Tim Kaine

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise at a late hour with few folks on the floor to talk about the most serious issue we could ever talk about on the floor of the U.S. Senate: the prospect that America may soon be in a war. There is no part of the Constitution that is more important than the article I provisions making claim that the United States should not be at war without a vote of Congress. Yet the news of the day suggests that we are potentially on the verge of a war with Iran. When I was elected to the Senate in 2012, having served as a Governor from 2006 to 2010 during a tremendous upsurge in the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I visited our troops multiple times in the Green Zone in Baghdad and in Afghanistan. I went to the deployments and the homecomings; I went to the wakes and funerals, and I told myself when I came to the Senate that, if I ever had the chance to stop this Nation from getting into an unnecessary war, I would do everything I could to stop us from getting into an unnecessary war. I happen to believe that the United States engaging in a war against Iran--a third war in the Middle East since 2001--would be a catastrophic blunder for this country. I think there are some in this body who have a different point of view than I on this point, but I think we should all be able to agree in the fundamental constitutional principle that says we shouldn't be in a war if Congress doesn't have the guts to debate it and vote on it; that we should all, in having taken an oath to the Constitution, at least support the principle that war is something that should be for Congress to declare. Just recently--right before I walked on the floor--the New York Times published this article, and I am just going to read this to demonstrate the imminence of the threat that this country faces. The article from the New York Times, dated today, reads ``Iran is Preparing Missiles for Possible Retaliatory Strikes on U.S. Bases, Officials Say,'' and I will just read the first few paragraphs. Iran has prepared missiles and other military equipment for strikes on U.S. bases in the Middle East should the United States join Israel's war against the country, according to American officials who have reviewed intelligence reports. Fears of a wider war are growing among American officials as Israel presses the White House to intervene in its conflict with Iran. If the United States joins the Israeli campaign and strikes Fordo, a key Iranian nuclear facility, the Iranian-backed Houthi militia will almost certainly resume striking ships in the Red Sea, the officials said. They added that pro-Iranian militias in Iraq and Syria would probably try to attack U.S. bases there. Other officials said that in the event of an attack, Iran could begin to mine the Strait of Hormuz, a tactic meant to pin American warships in the Persian Gulf. Commanders put American troops on high alert at military bases throughout the region, including in the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The United States has more than 40,000 troops deployed in the Middle East. I met the father of an Apache helicopter pilot currently deployed in Syria yesterday. Finally, from the article: Two Iranian officials have acknowledged that the country would attack U.S. bases in the Middle East, starting with those in Iraq, if the United States joined Israel's war. We stand tonight as close to the potential initiation of a third war in the Middle East--the United States against Iran--as we have been during my time in the Senate. So, yesterday morning, when the Senate came into session, I announced and then I followed up with a filing of a War Powers Resolution in this body--a privileged resolution--that, by my clock, will mature and be subject to a vote on this floor because of its privileged status a week from Thursday. Ten days from the filing of such a motion, even by a single Senator, the Senate is required to take this matter up for an up-or-down floor vote about whether or not war should happen without a vote of Congress. A little bit about the Constitution. Many in here have heard me speak about this over the years about the Constitution. The Framers of the Constitution grappled with the question about how wars should begin, and they grappled with the question in a most unusual way. In the Constitution of 1787, the article I power is the congressional, the legislative power, and the article II power is the executive power. The Framers of the Constitution split war powers into a legislative responsibility and an executive responsibility. The legislative responsibility is clear: Congress declares war. It is in article I. The executive responsibility is to be the Commander in Chief. Once Congress--535 people--has declared war, you don't need 535 Commanders in Chief. That would lead to chaos. So a war once declared by a debate and vote by the people's elected body then gets handed to the President, who as Commander in Chief is responsible for executing on that declaration. The Framers of the Constitution did understand one thing about the President's power, which is the President as Commander in Chief should defend the Nation. The President always has the ability to defend the United States without asking Congress's permission. Back in 1787, Congress might adjourn and ride horseback back to Vermont. What if the United States were attacked? You couldn't wait for all of Congress to come back to enable the United States to defend itself. So a President has the inherent power under article II to defend the United States without asking for permission. But it has been the understanding since the very beginning of this Republic that, if it is more than defending the United States--if it is going on offense in any way--congressional authorization is needed. It is so rare. In other countries and at other times, war has been for the Executive. It has been for the King. It has been for the Emperor. It has been for the Monarch. It has been for the Czar. It has been for the Sultan. But in the United States, we made a very careful choice to do it differently, and that choice was described most eloquently in a letter from the main drafter of the Constitution James Madison to President Thomas Jefferson. Actually, he was not yet President. This letter was dated April 2, 1798, and James Madison described what were they getting at when they vested the power to declare war with Congress. Here is what James Madison wrote: The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. [Our Constitution] has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature. Other countries don't do this, but the Framers of our Constitution in 1787 decided we are going to be different. Before we send troops into harm's way where they could be killed, where they could be injured, where they could see people they love and their colleagues killed and injured--before we are going to send troops in harm's way in war, we want to see the people's elected bodies--both Houses--have a debate about what the stakes are and whether we should force our troops into harm's way and potentially lose their lives, and that debate will be in full view of the American public so the American public can understand what is at stake, and then they can call their Representatives or write them a letter and tell them what they think about whether war is necessary and whether the sacrifice we ask of our troops should be the ultimate sacrifice that we are often asking of them in war. That has been the Constitution since 1787. The Constitution has been amended, probably, in 25 or 26 amendments now. That has never been amended. That has never been amended. In 1974, Congress grappled with a challenging problem and passed the War Powers Resolution of 1974. What was the problem? The problem in 1974 was this: A President began war without telling Congress. In 1974, we were in the midst of the Vietnam war. Congress did know that, and Congress had passed some legislation at least appropriating funds for it and somewhat authorizing it during the Johnson administration. Congress knew about the war in Vietnam. Obviously, there was a draft, and 56,000 Americans were killed in that war. But President Nixon, without informing Congress, extended the war and started bombing Cambodia--it was called the secret bombing of Cambodia--a new country that had not been covered by war authorizations. So Congress stepped up and acted and passed the War Powers Resolution of 1974. That resolution did a number of things. It established some protocols for when the President initiates military action, providing notice to Congress so that there can't be a secret war; giving Congress some ability, once notice is provided, to try to withdraw notice if it thinks that the war is ill-advised. But the War Powers Resolution also did something else: It gave the power to even one Member of Congress, one Senator or one House Member, if a President initiates war or is on the verge of initiating war--the War Powers Resolution gave to one Senator, one Congressman, the ability to file a resolution to stop a war before it starts or to stop a war once it started. The War Powers Resolution over time has made that a privileged motion, meaning it can bypass committee and be brought up on the floor of the Senate for a vote within an expeditious period of time. A privileged motion is one that sort of elbows everything else out of the way because Congress has judged that the matter is so important that it should take precedence over normal committee proceedings and it should be considered in a prompt fashion. It is a simple majority vote, not subject to filibuster and cloture. It can't be buried in a committee. It has to be debated on the floor. It is amendable. It can be amended. But as long as you meet the criteria, the privileged criteria, under the War Powers Resolution of 1974, you are entitled to try to stop a war before it starts. The criteria that you have to meet to have the privilege are two: One, hostilities between the United States and another actor nation-- Iran in this case--have to either be underway or they have to be imminent. That has to be the case. You can't