm of employers providing at least some health care provision for their employees.

Mr. KAINE. I thank the Senator. I would ask the Senator to yield for a series of questions around two issues--first, comments the Senator made earlier about helpful reforms that could be made to the health care system and, second, the Senator's comments about the need for Members of this body to listen to their constituents. Being in the chair and hearing the Senator, I could not resist but to follow up on those two items. On the issue of reforms, I understood one of the Senator's points to be that a helpful reform might be for Congress to take up and potentially eliminate the current prohibition of purchasing insurance across State lines. Did I hear that correctly?

Mr. KAINE. I ask the Senator, would he not agree that the best way to avoid a government shutdown or threats of a government shutdown or talking about the consequences of a government shutdown would be to separate out his question of what are the right reforms of the health care system from the funding of government operations?

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I also rise to speak on the continuing resolution. We are coming up on the 150th anniversary of the most famous speech ever given in America, the Gettysburg Address, delivered by Abraham Lincoln in Gettysburg, PA, in November of 1863. In that address, President Abraham Lincoln, the founder of the modern Republican Party, talked about the meaning of the battle and stated that all Americans should resolve that ``government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.'' That is what we are debating today. Should the American government be defunded and shut down? Should our government perish? The answer to this question is easy and obvious: Of course not. Of course not. If a shutdown threat to the American government were external, because of an act perpetrated by an enemy or anthrax put in the mail and sent to us, the American people would rally with every ounce of their energy to battle against a government shutdown. That is what is so amazing. There is a proposal on the table by a faction of Congress themselves to shut the government down. Not an external enemy but a proposal by Members of Congress, a faction in both Houses, to shut the government down. Last night on the floor of the Senate, I presided and then I took to my feet and asked the Senator from Texas a basic question: Will you vote against the funding and continuation of government if you do not get your wish on the defunding of ObamaCare? And his answer was very simple: Yes. Yes. In his view, and in the view of others who support this position, after 237 years of our national life, if you do not get your way on one issue that is important to you, it is acceptable to shut down the American government. Needless to say--and the Senator from Indiana did a good job of saying it--the consequences of shutdown are severe. The 26 days of shutdown in 1995 and 1996 cost taxpayers $1.4 billion by the estimate of the Congressional Budget Office. As Senator Coats mentioned, our Active-duty military are required to stay on duty, but they do not get paid. Their paychecks get delayed and then we have to come back and try to figure out a way to pay them late. They and their families don't deserve that treatment. Many civilians working in our military, army nurses, for example, might get furloughed and not paid, as well as cyber security professionals, aviation mechanics, and I mentioned army nurses. We won't take new applications for Medicare as people become eligible for Medicare. In 1996, 10,000 seniors a day who were becoming eligible for Medicare were turned away every day during the government shutdown. There will be 2.4 million Federal workers who won't get paid in a government shutdown, hurting their families. Many of those get furloughed, so whether it is meat inspectors or cancer researchers or folks who are negotiating trade deals to improve the economy, they will not be able to do the work the Nation needs them to do. And private businesses, such as the Newport News Shipyard, the manufacturers of the most sophisticated manufactured items on Earth find that their contracts are put in question and their employees are, therefore, put at risk. A shutdown is a huge blow to our economy and jobs. Make no mistake, these economic consequences of a shutdown are negative. Yesterday the Budget Committee held a hearing. We had both majority and minority witnesses--economists. I asked each of them: Would a government shutdown under current circumstances hurt the economy? They all answered: Yes. I asked them: Is even the threat of a shutdown harmful to the economy? They all answered: Yes. And furthermore, the economic consequences of a shutdown are even magnified by the economic consequences of a potential default on America's debt. Some are threatening default on America's debt if we don't defund ObamaCare. This is also economically irresponsible--not paying our bills for the first time in 237 years as a Nation. America paid its bills when Washington was burning during the War of 1812. America paid its bills during the Civil War. The entire world knows they can bank on the full faith and credit of the United States. Our Constitution says that the validity of public debt of the United States shall not be questioned. Those who threaten to repudiate our fiscal obligations or to shut down our government are engaging in economically destructive behavior. It is painfully obvious we should not shut down government, that we should not default on our fiscal obligations. So why are we even having a discussion about shutdown and default? What has brought us to a place where these unthinkable actions are being discussed and even promoted by some in both Houses of Congress? Simple. Some Members of both Houses are opposed to the Affordable Care Act. They are committed to repealing it or defunding it at all cost, even accepting a government shutdown or default on the debt of this