Tim Kaine

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 174, submitted earlier today.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. We will continue to work through the amendments to the immigration bill tomorrow. Senators will be notified when votes are scheduled.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, June 19, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for 1 hour with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the Republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 744, the comprehensive immigration reform bill.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of S. Res. 173, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order following the remarks of the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 79, S. Res. 143.

Mr. KAINE. I further ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I would like to comment on my colleague's characterization that Members of this body want a backroom deal. Because in that characterization, my colleague neglected to make clear to certainly people in this gallery what happens when there is a conference report. Since March 23, we have been trying to take a budget passed by this body, in accord with the Budget Act of 1974, into a conference with the House budget that was passed the same week. That is the way, in a bicameral legislature, we resolve differences between the two Houses: to put the two different positions in a conference committee, and we ask people to sit down and debate and listen and dialog and hopefully find a compromise. There is no guarantee in any conference that a compromise will be found. All we are asking is that Members of this body, instead of exercising a prerogative to block debate and compromise, allow a conference to go forward so we can talk and listen and see whether we can find compromise for the good of the Nation. The Senator has indicated they are blocking that because they want to stop backroom deals. The Senator has neglected to explain what happens when there is a conference. When there is a conference, if there is a deal, if there is an agreement to find good for the common good of the Nation between a Republican House majority and a Democratic Senate majority, then the conference report gets submitted back to the bodies, we have debate in this Chamber where every Senator--just as they did during the budget--can stand and explain whether they are for it or against it, and then every Senator has the ability to vote yes or no to the conference report. If the Senator would like to see a conference and see if it works and if he doesn't like it vote against the budget or the budget compromise, he is able to do it. If any Senator allows a conference committee to go forward and when it comes back believes it represents some kind of a backroom deal, at that point they can say that on the floor. But to restrict a budget from even going to conference so we can find compromise before you know whether compromise will be found, before you know what the compromise might be, and to call it a back-room deal when you are blocking anybody from even entering the room and trying to find compromise I think is an unfair characterization of the procedures of this body. I have stated before on the floor as I have made the motion--this is the 13th motion we have made since March 23 to begin a budget conference so we can find compromise--when our Framers established a bicameral legislature they knew what they were doing, but they gave us a challenge and the challenge was this: In a bicameral legislature that requires passage in both Houses, if the governmental organism is to be alive, then compromise is the blood of the organism because passage in one House is not enough. There has to be passage in both Houses for the vast majority of items, including a budget. Blocking a process of compromise from beginning is taking the blood out of the living organism of this Congress and of this government. Efforts to block compromise harm this institution. They are harming the institution every day in the minds of the American public, be they Democratic, Republican, Independent, wherever they live. I have made the motion. The motion has been objected to. I can assure folks this motion will continue to be made because we passed a budget in this body under regular order. We need to get into a compromise-- into a conference with the House so we can do what is expected of us: listen, dialog, exercise efforts to find compromise. Without compromise, there is no Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE. I object to the request as modified.

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, given that no Member of this body made an amendment to request such a provision and offered it for vote either during the Budget Committee deliberation or on the floor of this body when we were debating the budget, I consider the request basically an effort to modify the budget after the vote is done. Therefore, I reject the request, and I would ask an opportunity to comment additionally.

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment which is--and has been--at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate on March 23, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to; the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses; and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; that following the authorization, two motions to instruct conferees be in order from each side: a motion to instruct relative to the debt limit and a motion to instruct relative to taxes-revenue; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to the votes in relation to the motions; and, further, that no amendments be in order to either of the motions prior to the votes, all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, the Senate has begun a historic debate on comprehensive immigration reform. We have had and will continue to have hours of debate on this issue. I think it is appropriate that I spend a few minutes explaining the bill in Spanish, a language that has been spoken in this country since Spanish missionaries founded St. Augustine, FL in 1565. Spanish is also spoken by almost 40 million Americans who have a lot at stake in the outcome of this debate. First, I