just say: I want to stop a war that no one has contemplated and nothing is happening. So you have to demonstrate imminence. You also have to show that there is no existing congressional authorization authorizing the United States to be at war--in this case, with Iran. That second criteria has been met. We had a similar resolution on the floor a few years ago following the U.S strike that killed the Iranian military leader Soleimani, and the ruling of the Parliamentarian and really the acknowledgement of the body was that there was no current congressional authorization authorizing war against Iran. So the question is, Is the imminence standard met? I would argue that it clearly is. The United States is already using U.S. weaponry to knock down Iranian missiles. That is more than imminence; that is actual kinetic hostility. The United States is being urged to enter the war. The United States is moving military assets into the region and withdrawing diplomats from the region. The Iranians are acknowledging that: If the United States enters the war, we have plans to go after U.S. troops, the 40,000 U.S. troops in the area. Since Congress clearly wanted a Member to be able to file such a motion to be heard before a war begins, I believe the imminence standard is clearly met in this case with actual kinetic activity between U.S. weaponry and Iranians. So over the course of the next few days, you will likely hear me talk more than once about the need for Congress to stand up and say there shall not be a war against Iran without a congressional vote. It is a pretty simple proposition: No U.S. war against Iran without a congressional vote. Let me answer a couple of questions that colleagues of mine have asked about the resolution that I filed yesterday. First, what about self-defense? What about if Iran does take action against the United States, the homeland, or at a U.S. base in the Middle East or at a U.S. consulate in Erbil in the Kurdish area of Iraq? What if Iran takes action against the United States? The answer is pretty straightforward: Under the Constitution, the President can defend the United States, and the President doesn't need Congress to do that. So if there is an Iranian attack on the United States, the President can and has said he will--and I would strongly support him, as I know everyone in this body would--defend U.S. interests against an Iranian attack. So the self-defense question is mentioned in the resolution. The resolution says: Nothing in this resolution will block the ability of the United States to take legal action to defend itself, and that is clearly contemplated by article II. The second question I am asked is, What about the United States helping Israel defend itself? I have been here since January of 2013. I have voted for every Israel defense package that has ever been before this body, and there have been many. Israel receives more defense aid from the United States than any other nation year after year after year with my support. And I have done more than vote for Israel defense aid; on a couple of instances, I have whipped votes to make sure that we found enough aid for Israel. In April of last year, we passed a supplemental bill in this body that had billions of dollars of aid for Israel in the aftermath of the horrific attacks on Israel by Hamas on October 7. It was shortly after that vote that Iran launched a set of attacks against Israel. The defense aid that the United States provided enabled us to knock down and assist Israel in knocking down Iranian drones and missiles. That was a good thing. Had those drones and missiles landed in Israel, they would have not only killed and wounded tons of civilians, but they would have led to escalation in the region that would have been unhelpful for all countries in the region. So I stand strong for Israel's right to defend itself, and I stand strong for the United States in providing Israel support so that they can defend themselves, but that is a different question. That is a different question than whether the United States should go to war with Iran. In my view, there is no compelling security reason for the United States to go to war with Iran. The last question that I want to ask and sort of reflect upon before concluding is this: What about diplomacy? What about diplomacy? The pages are here. You have a lot of time on the floor. Sometimes there are speeches, and sometimes there aren't, and I imagine you have looked a lot in this room and what is in the room. One of the things you have noticed is that in the panels--all around the room, the blue panels--at the top of the panel is the seal of the United States. That seal of the United States was designed and embraced by the United States in 1782. The seal of the United States is also in the skylight in the ceiling of the Senate Chamber, and that seal has essentially been constant since 1782. There is a seal of the President of the United States that has changed a little bit, but the seal of the United States that Congress has used has been constant since 1782. One thing that is very notable about the seal is the eagle and two claws holding the arrows of war and the olive branches of peace. But since the very beginning of this Republic, the eagle's face has been turned to the olive branches of peace. It was designed that way to send a symbol that the United States always prefers peace, always prefers diplomacy, and only uses war as a last resort when diplomacy fails. We had a diplomatic deal with Iran that was entered into in 2015 that was limiting their nuclear program--peacefully, without having to bomb them, without having to kill civilians, without having to assassinate scientists. The United States, together with other nations, used the power of congressional sanctions--Congress did this well--to leverage an agreement whereby Iran agreed--in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the first page of the agreement, Iran reaffirmed that it would ``never seek to purchase, acquire, or develop nuclear weapons.'' In the body of that agreement, Iran agreed to a whole series of limitations upon nuclear research, nuclear activity, centrifuge construction, and the percentage of enriched uranium it was allowed to have. Also, Iran agreed to the most comprehensive inspection regime of any nation on the planet, overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency, to ensure that they were meeting their requirements that they would never seek to purchase, acquire, and develop nuclear weapons and that they would abide by their limits on centrifuges and the limits on enriched uranium and other activities. The agreement was working. Don't take it from Senator Kaine; the International Atomic Energy Association said the agreement was working. The allies and adversaries--Russia and China--were part of this deal, as were the UK and France and Germany. Those who worked on the deal said the agreement was working. It wasn't turning Iran from a bad actor to a good actor. It wasn't stopping all of Iran's bellicose behavior. But it was limiting the very nuclear program that is now trying to be bombed out of existence. We had an agreement that was working. President Trump became President in January of 2017, and he said: I don't like the agreement that President Obama did. I want to get out of it. President Trump's own Cabinet--his Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis said: Don't get out of this agreement. It is working. His Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said: Don't get out of this agreement. It is working. His National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, a former general, said: Don't get out of this agreement. It is working. For God's sake, we have used diplomacy just as we are supposed to--by preferring peace and diplomacy first--to deprive Iran of a path to a nuclear weapon. Shouldn't we prefer diplomacy rather than putting at risk the lives of American troops, the 40,000 troops who are in the Middle East? So what happened to the diplomatic agreement? President Trump started to talk about abandoning it. I wrote a piece in Time magazine in 2017, and I said: If you abandon this agreement when it is working, what will Iran do? They will go back to developing nuclear weapons, because if the United States backs out of it, they will as well. If you abandon this agreement, North Korea will never do a nuclear deal with the United States because why do a deal with the United States if the United States is going to abandon the deal even when it is working? President Trump didn't listen to me. He didn't listen to his Secretary of State. He didn't listen to his Secretary of Defense. He didn't listen to a lot of people in his administration. He tore the deal up. What a tragedy. You have Israeli civilians who have been killed in the Iranian missile attacks who have nothing to do with the military and Iranian civilians who have been killed in missile attacks who have nothing to do with the military. They would be alive today and 40,000 U.S. troops in the region would be safe today if we had decided to act in accord with our values and put diplomacy first and put peace over war. That is water under the bridge. But the question for this body that we will grapple with over the course of the next couple of weeks is whether the United States should be in another war in the Middle East-- in particular, whether we should allow a war to start without us, whether we should hide in the tall grass rather than exercise our constitutional responsibility under article I. This is fundamentally a debate about Congress being true to its oath of office and actually also being true to the obligations we have to our public. The Framers put this in the Constitution so that we wouldn't be at war without a debate in front of the public. They had a view about the morality of war, and I think their view was basically this: There would be nothing more publicly immoral, in the public space, than to send troops into harm's way, risking death, if Congress was too chicken to have a debate and vote about whether the war was in the national interest. If we had that debate and we decide that war is in the national interest, then