Nation. What do we say to those who hold that view? First, to be plain, I oppose those who want to defund or repeal the Affordable Care Act, because repealing or defunding it would mean millions of Americans who will be able to access affordable care through health insurance exchanges would lose that ability. It will mean that nearly 7 million young adults would lose coverage they have been able to gain through their family's insurance policies. It would mean seniors would be stripped of Medicare coverage for certain preventive care, and also Medicare coverage to reduce prescription drug costs. It would mean small businesses will lose tax credits they can access if they insure their employees. And this is a personal one to me--I have experienced this in my family--that people with a health history will once again be free to be turned away by insurance companies because they have a preexisting health condition. Consumers who are getting rebates from insurance companies who overcharge them will stop getting rebate checks. In the States that have decided to embrace the Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act, an estimated 5 million people who are now on the verge of being insured will have that protection taken away from them. So for all those reasons I oppose repeal. Last year, I told my voters in Virginia that I opposed efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and I had an opponent who pledged to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The voters heard both of those positions and they rejected repeal and they embraced to keeping it in place and improving it. Last year, the President of the United States campaigned on continuing the Affordable Care Act and being open to improvements. He campaigned against someone who said it should be repealed or defunded, and the American public, by a large majority, said we don't want repeal, we want to continue forward and to reform and improve. The American public does not want repeal. The American public does not want defunding. The American public does not want default. The American public does not want shutdown. They are open to reform and improvement. Let me be clear: We should be open to reforming and improving the Affordable Care Act or any other part of our health care delivery system or any other thing we do as government. We need to be open to reform and improvement. The Senator from Indiana was wrong in one particular thing. Many in this Chamber, including Democrats, have already voted for ACA reforms as part of the budget we passed in March. But the minority party has stopped us from putting that budget into a conference now for more than 6 months. There is a significant group of people in this body who would love to talk about reform and improvements but who reject shutdown and default. This gets to the nub of the issue. Last night I asked the Senator from Texas about reforms he was interested in, and he laid a number of them out on the floor. He had some I liked and some I thought were good. I asked the Senator: Have you prepared any legislation to make these reforms? And he answered: I don't currently have a reform proposal but I am going to work with my staff to come up with some reform ideas. This gets to the nub of the issue. There is a right way to approach health reform. Though I disagree with it, there is also a right way to approach a repeal of the Affordable Care Act or defunding the Affordable Care Act. Here is what you do: If you have a better idea, introduce a health reform bill with your own ideas and try to convince your legislative colleagues that you have a better answer or participate in debate about the budget or about an appropriations bill and make your argument about the appropriate level of funding for the Affordable Care Act. The Senator from Texas and every legislator has the ability to raise whatever reforms or whatever funding or defunding ideas they want in these ways. Make your case, argue your position, try to convince your colleagues, and then accept the outcome. But do not threaten to shut down the government of the United States if you don't get your way, if you are not able to convince your colleagues that you have a better answer. Do not threaten to default on America's fiscal obligations if you don't get your way, if you can't convince your colleagues that you have a better answer. There is absolutely no reason to jam your plan to overturn a law passed by Congress, signed by the President, and affirmed by the Supreme Court, into the very gears of the American government. Do not let your opinion on one issue threaten not only government operations but the economy of the United States. In other words, let's talk about reform. Let's talk about improvements. Let's do it the right way, not the wrong way. Let's separate those discussions out from all the threats of shutdown or default. If we are willing to do that, I think we will be able to get somewhere. To conclude, I want to go back to where I started. I ask my Senate colleagues, avoid all the brinkmanship and promptly approve a continuing resolution to fund the continuation of American government. Strip away the separate issues that should be debated and considered separately, and let the House vote on the simple question of whether they believe that American government, after 237 years, shall continue. We have come far, we have achieved so much, and we have much work still to do. Government by, of, and for the people is not perfect and it will never be perfect. But I am resolved--and I hope all my colleagues are resolved--that government by, of, and for the people shall not perish-- not for 1 year, not for 1 month, not for 1 week, not for 1 day, not for 1 hour, not for 1 minute. Government shall not perish on this Earth. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

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

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 11, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judiciary Nominations.''