want to applaud my colleagues in the ``Gang of 8,'' who have worked tirelessly to come up with a bipartisan comprehensive bill. This issue deserves an open and fair debate on the floor. It has been over 25 years since we passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The next few days and weeks will not be easy; they will be a test for the Senate, and whether this body can debate, offer amendments, compromise, and ultimately come together on an issue that will move our country forward. This debate is about Isabel Castillo. This young woman from Harrisonburg, VA was brought to the United States by her parents at the very young age of 6. Her parents performed hard labor in order to support their family by picking apples and working in a poultry plant. All they wanted, like all parents do, was a better life for their children. Isabel did everything right--she graduated from high school and went on to attend college, where she graduated magna cum laude. She did not qualify for financial aid, due to her immigration status, and worked for a year to save money for college. After she graduated from college she was unable to legally find a job. Instead of giving up, this young woman organized the Harrisonburg Dream Act chapter to raise awareness about her situation in order to help other students. This is one example of many as to why we need to pass an immigration bill. For students and families, such as Isabel's, this is about their future. The last time Congress passed a comprehensive immigration bill was in 1986. Many of the concerns I hear from Virginians involve issues that the last immigration reform bill did not address--lack of sufficient border security measures and a way to address the large number of undocumented immigrants in our country. The last immigration reform bill also did not include spouses and children of legalized immigrants--which created a strong incentive for many to enter or remain in the country illegally. This time around, things are different. I have been very impressed by the open process we have had in the Judiciary Committee: 212 amendments were considered in the Committee; 30 Republican amendments were accepted; and 12 full committee hearings on immigration and border security were held before markup. I understand that some doubt remains as to whether or not this bill will fix our broken immigration system. While not perfect--I can confidently stand here today and say this bill will do more for border security, more to improve our current backlog, more to strengthen our employment verification system, and more to put measures in place to deal with the future flow of immigrants--compared to any other immigration bill in history. This bill will first and foremost create a path to earned citizenship, not amnesty. Undocumented individuals will have to meet several stringent requirements such as, paying fees and fines, passing national security and criminal background checks, paying their taxes and learning English. And before anyone can come out of the shadows, this bill requires a border security strategy and border fencing strategy within 6 months of enactment. I am proud that this bill includes strong provisions to protect students who only know this country as their home, DREAMERS, as well as agricultural workers, who perform some of the most difficult labor-- these individuals will have an accelerated path if they meet certain conditions. In order for the U.S. to be the most talented country in the world, we must fix the current flaws in our immigration system. Our immigration system does not meet the demands of businesses that wish to attract and retain highly qualified immigrants. It is not about just addressing the short-term needs of the STEM workforce but about investing in the future of our children. In order to ensure we remain globally competitive, we must increase our investments in education. This bill does just that by establishing a STEM education initiative--funded through fees collected from employers of foreign STEM workers. According to the Council on Foreign Relations ``60 percent of U.S. employers are having difficulties finding qualified workers to fill vacancies at their companies.'' This bill also creates a fair path for individuals who want to come into this country and start businesses, create jobs, and invest in the economy. In Virginia, Asian-owned businesses had sales and receipts of more than $13 billion and employed more than 92,000 people. Virginia's foreign students contribute more than $405 million to the State's economy in tuition, fees, and living expenses every year. Immigrants' contributions in the high-tech sector are striking, with one study finding that immigrants started 25 percent of all engineering and technology companies founded in the United States between 1995 and 2005. Through this bill individuals who earn a master's or other postgraduate degree in STEM fields from American universities can apply for legal permanent resident status. This bill also changes our current visa system from one based on arbitrary numbers to one that is market based and understands the needs of U.S. employers. The Federal Government currently spends nearly $18 billion on immigration enforcement every year, more than the combined budgets of all other Federal law enforcement agencies: U.S. Border Patrol apprehension of foreign nationals between ports of entry fell to a 40-year low of 327,577 in FY2011; and Removals grew from 30,000 in 1990 to more than 391,000 in

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to deliver a floor speech on immigration reform in Spanish and that the Spanish and English versions be printed in the Record.