the troops go into war knowing that the civilian leadership of this country have had the hard debate in view of the American public and decided that the stakes are sufficient to ask people to make the ultimate sacrifice. But how dare we--how dare we--and I say this as the father of a U.S. marine: How dare we ask people to make the ultimate sacrifice if we don't have the guts to have a debate and decide whether a war is in the interest of this country? I know what the American public thinks about this. There was a poll that was released today, and this is completely consistent with what I have heard from Virginians. And Virginia is one of the most pro- military States in this country. I am on the Armed Services Committee. One out of every eight Virginians is a veteran. That is not one out of every eight adults; that is one out of every eight Virginians is a veteran--and you add Active Duty, you add the Guard, you add the Reserve, and you add the civilian DOD and the military contractors and their families. We train all the Marine officers in the world. We have the biggest shipbuilding enterprise in the world. We have the Pentagon, the largest military office in the world. We have been the site of more battles on U.S. soil than any State in this country, in Virginia: the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the attack on 9/11 at the Pentagon. We are as pro-military a State as there is, but I can tell you this: Virginians do not believe the United States should be in another war in the Middle East. Neither do Americans. A poll today suggests 16 percent of Americans think the U.S. military should get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran--one-sixth, 16 percent--60 percent say we should not; 24 percent are not sure. We need to have this debate in front of the American public and let them watch us debate the stakes of this. And it might be that colleagues in this body or in the House think a war with Iran is a good idea. Let them put a war authorization on the table. Let's debate that. Let's debate that in front of Virginians and Kansans and Californians and hear what our constituents have to say. Let's debate that in the full view of people whose spouses are in the military or whose kids are in the military. Let's have that debate in front of them and hear what they think before we cast a vote that would be one of the most serious votes that you ever cast on the floor of a body like this. But we should not allow a war of the magnitude of this to begin with Congress hiding from the responsibility that was put on Congress's shoulders in 1787. I will be asking my colleagues to support my simple resolution as early as next week: No war without a vote of Congress. I will be asking my colleagues to support it and uphold the oath we have all taken to support the Constitution that established that most unusual principle, most unique principle, that is part of what makes this Nation special. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, 2 days from today, June 14, is Flag Day in the United States. It is the day every year where we celebrate the flag, but it is not the piece of cloth that we celebrate; we celebrate core American values. And the most core American value is the one that we take an oath of office to, the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution includes a Bill of Rights, and one of the most important pieces of the Bill of Rights is the First Amendment. It was drafted by Virginian James Madison, and it talks about the fact that there can't be laws or legal restrictions against the right of the people to peacefully assemble and petition government for redress of grievances. That right is not something we are allowed. That right is something we are guaranteed. My colleague and our friend Alex Padilla, born and raised in Los Angeles, loves his hometown--an MIT-educated, baseball-playing engineer who returned to his home, who served on the Los Angeles City Council and now serves in this body--has some very legitimate questions about why, in an unprecedented way, the National Guard and the U.S. Marines have been deployed into his city, over the objections of the mayor, over the objections of the Governor, in a historically unprecedented way and in a way such as to escalate tensions in his town rather than to reduce them. So he decided to go to a peaceful public assembly. It was a press conference. It wasn't a private meeting to which he was not allowed entrance. A press conference's purpose is to share information with the public. My colleague Alex Padilla, who goes to Wednesday prayer breakfast with me every week with a bipartisan group of colleagues, attended a public event so he could ask a question about why his hometown was being besieged by the Marines and National Guard over the objection of the mayor and the objection of the Governor. His question was a grievance. He doesn't agree with the policies of the administration. He is guaranteed in this document the right to petition government for redress of grievances as an American, which is what we are supposed to do. The Framers of the Constitution who put this in the First Amendment did it to protect the rights of Alex Padilla and all of us, but they did it for another reason. They did it because they believed it would help democracy work better, that democracy works better when people can speak freely. Democracy works better when people can profess their religion, when the press can operate freely. And democracy works better when people can gather peacefully and share their dissenting points of view. It makes our democracy work better. Make no mistake, the effort to manhandle our colleague to push him out of the room for asking an inconvenient question, to handcuff him, is an attempt to shut him up. It is an attempt to shut everybody up if you have a dissenting view from this administration. That is why the administration has deployed the military in an unprecedented way. They want to intimidate you. They want to make you decide that although you were granted this as a right, they want to make you afraid to exercise the right. As I conclude, I would just say this: On Flag Day, I would encourage Americans of all kinds, find a peaceful assembly on June 14--on Flag Day--and attend it and show that you are a brave and patriotic American that embraces the First Amendment to the Constitution, and you will not allow anyone to intimidate you. I was a missionary in Honduras in 1980 and 1981, and it was an authoritarian society. And no one was guaranteed the right to assemble or complain. You might do it and be OK one day; the next day you might be arrested; the next day you might be disappeared or even killed. That is not who we are. We need brave, patriotic Americans to stand up, just as Senator Padilla has done, and insist upon their right to peacefully assemble and present whatever critiques or complaints they have about policies that they find to be objectionable. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I move to discharge S. Res. 195 from the Committee on Foreign Relations, as provided under the previous order.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to discuss S. Res. 195, which is a vote on a motion to discharge that will be the next pending vote in the Senate. It is actually a pretty simple bill about very basic concepts: Do you believe in the Constitution or not? Do you believe in the rule of law or not? Do you believe in due process or not? Do you believe that final orders of the U.S. Supreme Court should be respected or not? Those are the questions at issue on S. Res. 195. Our President, President Trump, has entered into an agreement still shrouded in some secrecy with the President of El Salvador, President Bukele, to deport American residents into El Salvador and imprison them in prisons in a country that has been charged by the United States and others with gross human rights violations. The Congress that is in charge of appropriating taxpayer dollars should want to know the circumstances of this imprisonment and whether U.S. law is being followed. The $6 million payment to the El Salvadoran prison likely violates human rights law in accord with many experts who looked at the details as they emerged, and that is where we begin. These are dollars that Congress has appropriated, but the precise mechanism for the transfer of these moneys and the President's authority to both spend the money and carry out the deportations is questionable. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of one of these individuals who it admits was deported by mistake--and there are many others similarly situated--is defying an order of the Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a nine-to-nothing ruling that the administration should facilitate the return of Mr. Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Thus far, nearly a month later, that has not occurred. This is about fighting lawlessness. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, to which we all pledge fealty, is pretty straightforward: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. That was the clause that the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously interpreted to mandate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia. The President was asked recently whether he had an obligation to uphold the Constitution, which he swore an oath to in the witness of all of us on Inauguration Day. He was asked if he had to uphold the Constitution. Just within the last week, he said he did not know. We know the answer to that question, but the President does not. The particular country to which these American residents have been deported, El Salvador--this now goes back a year--has a track record of imprisoning individuals--innocent individuals. The last thing any of us should want is an innocent individual in prison, especially if that innocent individual is an American. But this is the punch line: The President has indicated that this is not just for those who are here with questions about their legal status. President Trump has said ``homegrowns'' are next. Trump doubles down on sending American criminals to foreign prisons. We have a prison system in the United States--local jails, State prisons, Federal prisons. The notion of sending American citizens to foreign prisons without scrutiny is truly shocking, and that is the reason that I filed the resolution. What is this resolution? It is a privileged motion--available to any Senator--directing the administration to produce a human rights report about a nation--in this case, El Salvador. S. Res. 195 directs the Secretary of State to produce a report to this body that would be available not only to us but to the American public about the human rights record in El Salvador, and a couple of the clauses of the resolution, I think, are specific about this particular case. The report should contain information about the treatment of citizens or residents of other countries, including the United States--non- Salvadorans--who are being detained or imprisoned in El Salvador, including any opportunity provided to such citizens or residents to demonstrate that they are being wrongfully detained or imprisoned. We should all want to know whether Americans detained in El Salvador have an opportunity to demonstrate that they are wrongfully imprisoned. The report will require that. The report would require an assessment from the Secretary of State of the conditions in El Salvador's Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, including an assessment of allegations of torture and other gross violations of human rights. Remember again that the Trump administration has acknowledged that at least one of the individuals who was deported was deported mistakenly. He has been in prison for some time. If he is not there now, he was for some time in CECOT. We should want to know whether Americans in prison there are subject to torture or to other gross violations of human rights. The report should include a description of any actions that the U.S. Government has taken to ensure that the Government of the Republic of El Salvador releases U.S. citizens being detained or imprisoned in El Salvador in compliance with U.S. court orders regarding their return. Finally, the report would require information--a description of actions--the U.S. Government is taking to provide due process in compliance with U.S. law for relevant persons detained or imprisoned in El Salvador. Why would anyone in this body, in understanding this record--the forceable deportation of American residents, some admittedly deported by mistake and whom the Supreme Court has ordered returned into El Salvadoran prisons--why would anyone in this body not want to get a human rights report about the conditions of that confinement, particularly given the fact that President Trump has indicated that he may intend next to send U.S. citizens into those same prisons? This information will be very relevant to important decisions that we take in our relationship with El Salvador and also in our decisions we take with respect to the Appropriations Act. So I urge my colleagues to vote for S. Res. 195.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I will conclude prior to the vote just by saying this is a very basic resolution. Everyone in this body, knowing that Americans have been deported without due process to a prison in a foreign country that has a grievous record of human rights abuses, should at least want to get information about the circumstances of that confinement, about whether that prison is according American residents any semblance of due process and whether the United States is undertaking efforts to ensure that that country and that prison are following final orders of the U.S. Supreme Court. If you support the rule of law, if you support due process, if you support the Constitution, if you support human rights, if you support final orders of the U.S. Supreme Court, you will support S. Res. 195. I now ask for the vote. Vote on S. Res. 195

Mr. KAINE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize May 12 to May 18, 2025, as National Salvation Army Week. Founded in 1865, the Salvation Army has been unfailingly committed to serving those in need without discrimination. For more than 150 years, the Salvation Army has provided essential social services, including disaster relief, food assistance, shelter, rehabilitation programs, and youth development initiatives in local communities across the United States. The Salvation Army serves more than 27 million Americans annually, offering compassion, hope, and support to the most vulnerable populations, including individuals experiencing homelessness, veterans, seniors, human trafficking survivors, and those recovering from addiction. Across the Nation, the Salvation Army operates shelters, food pantries, job training programs, and emergency disaster relief efforts that strengthen communities and improve lives. The Salvation Army continues to be a trusted partner at the local, State, and Federal levels, providing critical services that address poverty, hunger, and natural disasters. Volunteers, donors, and officers of the Salvation Army exemplify the spirit of service, working tirelessly to provide relief and opportunity for those in need--and should be recognized and commended for their commitment to the betterment of others. I am grateful for the work that the Salvation Army accomplishes every day and applaud its dedication to social service.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, the Constitution of the United States puts two powers clearly--clearly--within the hands of Congress: the power to tax and the power to conduct trade policy, including the imposition of tariffs. These are powers for Congress, not the Executive. But President Trump finds Congress an inconvenience, and he has decided to take both of these powers onto his own shoulders by imposing a national sales tax--that is what his global tariff regime is--without any vote in Congress, purely on his own say-so, and to engage every nation in the world in a trade war on his own say-so without involving Congress. President Trump has said in the past: ``I alone can fix it,'' and we know that that statement is false. No one alone can fix the big challenges facing our Nation. But I think if he were to say, ``I alone can break it,'' the results of the last 100 days would have proven him correct. President Trump, on Inauguration Day, inherited the strongest economy on the planet Earth--not a perfect economy but the strongest economy, the envy of other industrialized nations. That is what he had just 100 days ago. And we know this morning that strong economy, which was growing for 3 years at a very solid pace, is now contracting. It is not only the contraction of the economy, it is chaos in the stock market; it is declining consumer confidence; it is projections of recession by Federal Reserve districts and major economists. All of this is happening because Donald Trump has pursued a three- step strategy of his own: massive layoffs of employees, contrary to congressionally passed appropriations bills, massive slashing of Federal spending programs, including those relied upon by everyday Americans in contravention of congressionally appropriated spending bills, and the waging of a tariff war against the entire planet. And as my colleagues have said, it is a tariff war that gets announced and then suspended and then delayed and then announced again and then exceptions might be granted if we like you or not. It is chaos. Last week, I traveled around the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I talked to businesses everywhere in my State. And they talked about the layoffs and they talked about the spending cuts and they talked about the tariffs and they added those three together and said what those three add up to is chaos--the chaos of unpredictability. Many businesses told me that they want to make investments. They want to make investments to grow their businesses in Virginia, but they are unwilling to make a decision to invest as long as the rules of the road are chaotic and up in the air. Businesses that import natural products to turn into finished products have to pay a tariff on the import. Businesses who sell their product abroad are losing markets as nations put retaliatory tariffs on the United States. And so these businesses are pausing their investment decisions. Businesses in Virginia that are connected to multinational businesses are saying that their headquarters are deciding, well, we can invest in the United States or we can invest in another country. It is not wise to invest in the United States when everything is so chaotic. Let's be clear, and I spoke about this with my colleagues when I talked about the Canada tariff provision that we successfully rebuked the President on a month ago. A tariff is nothing more than a sales tax. It is a sales tax on the products that everyday Americans use, especially groceries and clothing and building supplies, for farmers, the cost of fertilizer that they need as they are engaging in spring planting. Trump's worldwide tariffs are nothing but a new sales tax. And the analysis, as this chart shows, of who the tariffs raise taxes on, like every other form of sales tax, tariffs are regressive. They hit lower income people the most. The average tax change as a share of income if the Trump tariffs are implemented, it is essentially on the poorest 20 percent of the American population, the equivalent to an additional 6.2 percent sales tax. For the next wealthiest quintile up, it is a 5.5-percent increase on the sales tax. For the next, it is 5.0, all the way up to the richest 1 percent will see their effective sales tax rate go up by 1.7 percent. This is a sales tax on everyone in the country, but it is a sales tax that, as all sales taxes do, fall hardest on those who can least afford it. The new sales tax is affecting retirees particularly. So from NBC News: Retirees `stunned' as market turmoil over tariffs shrinks their 401(k)s. We have a Social Security system that is a good foundation for retirement so long as this administration doesn't mess it up, but it is not sufficient for retirement. And what you need for a dignified retirement is Social Security plus private savings, in most people's case, 401(k)s. The