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 11, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Department of Homeland Security at 10 Years: Examining Challenges and Achievements and Addressing Emerging Threats.''

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sergio Aguirre, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges during morning business today, September 11, 2013.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to speak to the grave issue of the Syria resolution currently pending before the body. It is September 11. I know many Members have expressed thoughts, and we are all thinking about that day and what it means to our country. In a few minutes I will leave and go to the Pentagon to be with Pentagon staffers and family members as they commemorate the anniversary of this horrible tragedy in American life. The shadow of that tragedy and its rippling effects even today, 12 years later, definitely are a matter on my mind and heart as I think about this issue with respect to Syria. Also on my mind and heart as I think about this grave issue is its connection to Virginia. I believe Virginia is the most militarily connected State in our country. Our map is a map of American military history: the battle at Yorktown, the surrender at Appomattox Court House, the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11. Our map is a map of American military history. We are more connected to the military in the sense that one in nine of our citizens is a veteran. We have Active Duty at the Pentagon, training to be officers at Quantico, the largest concentration of naval power in the world at Hampton Roads. We have DOD contractors. We have DOD civilians such as Army nurses. We have ROTC cadets, Guard and Reserve members, and military families, all of whom care very deeply about the issue we are grappling with as a nation. I am sure in the Presiding Officer's State, as in mine and across the country, there is a war weariness on this 12th anniversary of 9/11, and that affects the way we look at this question of whether the United States should potentially engage in military action. I cast a vote last week in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to authorize limited military action, and I have spent the days since that vote talking to Virginians and hearing from them and hearing from some who aren't happy with the vote I cast. I spent 1 day talking to ROTC cadets at Virginia State University, folks who are training to be officers who might fight in future conflicts for this country. Then I spent Friday in Hampton Roads with veterans and military families talking about the choices before us. I heard a teenager last night say something that truly struck me. This is a teenager who doesn't have any direct connection to the military herself, no family members in service. But at an event I was attending, she stood and said: I don't know war, but all my generation and I know is war. Think about that: I don't know war, but all my generation and I know is war. During her entire life that she has been kind of a thinking person, aware of the outside world, we have been at war. That makes us tremendously war-weary, and I understand that. So trying to separate out all those feelings and do what is right is hard. Similar to many Virginians, I have family in the military who are going to be directly affected by what we do or what we don't do. I think about those family members and all Virginians and all Americans who have loved ones in service as I contemplate this difficult issue. I wish to say three things. First, I wish to praise the President for bringing this matter to Congress, which I believe is courageous and historic. Secondly, I wish to talk about why I believe authorizing limited military action makes sense. Third, I wish to talk about the need to exhaust all diplomatic opportunities and openings, including the ones that were reported beginning Monday of this week by Russia and Syria. First, on the President coming to Congress. This was what was intended by the Framers of the Constitution; that prior to the initiation of significant military action--and this would be significant by all accounts--that Congress should have to weigh in. The Framers wanted that to be so. They had read history. They knew executives might be a little too prone to initiating military action, and they wanted to make sure the people's elected representatives had a vote about whether an action should be initiated. Once initiated, there is only one Commander in Chief. But at the initiation, Congress needs to be involved. That was the intent from the very beginning of this Nation from 1787. There was an understanding that in an emergency, a President might need to act immediately, but even in that case there would need to be a reckoning, a coming back to Congress and seeking approval of Presidential action. In my view, the President, by bringing this matter to Congress, has acted in accord with law, acted in accord with the intent of the Framers of the Constitution, and actually has done so in a way that has cleared up some sloppiness about the way this institution and the President has actually done this over time. Only five times in the history of the Nation has Congress declared war. Over 120 times Presidents have initiated military action without congressional approval--at least prior congressional approval. Presidents have overreached their power, and Congress has often made a decision to avoid being accountable for this most grave decision that we make as a nation. I praise the