Mr. KAINE. El senado ha comenzado un debate historico sobre una reforma migratoria comprensiva. Hemos tenido y continuaremos a tener horas para debatir este asunto. Creo que es apropiado que tome unos pocos minutos para explicar la legislacion en espanol, un lenguaje que ha sido hablado en este pais desde que misioneros espanoles fundaron a San Agustin, FL en mil-quinientos-sesenta-y-cinco. El espanol tambien es hablado por casi cuarenta millones de Americanos con mucho invertido en el resultado de este debate. Primeramente, quiero felicitar a mis colegas en el ``Grupo de los Ocho,'' quienes han trabajado incansablemente para ofrecer legislacion bipartidista. Este asunto merece un debate abierto y razonable en el senado. Han pasado mas de veinte-y-cinco anos desde la ultima vez que pasamos una reforma migratoria comprensiva. Los proximos dias y semanas no seran faciles; seran una prueba para el senado, en como esta camara puede debatir, ofrecer enmiendas, negociar, y al final unirse en un asunto que movera nuestro pais adelante. Este debate es sobre Isabel Castillo. Esta joven de Harrisonburg, VA fue traida a los estados unidos por sus padres a la edad de seis. Sus padres trabajaban a mano de obra muy dificil cosechando manzanas y trabajando en una factoria avicola para poder mantener a la familia. Lo unico que querian, como todos los padres quieren, era una vida mejor para sus hijos. Isabel hiso todo lo correcto--se graduo de la escuela secundaria y siguio adelante asistiendo la universidad, donde se graduo magna cum laude. Ella no califico para la asistencia universitaria federal por razon de su estatus migratorio y trabajo por un ano, para ahorrar dinero para la universidad. Despues de que se graduo del colegio, no pudo conseguir un trabajo legal. Enves de rendirse, esta mujer joven organizo el capitulo de Harrisonburg Sonadores para crecer el conocimiento de su situacion en orden de poder ayudar a otros estudiantes. Este es uno de muchos ejemplos por cual tenemos que pasar una reforma migratoria. Para estudiantes y familias, tal como la de Isabel, esto se trata de sus futuros. La ultima vez que el congreso paso una reforma migratoria comprensiva fue en mil-novecientos-ochenta-y-seis. Muchas de las preocupaciones que escucho de Virginianos incluyen asuntos que la ultima reforma migratoria no resolvio--la falta de suficiente medidas de seguridad para la frontera y una manera de resolver el gran numero de inmigrantes indocumentados en nuestro pais. La ultima reforma migratoria tampoco incluyo esposos y esposas e hijos e hijas de inmigrantes legalizados-- cual creo un incentivo fuerte para muchos en entrar o pertenecer en el pais ilegalmente. Esta vez, las cosas son diferentes. Estoy muy impresionado por el proceso abierto que hemos tenido en el comite judicial del senado: Doscientos-doce enmiendas fueron consideradas en el comite Treinta enmiendas republicanas fueron aceptadas; y Doce audiencias publicas sobre inmigracion y seguridad fronteriza fueron realizadas antes de que el comite judicial votara sobre la legislacion Entiendo que permanecen algunas dudas si esta legislacion arreglara nuestro sistema de inmigracion. Aunque no es perfecto--puedo pararme aqui hoy y decirles que esta legislacion hara mas para la seguridad fronteriza, mas para mejorar nuestra lista de visas pendientes, mas para fortalecer nuestro sistema de verificacion de empleo, y mas para establecer medidas para afrontar los inmigrantes que vendran en el futuro--comparado a cualquier otra legislacion migratoria en nuestra historia. Esta legislacion primeramente crea un camino a la ciudadania merecida, no amnestia. Individuos indocumentados tendran que satisfacer varios requisitos rigurosos tal como, pagando multas, pasando verificacion de antecedentes, pagando impuestos y aprendiendo ingles. Y antes de que cualquier persona pueda aplicar, esta legislacion requiere una estrategia de seguridad fronteriza y estrategia de prevencion en la frontera dentro de 6 meses de ser promulgada. Estoy orgulloso de que esta legislacion incluye provisiones fuertes para proteger estudiantes que solamente conocen este pais como su hogar, Sonadores, y tambien trabajadores en agricultura, quienes trabajan en unas de las manos de obra mas dificiles--esta gente tendra un camino acelerado si satisfacen ciertos requisitos. Para que los estados unidos sea el pais mas talentoso en el mundo, tenemos que arreglar las fallas que existen hoy en dia en nuestro sistema de inmigracion. Nuestro sistema no satisface las demandas de negocios que desean atraer y retener inmigrantes sumamente calificados. No se trata de simplemente afrontando las necesidades de corto plazo requeridas por los trabajadores en las mas reas de ciencia, tecnologia, ingenieria, y matematicas, sino sobre invirtiendo en el futuro de nuestros hijos. Para asegurar de que sigamos competitivos globalmente, tenemos que aumentar nuestras inversiones en la educacion. Esta legislacion hace tal meta estableciendo una iniciativa--fundado por pagos colectados de empleadores que emplean trabajadores extranjeros en estas areas. Segun el Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores, ``sesenta por ciento de empleadores tienes dificultades encontrando trabajadores calificados para llenar vacancias en sus empresas.'' Esta legislacion tambien crea un camino justo para individuos que quieren venir a este pais y empezar negocios, crear trabajos, e invertir en la economia. En Virginia, los negocios aduenados por gente asiatica tuvieron ventas y recibos de mas de trece-mil-millones de dolares y emplearon a mas de noventa-y-dos-mil personas. Estudiantes extranjeros contribuyeron mas de cuatro- cientos-cinco millones de donlares cada ano a la economia de Virginia a traves de sus matriculas, pagos, y gastos de mantenimiento durante el ano academico. Las contribuciones de los inmigrantes en el sector de alta tecnologia son grandes, con un estudio encontrando que inmigrantes comenzaron veinte-y-cinco por ciento de todas las empresas de ingenieria y tecnologia fundadas en los estados unidos entre mil-novecientos- noventa-y-cinco y dos-mil-cinco. A traves de esta legislacion, individuos que logran una maestria u otra matriculada avanzada in las areas de ciencia, tecnologia, ingenieria, y matematicas de universidades estadounidenses pueden aplicar para residencia permanente. Esta legislacion tambien cambia nuestro sistema de visas que existe hoy en dia de uno basado en numeros arbitrarios a uno basado en el mercado y las necesidades de empleadores estadounidenses. El Gobierno Federal ahora gasta casi diez-y-ocho-mil-millones de dolares en esfuerzo de inmigracion cada ano, mas que los presupuestos combinados de todas las otras agencias de ejecucion legal. Aprensiones de la Patrulla Fronteriza Estadounidense de extranjeros dentro los puertos de entrada redujo por mas de trescientos-veinte-y-siete-mil en