turmoil in the market driven by tariff uncertainty is hammering retirees more than just about any other group of people in this country. The new sales tax is also a drag on economic growth--we saw this in the announcement this morning--but not just economic growth in the United States. I am on the Armed Services Committee, and I had a chance to go visit 2 weeks ago with the new government, incoming government in Germany. Germany is a great ally. More U.S. troops are on the ground in Germany than any nation other than Japan outside the United States. We are security partners in Ukraine and in European security generally. The new German Government was just elected, the Chancellor will be installed in the first week in May with a mandate to restore the German economy, which has been in the doldrums since about 2019. And as I talked to German leaders, military leaders and leaders in the civilian government, they said this is going to be the most pro- American, pro-transatlantic Chancellor you will have seen for a very long time, but he is coming in with a powerful mandate to grow the German economy so that we can be even better security partners, so that we can work better together on the manufacture of the F-35 and to help Ukraine in its defense. But the Trump tariffs are standing directly in the way of this new, pro-American government being able to achieve what they need to be able to achieve. And that is why the IMF said that the Trump tariffs, this new sales tax, will be a drag not just on U.S. economic growth but on global economic growth. This is a story from less than a week ago. U.S. manufacturing was already slowing before the GDP numbers came out today. A larger share of manufacturers are reporting declines in new orders rather than increases. Some of those declines are driven because of the price effect of tariffs, the price effect of retaliatory tariffs, but some are also being driven by the uncertainty. There is a chaos penalty on the economy. When you are not sure what is going to happen, you slow your investments, and that is why you see a decline in manufacturing. The Trump new sales tax, again, as proof from Reuters, ``Trump tariffs would harm all involved, U.S. trade partners say.'' This is not just something that is hurting everyday Americans--those are those to whom we have a responsibility in this body, but this is affecting the global economy in a way that is shocking. And China, Japan, South Korea--a company from South Korea just announced a huge investment in Virginia yesterday in the clean energy space. Japan and South Korea, especially, are countries that do a lot of foreign direct investment in the United States. Japan and South Korea are two of our strongest partners, but even they are responding in a hostile way to U.S. tariffs. In fact, you see China, Japan, and South Korea starting to cooperate together to ward off some of the negative economic effects of U.S. tariffs. The last thing we want to do is encourage Japan and South Korea to work closer with China. We want Japan and South Korea to work closer with the United States. But the Trump tariffs are chasing allies into the arms of adversaries. How foolish is that? And then we end up with the chaos argument that my colleagues had mentioned before. From the New York Times last week: ``With Only Bad Options, Businesses Scramble for a Tariff Chaos Playbook.'' A tariff chaos playbook. When the cost of your imports is going up, when your export market is shrinking, when you don't know what the end of the story will be, the options that you have are very murky. Businesses want to have predictability. They want to be able to look into a crystal ball, and if they don't completely know the future, they want to be able to make enough of a prediction about the economic climate that would justify sizable investments. And in a time of chaos, those investments are not going to be made, and that raises the danger that this first quarter economic contraction will be followed by another, which would be the textbook definition of a recession. So how did we get here? From an economy on Inauguration Day that was the strongest in the world, when President Trump stood 50 yards from here and said it was a golden age, to an economy that has nothing but red lights and question marks all over it, we got here because one individual decided to bypass Congress and take both the taxing power and the trade power into his own hands without a debate, without committee hearings, without deliberation, without considering what the people thought about the plan, and that one man and his decisions have taken a chain saw to the American economy. We must turn this around, and the good news is the Senate has the ability to turn it around. When the Congress passed the IEEPA law decades ago, it recognized the potential that an Executive can overuse the emergency power, and that is why Congress did something rare in IEEPA. They gave the power even to a single Senator, even to a single Senator in the minority party to say: Wait a minute, Mr. President, you have declared an emergency and, guess what, you are wrong. And even at the request of a single Senator, this body is put on the board to have to declare whether we own the policies of the President, this Trump madness, or whether we disown it and urge him to take a different path. All the economic trends are pointing in the same direction. We should take a different path on the economy before this gets worse. The vote we will have later today gives the Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world, the chance to stand up and say: Let's take a different path. I thank my colleagues for their work together on this important resolution and urge a favorable vote on the resolution that we will have later today. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for locking us in, and I think we will complete our comments well on time for the vote. I am very pleased to be joined by my colleague Senator Collins as we introduce a bill called the Religious Workforce Protection Act. Our third cosponsor, Senator Risch, is chairing a Foreign Relations Committee hearing right now but wanted me to comment that he is also a cosponsor of the bill. This bill deals with a problem that I first saw in my parish, that, at the time, when I was talking to folks in my church about it, seemed like a small local problem, but it turns out it is a big national problem. My church, Saint Elizabeth of Hungary, in Richmond, VA, was founded as an immigrant church. It was heavily for Italian- and German-American Catholics, right after World War I, who felt sort of looked askance upon because of the war, and they wanted to have their own parish that could be a haven for them. Now, a hundred-plus years later, my church is still an immigrant church, but it is about a third Congolese. But in addition to the fact that many of our churches of all denominations--synagogues and temples and gurdwaras and mosques--in the country serve new American populations, it is also the case that many of our religious workers in the United States are also immigrants. Two of the last three priests in my parish were immigrants, one from India and one from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and I began to hear about a problem with the way our immigration laws work for religious workers. There is a visa called an R-1 visa that allows, upon the petitioning of a church or a mosque or a synagogue, for a religious worker to come and work for a congregation for a period of 5 years. The R-1 visa lasts for 5 years. Often, during the course of that 5 years, the faith congregation decides, ``Here is somebody who is really great; we would like to keep him''--or her--and they apply for an EB-4 visa, which is a more extended visa. And the idea would be you would apply, and the application process would finish before your R-1 visa expires. Well, it turns out we have huge backlogs in processing these EB-4 visas. So many religious workers get to the end of their 5-year term, and their EB-4 is pending--likely to be approved but not yet approved-- and they have to depart the country. They are required to go back home and stay for at least a year before they come back. There can also be some challenges for religious workers. If, say, one starts working at St. Elizabeth's parish and gets moved to St. Paul's Parish just a mile or two away, they have to restart the process because it is a new employer even though they are essentially doing the same thing. So Senator Collins and I--and she will describe her own story that she sees in her native Maine with the same topic. We started to talk about this, and it turns out this is an issue in Catholic parishes, but it is an issue much more broadly. So what we have done is introduced a bill we call the Religious Workforce Protection Act. It would allow someone in this R-1 category to file the application for the EB-4, and if the 5-year R-1 period ends before the EB-4 has been granted, this bill would give discretion--not a mandate but discretion--to the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant an extension of the R-1 visa for a worker who has applied for the EB-4 and who fully qualifies, has no disqualifying factor that would suggest that they would not be eligible for the EB-4. It also allows a little more flexibility so that a religious worker can move from one parish to the next or get a promotion from associate pastor to pastor without restarting the application process as long as they maintain continuous work as a religious worker, as the R-1 program was designed for. We think this is going to be a good fix for many of our religious communities. I am happy to say, before I yield the floor to Senator Collins, that the support we have gained from religious communities nationally is pretty notable. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Association of Evangelicals, the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations, the Hindu American Foundation, the Immigration Committee of Agudath Israel of America, and the Episcopal Church of America have all weighed in because so many different faith congregations are seeing this same challenge--the backlog in processing applications for R-1 religious workers to be able to convert their status to EB-4. We think it is a basic, commonsensical provision, and giving the DHS Secretary on a case-by-case basis the ability to review and then extend someone's R-1 status while their EB-4 is processing seems like a way to solve this problem for so many faith congregations all around the United States. With that, I am very, very pleased to be joined in this by my colleague from Maine, and I would like to yield to Senator Collins.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues--I really appreciate my colleague from Hawaii's leadership on this topic and the Senator from New Hampshire--to talk about the pending discussion about the budget reconciliation bill and the vote-arama that will start in a few hours. I want to begin by thanking my colleagues for joining me to pass S.J. Res. 37 two days ago, which was the resolution that I had to challenge President Trump's Canadian tariffs--a horrible idea. We were able to get 51 votes in this Chamber. It was a privileged motion. The majority was sufficient to pass it to turn off the Canadian tariffs because they hurt consumers, they hurt businesses, they hurt farmers, and they also hurt our national security by raising the price of aluminum and steel. Thirty-five percent of the aluminum and steel that goes into U.S. ships and subs comes from Canada; the other 65 percent, from the United States. It was an important bill to pass because we don't need to put an additional sales tax on goods purchased by Americans that come from Canada. We don't need to inspire a Canadian retaliation against American products. Finally, we need to send the message that we understand that Canada is not an adversary but that Canada is a friend. That bill passed the Senate and is on to the House. We are already working on the House side to see if we can get it passed there. But, today, what I want to address is not the Canadian tariffs that were announced now months ago but the new ``reciprocal'' tariffs that President Trump announced on Wednesday, on the south lawn, at the very moment that we were voting to overturn the Canadian tariffs. President Trump deemed these tariffs as ``reciprocal'' tariffs, but I have another phrase for him: They are economic idiocy. I want to talk about why they are so bad, why the policy is bad. And when the policy is so bad and seemingly inexplicable, something else is going on, and I want to conclude by focusing on what that something else is. I went to the University of Missouri, and I majored in economics. I had some amazing professors, and I just want to give them a shout-out: John Kuhlman, Whitney Hicks, Walter Johnson, Ron Ratti. I had some amazing professors at Mizzou. I graduated with an honors degree in economics in 1979. If they were standing here with me, they would say: Tim Kaine, you were my student. I hope you remember what we talked about in these economic classes. They would point out what I am about to point out as to why these tariffs announced broadly against virtually every nation in the world at the say-so of one person--a national sales tax falling on American consumers at the say-so of one person--are, in fact, economic idiocy. They will hurt our families. They will hurt our businesses. They will hurt our farmers. All of the economic signs suggest that President Trump is flipping the world's strongest economy toward a recession. When we were kids, we all learned the fairytale--I think it is a Brothers Grimm fairytale--of Rumpelstiltskin, the mysterious figure who turned straw into gold. What we are now seeing is ``Trumpelstiltskin'' turning gold into straw. President Trump started with the strongest economy in the world on the day he was inaugurated--a strong stock market, strong consumer confidence, strong growth rates and growth projections, manufacturing up, infrastructure up, America building again. In 2 months, his chaotic economic idiocy has turned it around where the American economy--just go turn on the TV right now and look at what is happening in the markets. The American economy has nothing but red lights and question marks all over it because of the economic idiocy. ``Economic idiocy'' is a strong charge for me. I am not one to do a lot of name-calling but that is exactly what this is. Let me focus on some examples from President Trump's Wednesday announcement that show how idiotic these tariffs are. Japan and South Korea are two great allies of the United States. We have been working very carefully to deepen the relationship they have with each other and with us to check against the nation that we all in this Chamber and President Trump also view as our chief adversary: China. President Trump, in his Wednesday announcement, imposes a 24-percent tariff on goods coming from South Korea and a 25-percent tariff on goods coming from Japan. This is no way to treat a friend. And guess what these friends are doing. They met with China to talk about a free- trade agreement. They met with China to talk about how they need to band together to protect themselves from the economic policy of the United States. Japan and South Korea are two of the best allies we have in Asia or anywhere in the world. The relationships we have had with both nations have been very strong, whether it is military-to-military cooperation, trade, diplomacy, working together on humanitarian issues, or on educational exchanges. Donald Trump's tariffs are chasing Japan and South Korea into China's arms--idiocy. Here is one: Israel is an ally, and Iran is an adversary. I think we can get a 100-to-nothing vote on that proposition in this Chamber. Israel is an ally; Iran is an adversary. Guess what President Trump did with his tariffs on Wednesday--a 17-percent tariff on Israel and on Iran, a 10-percent tariff. A 17-percent tariff on our ally Israel and on Iran, a 10-percent tariff. What kind of friend is that? How is that the way to treat an ally? We are rock-solid in sending military support to Israel. I helped with votes almost exactly a year ago on the Senate floor to get a $14 billion defense aid package for Israel. But we are going to put a higher tariff on Israel than Iran. It makes no sense. It is idiocy. Here is another one: Trump says these are ``reciprocal'' tariffs. We are putting tariffs on nations that are treating us unfairly in trade, but he is imposing tariffs even on nations that put no tariffs on U.S. products, that have no trade barriers on U.S. products. Singapore has no trade barriers on U.S. products, but Trump is socking them with tariffs anyway. Israel has no trade barriers on U.S. products, but Trump is socking them with tariffs anyway. Idiocy. Idiocy. Here is another one: Trump, in his rambling monologue on the south lawn on Wednesday, when he defined ``groceries'' as a bag with stuff in it--I was very happy to be enlightened about what groceries are--said that he was imposing tariffs on nations where the United States has trade deficits. So the idea is we are going to put tariffs on them because they are not buying enough of our stuff. We want to penalize nations where the United States has a trade deficit. But guess what. We have trade surpluses with Brazil, Australia, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Singapore, and the UK. So what did Donald Trump do? He put tariffs on them anyway. He said it was about trade deficits and that he is putting tariffs even on nations that are buying more of our products than we are buying of theirs. Idiocy. Idiocy. In Donald Trump's first term, he encouraged American businesses to move their supply chains out of China, and a lot of businesses did. Many American businesses followed Donald Trump's instructions and moved their supply chains from China to Vietnam. In President Trump's first term, he boasted about that. He patted himself on the back. He told these American companies: Pull your supply chain out of China. And when they went to Vietnam, he patted himself on the back about that. So what is he doing now? A 46-percent tariff on imports from Vietnam. Well, that is quite a way to treat American companies that moved their supply chains out of China at your request just a few years ago. Some moved their supply chains to nations like Cambodia or other nearby nations. Trump socked them all. He socked them all with tariffs, even for these businesses that did move their supply chains at his request. Then we get to something that has been more widely known, which is Trump putting tariffs on tiny, nearly uninhabited islands--Reunion, the Heard and McDonald Islands, and Norfolk Island. There is a tiny French island off the coast of Canada that I will admit I was not even aware of, St. Pierre and Miquelon--a 50-percent tariff on these places. I mean, I will say one thing about Donald Trump's tariffs that is good, and it is the only thing that is good: It has made a lot of people pull out their globes and look at nations they didn't even know existed. St. Pierre and Miquelon will now have a 50-percent tariff; Heard and McDonald Islands, a 10-percent tariff; Svalbard and Jan Mayen, which are actually not even countries but part of Norway, a 10-percent tariff; Norfolk Island, a 29-percent tariff; and Reunion, a 37-percent tariff. Donald Trump at least has inspired interest in geography--a subject that, often, kids find boring. OK. So I have gone through these examples of pure idiocy. The tariffs are not designed to punish adversaries, since we are hurting allies and treating them worse than adversaries, in many ways. The tariffs are not designed to lower trade barriers, since nations with no trade barriers are still getting socked. The tariffs are not signed to counter trade deficits, since nations where we have trade surpluses are getting socked. So why do them at all? Why punish Americans with a national sales tax, which all the economists say is the largest peace-time tax ever imposed in U.S. history? If it is not to reduce trade barriers, if it is not to punish nations with trade deficits, if it is not designed to punish nations that are adversaries, why would we impose a sales tax on the American consumer, the American family, American businesses, American