President for bringing it to Congress, the people's body, because I think it is in accord with law. But I praise him for a second reason. It is not just about the constitutional allocation of responsibility. Responsibilities were allocated in the Constitution, in my view, for a very important moral reason. The moral reason is this: We cannot ask our men and women in service to put their lives on the line if there is not a consensus of the legislative and executive branches that the mission is worthwhile. That is why it is important for Congress to weigh in on a decision to initiate military hostility because, absent that, we face the situation that would be a very real possibility in this instance that a President would make a decision that an action or a war was worth fighting but a Congress would not support it. That would put the men and women who have to face the risk and potentially risk their lives in a very difficult situation. If we are going to ask people to risk their lives in any kind of a military action, we shouldn't be asking them to do it if the legislative and political branches haven't reached some consensus that it should be done. That is the first point I wish to make. I wish to thank the President for cleaning up this sloppiness in the historical allocation of responsibilities between a President and Congress, for taking a historic step--as he said he would as a candidate--of bringing a question such as this to Congress. We may be unable to act in certain cases because we are divided. But if we act and we act united, we are much stronger both militarily and in the moral example that we pose to the world. It is the right thing to do for the troops who bear the burden of battle. Second, I wish to talk about the actual authorization. We grappled with this. The news came out about the chemical weapons attack on August 21, and 18 of us members of the Foreign Relations Committee returned last week. The Presiding Officer came and attended some of our classified meetings. We grappled with the question about whether in this circumstance a limited military authorization was appropriate, and I voted yes. I voted yes for a very simple reason. I believe there has to be a consequence for using chemical weapons against civilians. It is pretty simple. There are a lot of nuances, a lot of subtleties, and a lot of questions about whether the plans might accomplish the particular objective we hope. Those are all legitimate questions. But at the end of the day, I feel so very strongly that if chemical weapons have been used--and in this case they were and used on a massive scale and used against civilians--there must be a consequence for that. There must be a sharp consequence for it. If there isn't, the whole world will be worse off. I believe that if the United States acts in this way to uphold an important international norm--perhaps the most important international norm that weapons of mass destruction can't be used against civilians-- if we act to uphold the norm, we will have partners. How many partners? We will see. Maybe not as many as we would wish, but we will have partners. But I am also convinced that if the United States does not act to uphold this principle, I don't think anyone will act. If we act, we will have partners; if we don't, I don't think anyone will act. That is the burden of leadership that is on this country's shoulders. We know about the history of the chemical weapons ban, and we are so used to it that it seems normal. But just to kind of step back from it, if we think about it, it is not that normal at all. The chemical weapons ban came out of World War I. World War I was a mechanized slaughter with over 10 million deaths, a slaughter unlike anything that had ever been seen in global history. There were all kinds of weapons used in World War I that had never been used before, including dropping bombs out of airplanes. Dropping bombs out of airplanes, new kinds of artillery, new kinds of munitions, new kinds of machine guns, chemical weapons, all kinds of mechanized and industrialized weapons were used in World War I. The American troops who served in 1917 and 1918 were gassed. They would be sleeping in a trench, trying to get a couple hours of sleep, and they would wake up coughing their lungs out or blinded--or they wouldn't wake up because some of the gases were invisible and silent. With no knowledge, you could suddenly lose your life or be disabled for life because of chemical weapons. The number of casualties in World War I because of chemical weapons was small as a percentage of the total casualties. But it is interesting what happened. After World War I, the nations of the world that had been at each other's throats, that had battled each other, gathered a few years later. It is interesting to think what they banned and didn't ban. They didn't ban aerial bombardment. They didn't ban machine guns. They didn't ban rockets. They didn't ban shells. They didn't ban artillery. But they did decide to ban chemical weapons. They were able to all agree, as combatants, that chemical weapons were unacceptable and should neither be manufactured nor used. It can seem maybe a little bit illogical or even absurd: Why is it worse to be killed by a chemical weapon than a machine gun or by an artillery shell? I don't know what the logic is to it. All I can assume is that the experience of that day and moment had inspired some common spark of humanity in all of these cultures and combating nations, and they all agreed the use of chemical weapons should be banned heretofore on