al ano fiscal dos-mil-once, un nivel no visto en cuarenta anos. Remociones crecieron de treinta-mil en mil-novecientos- noventa a mas de trecientos-noventa mil en el ano fiscal dos- mil-once. Esta legislacion va mas lejos asignando hasta seis-y-medio mil- millones de dolares adicionales para seguridad fronteriza. Y requiere la creacion de un sistema biometrico en diez de los aeropuertos internacionales mas grandes en los estados unidos dentro de 2 anos, y veinte aeropuertos adicionales dentro de 6 anos. No se trata de simplemente gastar mas dinero en la frontera, se trata de ser estrategico en como y donde gastamos nuestros recursos. Unos de los asuntos centrales que tenemos que resolver es que empleadores sean responsables y asegurar que tengamos un sistema de verificacion de empleo efectivo. Desde Mayo, mas de cuatro-cientos-mil empleadores se han registrado para e-verify. Esta legislacion requiere que todos los empleadores usen un sistema de verificacion que asegure que todos los empleados sean legalmente autorizados para trabajar en los estados unidos, y multara empresas que emplean a los inmigrantes indocumentados. El Departamento de Estado ahora en dia esta procesando unas visas para hermanos Filipinos de ciudadanos estadounidenses quienes sometieron sus aplicaciones de visa hace veinte y cuatro anos. Les pido a mis colegas que se imaginen si usted tuviera que esperar mas de veinte-y-cuatro anos para ver a miembros de su familia. Esta legislacion proporciona suficiente visas para borrar el atraso de visas de familia y empleo en los proximos siete anos, empezando en el dos-mil-quince. Ultimamente, y probablemente unas de las partes mas esenciales de esta legislacion, es como afrontamos los inmigrantes que quieren venir a este pais en el futuro. Esta legislacion crea una estructura para los inmigrantes del futuro que es basada en un sistema de puntos de merito. La legislacion establece una nueva visa temporal para los trabajadores agricultores, y crea provisiones correspondientes a la integracion de nuevos inmigrantes; y incluye provisiones para resolver las necesidades del presente y el futuro correspondiente a la industria de agricultura estadounidense, mientras protegiendo trabajadores de ser desplazados o afectados negativamente por trabajadores extranjeros. En concluson, doy la bienvenida a este debate. Colonos ingleses quienes aterrizaron en Jamestown, VA en mil-seis-cientos-siete ayudaron empezar la gran historia de nuestra nacion como una nacion de inmigrantes. Y el Virginiano Thomas Jefferson, mientras que escribia la Declaracion de Independencia, expreso su entendimiento claro que inmigracion era una fuerza positiva para nuestra nacion. Hoy, Virginia tiene la novena poblacion de inmigrantes mas grande en el pais, con mas de novecientos-tres-mil residentes que nacieron afuera de los estados unidos. Inmigrantes contribuyen una gran riqueza a nuestro estado. Espero que podamos empezar un nuevo capitulo y que mandemos un mensaje fuerte al mundo y la nacion que somos un pais de leyes pero tambien de justicia e igualdad. No hay que repetir los errores del pasado pero debemos tambien recordar que la perfeccion no debe ser el enemigo de lo bueno. Encontrando una solucion perfecta no deberia de bloquear el progreso. Vamos a demonstrar a este pais y al mundo que esta legislacion no es Republicana y no es Democrata, es fuertemente bipartidista. Es tiempo que aprobemos una reforma migratoria comprensiva. Gracias.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2013. This legislation is critically important, because it is a major step towards reconciling an historic wrong for Virginia and the Nation. While the Virginia Tribes have received official recognition from the Commonwealth of Virginia, acknowledgement and officially-recognized status from the federal government has been considerably more difficult due to their systematic mistreatment over the past century. The identities of the tribal members of Virginia's Indian Tribes were stripped away by Virginia's Racial Integrity Act, a State law in effect from 1924 to 1967. Racial identifications of those without white ancestry were changed to ``colored'' on birth certificates during that period. In addition, 5 of the 6 courthouses that held the vast majority of the Virginia Indian Tribal records needed to document their history to the degree required by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Federal Acknowledgement were destroyed in the Civil War. Furthermore, Virginia Indians and England signed the Treaty of Middle Plantation in 1677. This predated the creation of the United States of America by just short of 100 years. This Treaty was never recognized by the founding fathers of the United States. Therefore, the Tribes were not granted Federal recognition upon signing treaties with the federal government like tribes in other states did. I am proud of Virginia's recognized Indian Tribes and their contributions to our Commonwealth. The Virginia Tribes are a part of us. We go to school together, work together, and serve our Commonwealth and nation together every day. These contributions should be acknowledged, and this Federal recognition for Virginia's native peoples is long overdue. It is my hope that the Senate will act upon my legislation this year, to give these 6 Virginia Native American Tribes the Federal recognition that is long overdue.