national security? That is what we are going to be talking about tonight during the vote-arama. That is what you will see Democrats emphasizing with amendments that we are offering. These tariffs are not about trade deficits, trade barriers. They are not about the behavior of adversaries. It is about raising money to fund a tax cut for the rich. That is what they are about. Peter Navarro, the President's chief economic adviser, says--and I think this is probably optimistic. These guys like to puff up the numbers. He says that these tariffs will raise $6 trillion over the course of the next 10 years, about $600 billion, all taken out of the pockets of everyday Americans who are paying more for groceries, who are paying more for building supplies when they do a home renovation; farmers who are paying more for fertilizer because the key component, potash, 80 percent of it comes from Canada. The $6 trillion that these tariffs will raise all comes out of the pocketbooks of Americans who are working hard and who don't want to pay more taxes. But they are going to fork over $6 trillion because of these tariffs. Then President Trump and my colleagues here are setting up a budget where they will take that $6 trillion, and they will add to it all of these slash-and-burn cuts that the chain saw-wielding Elon Musk is finding by laying off 80,000 people at the VA or indiscriminately firing veterans in every Agency in the Federal Government. They will combine the tariff revenue with the savings from Medicaid cuts or cuts to school nutrition or cuts to the Pell Grant Program, and then they will take all of that revenue and hand it over to the richest people in this country, many of whom are the richest people on the planet Earth, in tax cuts for the wealthiest. How do we know? How do we know to predict that? We know because that is what they did when Donald Trump was President in 2017. In 2017, the tax bill that passed by a simple majority vote in this body was a big giveaway to the rich, and that is what Trump and my Republican colleagues are preparing to do yet again. The only difference between 2017 and now is this: In 2017, when the Republicans and Donald Trump gave a tax cut to the rich, they didn't pay for it. It was all on the deficit. They just put it on the credit card for our kids and grandkids to pay. This time, they decided they don't want to continue to jack up the deficit--although, they are likely to anyway--and so they think they need to pay for the tax cut. How are they going to pay for it? By cutting programs that everyday Americans rely on and by socking families and businesses with a $6 trillion tariff-tax increase imposed purely to fund the tax cut for Donald Trump and his friends. That is what we are going to fight against in this budget. In the same way that we succeeded by getting Republicans to vote with us against the Canadian tariffs, a few days ago, it is my hope that when we get to the end of this process, we will have some Republican colleagues in this House and the next who will stand up against the President who thinks one man can shatter the economy and impose costs on everyday people to benefit himself and his friends. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today, following my colleague from Maine, to talk about S.J. Res. 37, which we believe will come up for a vote later this afternoon, possibly somewhere between 6 and 7 o'clock. I am proud to have introduced this resolution a few weeks back, together with a group of bipartisan Senators, many of whom will take the floor this afternoon to speak about it. Let me just first talk about the fact that this resolution is a little bit unusual in terms of Senate procedure. There are not many things that a single Senator can file and then be guaranteed a floor vote. In fact, there are only three or four such procedures. This resolution is filed pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which was the act used by Trump to declare the Canadian emergency that is the subject of my resolution. The IEEPA statute is an old statute. It has been around for quite a while. I will just state, at the outset, that IEEPA, the act that the President has used to declare an emergency and impose tariffs, is an act that was designed to be used against adversaries. Congress wanted to give the President tools to deal with adversaries--nations that were enemies, cartels, rogue states, and dictators. IEEPA was not designed to be used against allies. IEEPA says nothing about tariffs. It does not say that the President's actions against adversaries should include tariffs. The administration's use of this Emergency Powers Act to go against an ally is pretty unusual. It is not unprecedented. The President did it in the first term when he imposed IEEPA tariffs against both Canada and the EU. But it is important to know that this is generally a statute that was designed to counter adversaries. I stand here strongly in the belief that Canada is not an adversary; they are an ally. Canada is not the 51st State; they are a sovereign nation. And Canada is not an emergency for the United States. Are there differences of opinion between the United States and Canada? Sure, there are. It just so happens, in the trade space, we have a state-of-the-art trade deal negotiated by President Trump and his team, the USMCA, which was adopted by nearly a 90-to-10 vote in this body, that gives us the ability, when we have differences with this friend and ally, Canada, to work them out. And it is unfortunate, in my view, that instead of going through the USMCA, we are using an act designed to counter adversaries to impose these tariffs. I want to talk about tariffs. I want to talk about the President's rationale for imposing the tariffs, and then I want to talk about the importance of this resolution and the many stakeholders outside this body who are supporting S.J. Res. 37. First, on tariffs, President Trump's aides have basically admitted that this is a sales tax--a new sales tax. The tariff revenue will hit everyday people by making the cost of their goods go up. This is a CNN headline from a couple of days ago: ``Trump aide says tariffs will raise $6 trillion''--that is a reference to Peter Navarro--``which would be the largest tax hike in US history.'' To be fair, this is the total tariff effect, not just the Canada effect--Canada, China, Mexico, and potentially other nations. But what we are likely to see today with the tariff announcement is that it will be the largest tax hike in U.S. history. Many have been writing about the challenges of tariffs and this tax hike. From CNBC: Consumer confidence in where the economy is headed hits a 12-year low. This was an economy that was extremely strong just 2 months ago, on President Trump's Inauguration Day. It was a very, very strong economy, not a perfect economy. But since that time, we have seen volatility in the stock market. We have seen growing inflation. We have seen reducing consumer confidence. We have seen some suggestions of slowing economic growth--even negative economic growth from some. And that is due, in large part, to the prospect of this national sales tax--tariffs to the degree of $6 trillion--but also somewhat to the chaos about whether and when and how they will be implemented. Other economists have also written. A recent article in the Washington Post talks about the stock markets' grim view of tariff shenanigans: Markets have plummeted since Trump announced new levies on Canada, Mexico, and China, erasing all gains since his election. The tariffs are still likely to be economically destructive: They will snarl global supply chains, raise costs to consumers and cause layoffs in industries that depend on imported inputs like steel. This means more than just the additional pain for consumers whipsawed by inflation, higher prices on imports and, now, the possibility of recession. Tariff shenanigans are shaking up the American economy, creating huge anxiety and hurting consumers and businesses. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal called the Trump tariff effort ``The Dumbest Trade War in History.'' The Wall Street Journal's point was a point I made earlier. Why use IEEPA, a statute designed to go after enemies, when we have a trade deal that President Trump negotiated with Canada and Mexico? None of this is supposed to happen under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement that Mr. Trump negotiated and signed in his first term. Again, I give the President huge credit for this. I believe the USMCA vote in the first term got 89 votes in this Chamber. That is hard on anything, much less a trade deal--what an accomplishment. But the USMCA created dispute resolution mechanisms that would make imposition of tariffs unnecessary. The U.S. willingness to ignore its treaty obligations, even with friends, won't make other countries eager to do deals. Maybe Mr. Trump will claim victory and pull back if he wins some token concessions. But if a North American trade war persists, it will qualify as one of the dumbest in history. I have given you challenges in the global economy and in the American economy that are happening because of the trade war. Let me now get specific on Virginia. I heard my colleague from Maine talk about who is affected in Maine. In Virginia, I have been traveling around the State, talking to Virginians, and they are very, very worried about these Canadian tariffs. They are not worried in the abstract. They saw them in 2017, 2018, 2019. They know what happens with tariffs. It is an unusual group of businesses in that it is big, small, medium size--it is everybody. I have a bakery in Northern Virginia, Mom's Apple Pie. They have three locations. The owner, April--I see some nods. There are people who are Mom's Apple Pie fans. It is a great small business bakery. Their operations are in Leesburg, Occoquan, and Purcellville. I was meeting recently with the owner, and she said: You have to do something about these Canadian tariffs. I said: April, you have three small bakeries. Tell me how the Canadian tariffs hit you. She said: Pie tins. All our aluminum pie tins come from Canada. If you raise the price of a pie tin