the Earth. Nations agreed with that ban. The Soviet Union was on board. The United States was on board. So many nations were on board. Syria ultimately signed that accord in 1968. Even in the midst of horrific wars where humans have done horrific things to each other, since 1925 and the passage of the ban, the ban has stuck. The international community has kept that ember of humanity alive that says these weapons should not be used, and only two dictators until now have used these weapons--Adolph Hitler using these weapons against millions of Jews and others and Saddam Hussein using the weapons against Kurds, his own people, and then against Iranians in the Iraq-Iran war. When we think about it, it is pretty amazing. With all the barbarity that has happened since 1925, this has generally stuck, with the exception of Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein, until now. The beneficiaries of this policy have been civilians, but they have also been American service men and women. The service men and women who fought in World War I were gassed from this country, but the Americans who fought in World War II, in Europe and North Africa and the Pacific, who fought in Korea, who fought in Vietnam, who fought in Afghanistan, who fought in Iraq, who fought in other minor military involvements have never had to worry about facing chemical weapons. No matter how bad the opponent was, American troops haven't had to worry about it, and the troops of other nations haven't had to worry about it either. This is a very important principle, and it is a positive thing for humanity that we reached this accord and we have honored it. So what happens now if there isn't a consequence for Bashar al- Assad's escalating use of chemical weapons, to include chemical weapons against civilians. What happens if we let go of the norm and we say: Look, that may have been OK for the 20th century, but we are tougher and more cynical now. There are not any more limits now, so we don't have to abide by any norms now. What I believe the lesson is--and I think the lessons of history will demonstrate that this will apply--is that an atrocity unpunished will engender future atrocities. We will see more atrocities in Syria against civilians and others. We will see more atrocities abroad. We will see atrocities, and we will have to face the likely consequence that our servicemembers, who have not had to face chemical weapons since 1925, will now have to prepare to face them on the battlefield. If countries can use chemical weapons and there is no serious consequence, guess what else they can do. They can manufacture chemical weapons. Guess what else. They can sell chemical weapons and proliferate chemical weapons. It is not just a matter that the use of chemical weapons would be encouraged, but the manufacture and sale of chemical weapons by individuals or companies or countries that want to make money will proliferate. This has a devastating potential effect on allies of the United States and the neighbors around Syria such as Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, and Turkey. It would have a devastating impact on other allies, such as South Korea, that border nations that use chemical weapons. It could encourage other nations that have nonchemical weapons of mass destruction, for example, nuclear weapons, to think that the world will not stand up, there is no consequence for their use so they can violate treaties, violate norms, and no one is willing to stand and oppose it. That was the reason I voted last week in the Foreign Relations Committee for this limited authorization of military force. I was fully aware the debate on the floor might amend or change it, and I was open to that possibility. But I thought it was important to stand as a representative of Virginia and a representative of this country to say: The use of chemical weapons may suddenly be OK in the 21st century for Bashar al-Asad, it may suddenly be OK to Vladimir Putin and others, but it is not OK to the United States of America, and we are willing to stand and oppose them. The limited military authorization that is on this floor, as the Presiding Officer knows, talks about action to punish, deter, and degrade the ability of the Syrian regime to use chemical weapons. The goal is to take the chemical weapons stockpile of that nation out of the battlefield equation. The civil war will continue. We don't have the power, as the United States, to dictate the outcome of that war. But chemical weapons should not be part of that war, and they should not be part of any war. The authorization was limited. There will be no ground troops. It was limited in scope and duration, but make no mistake, the authorization was a clear statement of American resolve that there has to be a consequence for use of these weapons in violation of international norms that have been in place since 1925. Finally, I want to talk about diplomacy and the urgent need that I know we all feel in this body, and as Americans, to pursue diplomatic alternatives--including some current alternatives on the table--that would be far preferable to military action. It is very important that we be creative. It is very important that we have direct talks with the perpetrators and enablers of these crimes, but also important to look to intermediaries and independent nations for diplomatic alternatives. We have been trying to do so until recently and have been blocked in the United Nations. But the authorization for military force actually had that as its first caveat. The authorization