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2013. This legislation is critically important, because it is a major step towards reconciling an historic wrong for Virginia and the Nation. While the Virginia Tribes have received official recognition from the Commonwealth of Virginia, acknowledgement and officially-recognized status from the federal government has been considerably more difficult due to their systematic mistreatment over the past century. The identities of the tribal members of Virginia's Indian Tribes were stripped away by Virginia's Racial Integrity Act, a State law in effect from 1924 to 1967. Racial identifications of those without white ancestry were changed to ``colored'' on birth certificates during that period. In addition, 5 of the 6 courthouses that held the vast majority of the Virginia Indian Tribal records needed to document their history to the degree required by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Federal Acknowledgement were destroyed in the Civil War. Furthermore, Virginia Indians and England signed the Treaty of Middle Plantation in 1677. This predated the creation of the United States of America by just short of 100 years. This Treaty was never recognized by the founding fathers of the United States. Therefore, the Tribes were not granted Federal recognition upon signing treaties with the federal government like tribes in other states did. I am proud of Virginia's recognized Indian Tribes and their contributions to our Commonwealth. The Virginia Tribes are a part of us. We go to school together, work together, and serve our Commonwealth and nation together every day. These contributions should be acknowledged, and this Federal recognition for Virginia's native peoples is long overdue. It is my hope that the Senate will act upon my legislation this year, to give these 6 Virginia Native American Tribes the Federal recognition that is long overdue.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to support the nomination of Srikanth Srinivasan to be judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This matter will be before us for a vote later today. I want to talk for a bit about Sri's significant qualifications. I am going to discount the fact that he was born in Kansas and raised in Kansas, as I was. I will not take that into account. I will discount the fact he lives in Virginia as I do, and focus on other qualifications because he has them by the boatload. Sri has a wonderful background that equips him for this most important judicial position, and this has been a position that has been vacant since June of 2008. He was an undergraduate and then law degree and then business degree, MBA at Stanford after he grew up in Lawrence, KS. Like many law graduates, his next step was to work in a clerkship with appellate judges. He worked first for a wonderful Virginia jurist, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, who was the chief judge of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals headquartered in Richmond. Judge Wilkinson is well known as a superb legal scholar and judge. After he completed that clerkship, he had the honor of being selected to work as a clerk for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, also a tremendous honor for a young lawyer. I talked at length with Mr. Srinivasan and heard about the fact that he learned a great deal from both of these judges about judicial temperament and the importance of so many aspects to be a good judge. Sri had the expertise developed in private practice at one of America's major firms, O'Melveny and Myers. O'Melveny and Myers has had a very significant pro bono practice for years, headed by Bill Coleman, who was a long-time official--one of the lawyers who worked on the Brown v. Board of Education case in the 1950s. Sri eventually became the leader of the appellate practice in O'Melveny and Myers, in that capacity doing good work. He has been a teacher at Harvard Law School. Probably most specific to the needs of the D.C. Circuit, Sri has had a long career working in the Solicitor General's Office, the key legal office of the United States, charged with representing the United States on important matters before the Supreme Court and the Federal appellate courts. He has worked two stints in the Solicitor General's Office, having worked both under the Solicitor General's Office during President Bush 43's tenure, and then again returning to work as the principal deputy solicitor general under President Obama. In that capacity he has had extensive arguments, more than 20 arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous appellate court arguments in the Federal appellate courts, including the D.C. Circuit Court for which he is nominated. Srikanth Srinivasan enjoys broad support. Numerous officials in the Solicitor General's Office under both Democratic and Republican administrations have weighed in on behalf of his candidacy. The ABA, American Bar Association, which looks at candidates and scrutinizes their qualifications, has given him the ``most qualified'' award, their highest recommendation. He comes with significant support in this body and others with whom he has practiced. The area I probably spent most time with him on as I was interviewing him was the whole notion of judicial temperament. These are important positions, and under the Constitution we grant them to people for life. You can have all the intellectual qualifications, but if you do not have the life experience to enable you to understand situations and pass judgment on matters important to people, and if you do not have the temperament to work in a collegial body--circuit courts, as you know, hear cases generally in panels of three and then occasionally hear cases en banc, the entire list of the circuit court judges for the D.C. Circuit would sit together--it is not enough to be a scholar; you have to be a good listener, you have to be a good colleague. Srikanth Srinivasan's career is a track record of his dedication and ambition, but his temperament is a real tribute to his humility, to his ability to listen not only to litigants but to other judges. I think these credentials, both his formal credentials--his work experience and temperament--would make him an excellent choice. For that reason I am proud to stand up as one of his home State Senators. I am proud to acknowledge the Judiciary Committee's unanimous vote on his behalf and urge my colleagues today as we move to the vote to support his nomination. None of us will be disappointed in his work as a D.C. Circuit judge. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to associate myself briefly with the comments of both Senators McCain and Durbin. This is not primarily about the budget. This is not primarily about Senate rules. This is about compromise. In Congress, a bicameral body, the Framers established compromise was necessary to take action. Will we allow processes to go forward so we can listen to each other, dialog, and find compromise, or will we use procedural mechanisms to block processes of dialog and compromise even from starting? The Senate budget is a very different budget than the House budget. We are all free to have our preferred option. But the way we get to a final budget is to have Senate and House conferees sit down together, in what no doubt will be a difficult discussion, and to compare budgets and debate and dialog and find compromise. The Senate acted on the 23rd of March by a majority vote in accord with the rules of this body to pass a Senate budget after 4 years. The effort to object to the beginning of a conference, make no mistake about it, is fundamentally an effort to block processes of compromise. In the living organism of government that was established by our Framers, compromise is the blood that keeps the organism alive. Efforts to block compromise are fundamentally efforts that are destructive of this institution. So I stand by the motion I have made. I ask my colleagues to allow processes of compromise to go forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to speak briefly about the Senate budget. At the close of my comments, I will make yet another motion to put the Senate budget into conference with the House. As we all know, we were here until 5 a.m. on March 23 to pass the first Senate budget through regular budgetary order in 4 years. It was a full, open process both in committee, with numerous amendments, and then on the Senate floor, with over 100 amendments voted on and over 70 passed. It is now past time, many days past time, for us to begin a budget conference process. This will enable the Senate to return to normal budgetary order, and it is what our voters, both Democratic and Republican, in all of our States expect us to do to have a meaningful conference about this budget with the House. Good news. We are seeing some recent examples of normal compromise in this body that I think is worthy of some attention: the appropriations bill we passed through a regular order process for the remainder of 2013 in March; the marketplace fairness bill we passed, the problem that had been searching for a solution for 15 to 20 years; the WRDA bill we passed last week; and the debates we are having about the farm bill today. All have involved significant open processes in a committee, significant open processes on the Senate floor. The Senate action then moves in a regular order action into discussion with the House. I think it is up to this body to show the public we don't just embrace regular order and normal processes on these important issues, but that we also embrace them on something as critically important as the Federal budget. For that reason, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 33, H. Con. Res. 25; that the amendment which is at the desk, the text of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; that H. Con. Res. 25, as amended, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; that following the authorization, two motions to instruct conferees be in order: motion to instruct relative to the debt limit and motion to instruct relative to taxes/revenue; that there be 2 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to votes in relation to those motions; further, that no amendments be in order to either of the motions prior to the votes; and all of the above occurring with no intervening action or debate. I make that motion.

Mr. KAINE. I do not agree to the modification because I think that would be modifying the budget that was passed by this body on March 23.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise today to talk about the continuing efforts by a minority of this body to block a Federal budget by blocking a conference with the House to find compromise. I spoke about this one week ago, but the stalemate continues. Today there was an announcement that in my Commonwealth, 90,000 civilian Department of Defense employees and hundreds of thousands of DOD civilians nationally will be furloughed for 11 days between now and the end of the year. This furlough announcement--along with ample other evidence we have discussed in this body in the last few weeks-- demonstrates that budgetary gridlock, budgetary indecision, and budgetary stalling has real-life consequences. I rise to implore my Senate colleagues to do what is right and to do the job the American public has sent us here to do. This is not only about budgets, it is also about something even bigger than budgets. It is about something fundamental to the entire system of government we have; that is, the willingness to work together to find common ground and find solutions. I truly view this budgetary stalemate as an attack on compromise. We cannot survive as a Senate or as a Congress or as a nation without finding common ground. I know the Presiding Officer, like me, was out on the campaign trail a lot in 2012. I heard a repeated critique of this body during the campaign. I heard that this body was unable to produce a budget since 2009. There were some arguments back and forth about whether that was technically accurate. As I looked at it as a candidate, it was at least clear that a normal budgetary order in accordance with the Budget Act of 1974 had not been followed for a number of years. As a candidate and citizen of the Commonwealth and country, I said: If I have the opportunity to serve in this body, I am going to work with my colleagues to make sure we do the public's business in the way that was contemplated in that statute. Although I didn't ask, I was assigned to be on the Senate Budget Committee as soon as I got to this body. I immediately made clear-- along with many other Members, both newcomers and Members who had been on the committee for a while, including the new committee chair, Senator Murray--that this body needed to return to normal budgetary procedures. It seemed as though over the past few years, Congress tried a lot of other things--supercommittees, sequesters, and continuing resolutions-- none of which were working to do the Nation's fiscal business. Along with many Senators of both parties, I said the right strategy for us is to return to normal budgetary procedure. We can make it work just as Congresses in the past have made it work. I entered the body on January 3--more than 4 months ago--with the profound belief that we needed to embrace the normal procedures about doing a budget. Those normal procedures are known to