said: Mr. President, if this passes, we authorize you to use military force, but before you do, you have to come back to Congress and stipulate that all diplomatic angles, options, and possibilities have been exhausted. So on the committee, and with the wording of this authorization, we were very focused on the need to continue a diplomatic effort, and that is why it was so gratifying on Monday, on my way back to DC after a long week, to hear that Russia had come to the table with a proposal inspired by a discussion with administration figures. It is a proposal that the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile--one of the largest in the world--would be placed under international control. Then a few hours later--and this was no coincidence--Syria, essentially Russia's client state, spoke up and said: We will very much entertain placing our chemical weapons under international control. Syria has even suggested, beyond that, they would finally sign on to the 1990s-era Chemical Weapons Convention. They are one of six nations in the world that refused to sign it. Syria would not even acknowledge they had chemical weapons until 2012--even though the world knew it. Over the last 48 hours, we have seen diplomatic options emerge that are very serious and meaningful. In fact--and it is too early to tell-- if we can have these discussions and find an accord where Syria will sign on to the convention and put these weapons under international control, we will not only have avoided a bad thing, such as military action, which none of us want unless it is necessary, but we will have accomplished a good thing for Syrians and humanity by taking this massive chemical weapons stockpile off the battlefield and submitting it to international control and eventually destruction. The offer that is on the table, and the action that has happened since Monday is very serious, very significant, and very encouraging, and it could be a game changer in this discussion. I said it is serious, but what we still need to determine is if it is sincere. It is serious and significant, but obviously what the administration needs to do in tandem with the U.N. is to determine whether it is sincere. I will conclude by saying I think it is very important for Americans, for citizens, and for the Members of Congress to understand--we should make no mistake about this--that the diplomatic offer that is on the table was not on the table until America demonstrated it was prepared to stand for the proposition that chemical weapons cannot be used. I have no doubt that had we not taken the action in Congress last week in the Foreign Relations Committee to show America is resolved to do something, if no one else in the world is resolved to do something, at least we would be resolved to do something, had we not taken that action, Russia would not have suddenly changed its position--they have been blocking action after action in the Security Council--and come forward with this serious recommendation. Had we not taken that action, and had they not been frightened of what America might do, Syria--which was willing to use with impunity these weapons against civilians--would not have come forward either. So American resolve is important. American resolve is important to show the world that we value this norm and we will enforce it, even to the point of limited military action. But even more important, American resolve is important because it encourages other nations--even the perpetrators and enablers of the use of these weapons--to come forward and shoulder the responsibilities they have, or so we pray, in the days ahead. What I ask of my colleagues and my countrymen is that because it has been our resolve that has produced a possibility for a huge diplomatic breakthrough and win, I ask we continue to be resolved, continue to show strength, continue to hold out the option that there will be a consequence for this international crime, that America will play a leading role in making sure there is a consequence, and as long as we stand strong with this resolve, we will maximize the chance that we will be able to obtain the diplomatic result we want. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today, my colleague Senator Mark Warner and I are introducing the Commonsense Permitting for Job Creation Act of 2013, a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation to address an aspect of water permitting law that has touched several economic development projects. In my home State of Virginia, there is a county that has been working on securing a permit for the proposed site of a business center, where one or multiple firms could establish job-creating manufacturing plants. This area--Henry County, on the North Carolina border, has seen profound economic challenges in recent years. The county's 5-year average unemployment rate is 11 percent. In the county's largest city, Martinsville, the 5-year average unemployment rate is over 17 percent. This part of Virginia would benefit greatly from the jobs this site could bring. Henry County has worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on site preparation. However, the Corps has been reluctant to issue the permit because no company has yet committed to the site and prepared detailed blueprints. The problem is that a company will not relocate to the site without an approved permit, but a permit cannot be approved without a company willing to relocate. Henry County, the Martinsville-Henry Co. Economic Development Corp., and the Commonwealth of Virginia have together devoted more than $16 million to this project. They have worked in good faith, at great cost in money and personnel hours, to promote economic development in line with environmental protection and all requirements of the law. Yet due to this regulatory ambiguity, this process is unable to move forward. Our legislation clarifies that ambiguity. It specifies that the lack of a committed end-user shall not be a reason to deny a Corps permit that meets all other legal requirements. I believe this bill will allow the site in Henry County, and similar sites elsewhere, to move forward, while maintaining all environmental protections. Senator Warner and I have introduced this legislation in partnership with our friends and Virginia colleagues in the House, U.S. Representatives Robert Hurt and Morgan Griffith. We believe this will expedite the approval of important economic development projects, and 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, today, my colleague Senator Mark Warner and I are introducing the Commonsense Permitting for Job Creation Act of 2013, a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation to address an aspect of water permitting law that has touched several economic development projects. In my home State of Virginia, there is a county that has been working on securing a permit for the proposed site of a business center, where one or multiple firms could establish job-creating manufacturing plants. This area--Henry County, on the North Carolina border, has seen profound economic challenges in recent years. The county's 5-year average unemployment rate is 11 percent. In the county's largest city, Martinsville, the 5-year average unemployment rate is over 17 percent. This part of Virginia would benefit greatly from the jobs this site could bring. Henry County has worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on site preparation. However, the Corps has been reluctant to issue the permit because no company has yet committed to the site and prepared detailed blueprints. The problem is that a company will not relocate to the site without an approved permit, but a permit cannot be approved without a company willing to relocate. Henry County, the Martinsville-Henry Co. Economic Development Corp., and the Commonwealth of Virginia have together devoted more than $16 million to this project. They have worked in good faith, at great cost in money and personnel hours, to promote economic development in line with environmental protection and all requirements of the law. Yet due to this regulatory ambiguity, this process is unable to move forward. Our legislation clarifies that ambiguity. It specifies that the lack of a committed end-user shall not be a reason to deny a Corps permit that meets all other legal requirements. I believe this bill will allow the site in Henry County, and similar sites elsewhere, to move forward, while maintaining all environmental protections. Senator Warner and I have introduced this legislation in partnership with our friends and Virginia colleagues in the House, U.S. Representatives Robert Hurt and Morgan Griffith. We believe this will expedite the approval of important economic development projects, and 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, I also rise to support the nomination of Samantha Power to be our Ambassador at the United Nations. Within the last month I had a unique opportunity as the junior member of the committee that my friend Chairman Menendez chairs, as the head of Foreign Relations, to spend the day at the United Nations and learn about it from then-Ambassador Rice. I left that day with a couple of reactions: first, very proud to be an American, and, second, concerned about the challenges the institution faces. First, on the proud to be American, I think it is important for us to realize, for whatever its flaws, the United Nations would not exist if it were not for this country. It is a quintessential American idea to pull together an institution that tries to build peace, that tries to solve hunger, that tries to solve global health needs. The idea first gained force through the efforts of American President and Virginian Woodrow Wilson who won the Nobel prize for trying to get the League of Nations going at the end of World War 1. That league lasted for 20 years and collapsed, for many reasons, including the lack of participation in the United States in the global effort. But the idea did not die. The American idea stayed alive, and in 1939 the State Department, within 2 years after the collapse of the league, started to work on the next version. FDR worked on it during his entire Presidency and was scheduled to have the first conference on the United Nations 2 weeks after his untimely death in 1945. The second decision made by President Truman in 1945--the first was to keep FDR's Cabinet--was he was posed with this: After FDR's death, we can postpone the meeting in San Francisco about the formation of the United Nations. But Truman said: No, we are going to go ahead because this is something the world needs and America is uniquely positioned to lead. Ever since its start, in funding and support, through good times and bad, through controversies Senator Rubio described on the floor, this United Nations has worked hard to do good, worked hard to achieve an ideal that may be impossible to achieve. It is a tribute to the U.S. role as a global leader that the United Nations exists today. I was also struck again by many of the challenges--the challenges of a tough globe, the challenges of U.N. problems in the ethics and