all. People read in textbooks about how bills become laws. Essentially, in the spring the Senate and House, under normal procedure, would each pass a budget. Those budget bills would likely be significantly different. Even when the parties controlling the two Houses are the same, the two House budgets are different. There is then some effort to find a compromise between the two differing versions often through use of a conference committee. Once that compromise is found, then that compromise is sent back to each House for a vote, and it then becomes the guidance that is used by the Appropriations Committee to write the bill's appropriating dollars for the next fiscal year. That is the normal process, and it is the way Congress has operated under both parties, under split Houses for many years. Here is the good news: The Senate Budget Committee embraced this challenge. Chairman Murray worked with staff and members of the committee to create a draft budget, and then early in mid-March we had robust committee hearings, a full debate, and a full amendment process about a Senate budget. In March the committee ultimately considered the chairman's mark for 13 hours, and we had a full amendment process. We voted on over 30 amendments, the majority of which were made by Republican members of the committee. We debated and voted on those amendments. I sat there and voted for a number of the Republican amendments to the budget that then became part of the ultimate committee product. Republican members offered numerous amendments. In response to an amendment offered by a Republican member, I remember my colleague from Maine, Senator King, asking: If I vote for your amendment, are you going to vote for this committee budget? The answer was given in public. The answer was: No. I want you to vote for my amendment, but I am still going to vote against the budget. I am going to vote against it because the House will produce a Republican budget, the Senate will produce a Democratic budget, and then we can get those two budgets together and find compromise going forward. That was what was said when we met as a Budget Committee. At the end of the day, the Senate Budget Committee passed that budget in mid- March, and passed it without a single Republican vote. The budget was passed and forwarded to the Senate floor. I know the Presiding Officer remembers this, as it is emblazoned upon all of our memories. We took the budget to the Senate floor in late March. The budget was the subject of floor activity in this body for 39\1/2\ hours. We don't do a lot around here for 39\1/2\ hours, but the budget was subject to floor activity and numerous speeches by Senators, just like me, over the course of that week. The entire body then considered, debated, and voted on nearly 110 amendments to the budget. We passed 77 of the amendments. The amendments that were passed were offered by both Democrats and Republicans. I remember voting for many of the Republican amendments that then became part of the ultimate budget bill. This amendment activity--110 amendments, 77 passing--is significantly greater than has been the norm in earlier Senate deliberations. At 5 a.m. on the morning of Saturday, March 23, the Senate passed its first budget in 4 years. Not a single Republican voted to support that budget even though many of their amendments had been included either in the committee or in the floor amendment process we had during those hours in late March. I have done a lot of budgets as a mayor and as a Governor. Along with my colleagues on the Budget Committee, I worked hard in the committee and on the floor. My staff--as well as the Senate Budget Committee staff and the staffers of all the members on that committee--also worked hard on this bill. I am proud we passed a budget on March 23, and I believe firmly if that budget were implemented today, without changing one apostrophe, comma, or punctuation mark, it would do a number of things: It would help create jobs, it would help the economy, and it would deal with our debt and deficit in a fiscally responsible way. I also understood this: that the Senate budget we passed was not the final product. It was the Senate's best effort to find a budget that would move our economy and our country forward. We knew that budget would be placed in a conference with the House budget. The House passed their budget the same week. We knew there would have to be discussion and compromise in an effort to find common ground, but we did our best version and the House, I assume, feels as though they did their very best version. The two budgets are very different. I deeply believe the Senate budget is superior and the American people, watching the discussions between the two Houses and comparing them, would reach the same conclusion. But at the very least I know this: The American public are entitled to see that debate and discussion. They are entitled to look at the House budget and look at the Senate budget and compare them, just as the conferees would be comparing. They are entitled to watch that process of dialog and debate and, hopefully, compromise. That is, in fact, what they have sent us here to do, and that is what Congresses have done for many years and decades. The process of a budget conference would not be an easy one because the two budgets are quite different, but there is no substitute for dialog and compromise. In fact, I think all of us in this body know dialog and compromise at its core are what we are about here. When the Framers of our Constitution, in article I, set up a legislative branch with two Houses--a bicameral branch--and required that most items to pass through Congress would have to go through both branches, they understood very well what they were doing. They were creating a system of checks and balances that required dialog and listening and compromise in order to do good for the benefit of the Nation. At our very root, a bicameral legislature, existing in a system of checks and balances, with a judiciary and an executive branch, depends upon public servants who are willing to find common ground. Well, since March 23--nearly 7 weeks--a small minority of Senators, often one at a time, has done all it can to block a budget conference from even beginning and, therefore, to block compromise. As we have taken steps to begin a budget conference with the House leadership to put these two budgets together and find compromise, again and again individual Senators have stood on the floor of this body and, in my view, abused the UC rules to block a conference from even beginning. Even as budgetary indecision and sequester are leading to furloughs, they have blocked a conference from even beginning. Even as we are seeing reductions in the number of people who are able to receive Meals On Wheels or children in Head Start, they have abused Senate rules to block a budget conference from even beginning. I serve on the Armed Services Committee. We are working on the Defense authorization bill now, and we have the service chiefs come in and talk to us every day about the challenges they are facing, about the degraded readiness. One-third of our air combat command units are standing down because of these budgetary challenges. We hear the steady drumbeat, day in and day out, about degradation in readiness and challenges to our modernization programs. We had a hearing about the Marine Corps this morning. Yet even as we are hearing this testimony in hearings in the morning and in the afternoon, Members come to this floor and stand and try to block a budget conference from even beginning. This is very serious. When we are talking about the readiness of our military who are facing challenges--just pick up today's paper and read headlines about Syria or North Korea or Iran--as we are facing continuing challenges in Afghanistan, to have Members in this body block efforts to find compromise is very chilling. Let's be clear about what this is. This is not just an attack on the budget itself, because those who want to attack the budget voted against it in committee. Those who didn't like the budget had a chance and voted against it on the floor. Even in the event a conference committee would produce a budget compromise, that compromise would come back and those who didn't like that budget would have a chance to vote against it again. That is how we attack a budget. That is how we express disagreement with a budget. A Member stands on the floor of this body and votes against it. The Members have had a chance to do that in committee and on the floor and they will have a chance to do it again at the end of the conference process. The effort that has been underway in this body since March 23 is not fundamentally an attack on budgets, it is an attack on the whole notion of compromise. To block a conference committee from beginning so House and Senate conferees can sit down and listen to each other and try to iron out their differences is fundamentally an attack on compromise. We have seen that too much in this body. Anyone in this room knows that, if a person is not a hermit, if a person is a member of a family or a member of a parish council or a member of the PTA or part of an organizing group of a Little League, if a person has a business or if a person is elected to a school board or to the Senate--everybody knows if we participate in life, it has to be about compromise. Our Founders knew it and they created a system that relies upon compromise. What we have seen in this body since March 23, after people had a full opportunity to amend and vote on a budget, is not about a budget, it is an attack on compromise. I conclude by saying that just as no family can succeed without compromise, just as no community, just as no business, just as no school board, just as no group of people can succeed without compromise, Congress, the Senate, and our Nation cannot succeed without a spirit of compromise. So I implore and I ask my colleagues to rethink the path they are on, to stand down in this attack upon compromise, to allow the budget to go to conference so we can do the tough work of listening to each other and finding common ground for the good of the American people. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a fallen airman who died in military service to this country. U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Robert M. Brown, of Portsmouth, VA, was lost on Nov. 7, 1972 in his F- 111 near Quang Binh Province, North Vietnam. The remains of Lieutenant Colonel Brown were located in North Vietnam and returned June 7, 1995. He was finally identified on December 14, 2011 and accounted for on February 25, 2012. Robert Brown graduated from the US Naval Academy in the top 30 percent of his class and was given his choice of branch of service. He chose the US Air Force and trained as a pilot while adding to his bachelor of military science degree with an electrical engineering degree from the University of Michigan. Before his first deployment he was assigned to NASA and worked on the Mercury and Gemini Space programs. During his first tour of duty in Southeast Asia in 1966, Major Brown compiled an impressive record of 299 combat missions while flying the F100 Super Sabre. Upon returning to the United States, he went to work in Research and Development for America's Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems program as a project scientist. In 1972 he returned to Vietnam for his second tour as a highly decorated fighter pilot to fly the most advanced combat aircraft of its time--the F111A Aardvark. On November 7, 1972, the F111A crew, call sign ``Whaler 57'' departed Takhli Airbase, Thailand on a single aircraft strike mission. Its target was the Luat Son Highway ferry and ford nestled in a populated and forested area where the highway crossed over the river approximately 24 miles south of the major port city of Dong Hoi. After reporting that its mission was proceeding normally, radio contact was lost after 0400 and by 0500 a 2 week long search and rescue effort was commenced. Efforts to recover ``Whaler 57'' were unsuccessful, but the remains of Lieutenant Colonel Brown have finally been found and identified. Lieutenant Colonel Brown is survived by his sister Gail and his children Beverly, Margie, and Bruce. Today, I ask all Members of the Senate to join me as we honor the life and legacy Lt. Col. Robert M. Brown, and the other Americans in our Armed Forces who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. There are no words fitting enough to fully express our thanks.