finance area, the challenges that confuse many Americans as we look at the U.N., principally those referred to by my colleague Senator Menendez, a history of anti-Semitism at the U.N. that confuses us as we watch it. What are we to do with this institution that we birthed, more than any other nation, that still offers great hope and service every day, yet still needs significant change? I think what we should do is put a strong person in to be U.S. Ambassador, and Samantha Power is that individual. She has the strength to tackle the challenges that need tackling at the U.N. She has had the career, as described by earlier speakers, as a war correspondent, a writer, somebody who snuck across borders to take photos of atrocities in Darfur and then bring them to the attention of the world. Her writings and her activism have inspired generations of activists around the world to take up the cause of human rights. She has been the President's senior adviser on matters in the United Nations in the last 4 years. To focus on this issue, here is what Samantha Power has done in that role to help deal with this issue of anti-Semitism at the U.N. and the double standard in the treatment of Israel. She worked to ensure the closest possible cooperation between the United States and Israel at the U.N., where she championed efforts to stand up against attempts to delegitimize Israel. She was key to the decision of the United States to boycott the deeply flawed ``Durban II'' conference in 2009, which turned into an event to criticize Israel. She helped mobilize efforts for the U.N. sanctions against Iran. She has challenged unfair treatment of Israel by U.N. bodies, including the one-sided Goldstone Report, and efforts to single out Israel in the Security Council after the Turkish flotilla incident, and she opposed the unilateral moves in the U.N. by the Palestinians that could undermine prospects for a negotiated peace agreement between Palestine and Israel, and how hopeful we are at the events this week, and we pray it goes forward and finds positive possibility. This is the activity she has had helping the U.N. while she was not the U.N. Ambassador. I want her in that seat so she can carry forward on those initiatives and others. She will champion efforts to protect persecuted Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East and beyond, and she helped spearhead the creation of new tools for genocide prevention and she led the administration's efforts to combat human trafficking, all values of which we can be proud if they would be on display at the United Nations. I said during her hearing the one thing that made me scratch my head a bit about her when I heard she was nominated is I think of her primarily as a very blunt and outspoken person, and blunt and outspoken is not always the best job description of a diplomat. But in the case of the United Nations, with the challenges there, the challenges in the needed financial reform, the challenges in the need to push back against some instances of anti-Semitism, the challenges of ethics and other issues, we need blunt and outspoken at the United Nation. We don't need vague and ambiguous. We need the kind of strong leadership that Samantha Power would provide. I think of many United Nations Ambassadors. It has been an ``A'' list of people from Henry Cabot Lodge to President George H.W. Bush before he was President to Bill Richardson and Andrew Young. We can think of many. But the two I think of most--I guess I think of them because they are Irish Americans--when I think of Samantha Power is Daniel Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick, strong United Nations Ambassadors who stood proudly for the values of this country, who gave no quarter, who were good diplomats but did not hesitate to call the truth whenever and wherever they saw it. I think Samantha Power will do the same, and that I is why I support her nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. I have no objection.

Mr. KAINE. I thank the majority leader for his kind words.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, today I wish to commend a distinguished Virginian, Bob Bowles, for his extensive contributions to the success of the Senate Productivity and Quality Award, SPQA, Program and many Virginia governmental, business, and nonprofit organizations. In 1982, the Senate passed resolution 502 to promote the creation of State-sponsored programs to improve quality in industry. As part of an effort to fulfill resolution 502's vision, the U.S. Senate Productivity and Quality Award Program, or SPQA, was established to promote quality in Virginia organizations. SPQA is an all-volunteer organization with a mission to promote and recognize high-performance organizations in Virginia. Since its founding 30 years ago, SPQA has recognized more than 200 Virginia city and county organizations, businesses, and nonprofits for their pursuit of organizational excellence. Today, SPQA continues to provide training and an award challenge to thousands of individuals and organizations in the Commonwealth. I am proud to say it is the oldest continuously operating productivity and quality awards program in the United States. Bob Bowles has served as director and executive director of SPQA since 1994. He has devoted thousands of volunteer hours to SPQA, and his leadership has paved the way for SPQA to continue accomplishing its mission for Virginia into the future. On behalf of the Senate and the people of Virginia, I thank Bob for his invaluable service to SPQA and the Commonwealth.