by 25 percent, the price of a pie goes up a bit. Nobody has to buy apple pies. When the price goes up, a whole lot of people will decide they are not going to buy apple pies. This is a classic small business that is affected by Canadian tariffs. Let's go to the largest businesses. We are experts at ship and sub building in Virginia. We manufacture the most sophisticated items that are made on the planet Earth--nuclear carriers and nuclear subs. Thirty-five percent of the steel that goes into ships and subs made for our Navy, for our military, comes from Canada. Sixty-five percent of the aluminum steel comes from the United States, but 35 percent comes from Canada. I serve with the Presiding Officer on the Armed Services Committee. We already are having a hard time producing ships and subs on time, on budget. Take aluminum and steel and ratchet them up by 20 percent, and it is going to get even harder to defend the Nation and produce the ships and subs that we need. Like Senator Collins talking about her ag sector, ag and forestry is still the biggest industry in Virginia. People think of it as high- tech. No, ag and forestry is still No. 1, and it is my farmers and foresters that are most concerned about the Canadian tariffs because they saw what happened last time. The first thing that happens, you put a tariff on Canadian exports. Potash, the ingredient in agriculture fertilizer--80 percent of potash comes as an import into the United States. So that immediately goes up by 25 percent, according to what the President has said he is going to do. That hurts farmers very, very badly. Second, there has never been a one-sided trade war in the history of the world. When one party puts a tariff on, the other side retaliates. In the first Trump administration, the retaliation was heavily against the ag sector. My soybean farmers that were exporting soybeans couldn't export to markets that they were previously able to. My apple farmers who export apples to Canada couldn't do it to the same degree, and their exports dropped and their revenues dropped. And this is already a low-margin business. My distillers and wineries and breweries--many of which find an important part of their revenue might be 10 percent or 15 percent or 25 percent in export markets to the EU, to Canada, to Mexico--suddenly find that retaliatory tariffs price their products out of business. I was with Dave Cuttino, the founder of Reservoir Distillery in Richmond, yesterday. He talked about the fact that, even before these tariffs have gone into effect, because President Trump announced them but then delayed them, there is an anger in the Canadian consumer: We don't want to buy American products if you are going to treat us this way. He has been told by his distributors in the Alberta Province that there will be no American product put on any more shelves because: We are so furious at the way we are being treated in this. Big Businesses, small businesses. Volvo Trucks is one of the largest manufacturers in Appalachian Virginia--in Dublin, VA. They manufacture all of the Volvo over-the-road trucks that you see anywhere in North America. They export significantly--significantly--to Canada and Mexico. They also import source materials from Canada and Mexico. The tariffs will increase the cost of their inputs, driving the price of their trucks up, making those trucks less competitive. We have a lot of businesses in Virginia that have operations on both sides of the border. BWXT in Lynchburg is the Nation's premier producer of nuclear reactors for ships and subs, as well as nuclear reactors for other possibilities. They have operations in Canada, and they shift product back and forth across the line in ways where the tariffs will make it more expensive. So the Virginia effect--and let's be clear, there is another one the Senator talked about: tourism. We rely on tourism in Virginia. We are a Top Ten tourism State, and we have a lot of Canadian tourists. In fact, Canadians are among the most frequent visitors to Virginia Beach. To our pristine, wonderful beachfront community, Canada tourism is strong. Canadian tourism to the United States--air reservations from Canadians coming to the United States are down by 75 percent because of the feeling that they are not being treated fairly. They are looking at the United States, an ally, and they are saying: Why us? So there is an effect on the economy--the big picture--on the stock market, inflation, at the kitchen table, the cost of groceries. Building supplies come from Canada--a lot of lumber. Housing is already too expensive. A tariff on lumber coming in from Canada is just going to drive up the cost of any home renovation project or new home construction. There are tariffs on Canadian automobiles. A lot of the U.S.-plated automobiles are made--or at least products are significantly made--in Canada. Those prices will go up. So, from the kitchen table of a family to our Nation's larger shipbuilders, these tariff shenanigans pose a huge economic risk. I go back to a point that was raised in the Wall Street Journal article: Why not use the USMCA? Why not use the USMCA? President Trump negotiated it. It was a success. It was something that succeeded in a bipartisan way. There have been discussions about whether, after 5 or 6 years, the USMCA should be renegotiated. I think that is fine. We renegotiated NAFTA. President Trump made it better. If 5 or 6 years of operating under USMCA has taught us ways it can be made better, that is fine, too, but when you establish a treaty with an ally that includes a dispute resolution mechanism, why not use that mechanism instead of reaching for a statute that was designed to punish an adversary and putting massive sales taxes on goods that will make it harder for Americans to economically thrive? So that does raise the question, If the USMCA is available and if there are differences of opinion on trade, why is the President imposing tariffs and using an emergency declaration rather than using the USMCA? I want to get to that next. The President has said there is one reason he is doing this. There is one reason for the emergency, for labeling Canada through this use of emergency power as an ``adversary,'' and the reason is fentanyl-- fentanyl. No one in this Chamber and no one here now or any of the 100 Senators would dispute that fentanyl is a massive problem and, indeed, an emergency. The opioid overdose deaths in my State and in Alabama--in all States--heartbreaking; the stories of families who lost their loved ones--heartbreaking. I was in Roanoke earlier this morning with an ESPN reporter who was a gymnast and now works at ESPN, Lauren Keller. Lauren is from Roanoke, VA. She was in her freshman year at Rutgers when she got the call that her mother, at age 45, had died. Her dad called her. She went to the airport. She flew home. By the time she landed in Roanoke, her dad had died as well. Both overdosed on OxyContin, an opioid-based pain medication. So is fentanyl a problem? Yes. Is it an emergency? Yes. Is substance use disorder generally an emergency? Yes, of course it is. That is why we passed the HALT Fentanyl Act just about 2 weeks ago in this Chamber--a big bipartisan vote. That is why we are putting budgetary resources into interdiction technology. That is why Senator Ernst and I got a provision in the Defense bill 2 years ago to require more cooperation between the U.S. and Mexican military on fentanyl interdiction. It is an emergency, but fentanyl is not a Canadian emergency. Calling it a Canadian emergency and putting the same tariffs on Canadian products as we put on Mexican and Canadian products is an invented emergency, not a real emergency. And guess what. The Trump administration agrees with me on this. Even though the President has declared a Canadian fentanyl emergency, there is a Biblical statement, I think, about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. One of the President's key intelligence advisers Tulsi Gabbard appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, and she presented to the Intel Committee an annual assessment required of her office. It is called the ``Annual Threat Assessment.'' It looks at every threat that the United States is under globally. Who is threatening us militarily? Who is threatening us with fentanyl? Who is threatening us with cyber attacks? Who is threatening us with misinformation? As she presented the report to the committee, one of my colleagues, Senator Heinrich of New Mexico, looked through the report and noticed that Canada wasn't in the report. Canada was not even mentioned as a threat in the Trump administration's first ``Annual Threat Assessment.'' There was even a section in the report specifically about fentanyl, and Canada wasn't mentioned. So my colleague asked the DNI: I don't see Canada mentioned. Canada is not mentioned as a threat. It is not even mentioned as a threat in fentanyl. And her testimony at the committee was: You are right. The fentanyl threat is a China and Mexico threat; it is not a Canada threat. So is there a fentanyl emergency? Yes, there is. Should action be taken to stop it? Yes, there should. Might that action even include looking at tariffs against China for sending precursor chemicals into the United States or into Mexico to be manufactured into fentanyl? It is a fair question. I haven't challenged the China tariffs. Should Mexico be subject to some tough action, possibly including tariffs, because of their role in allowing so much fentanyl to come into the United States? It is a very fair question. That is why I haven't challenged the Mexico tariffs. But even the Trump administration, in their presentation to the Intel Committee, said that Canada was not a fentanyl threat. This is an article from The Globe and Mail, which is the largest daily newspaper in Canada, published in Toronto from last week: In the aftermath of Tulsi Gabbard's testimony, Canada not mentioned in U.S. threat assessment summary of fentanyl crisis. There is a fentanyl emergency, but it is not Canada. So let's dig into this a little bit further. In 2024, let me tell you how much fentanyl was seized at the southern border of the United States. It is slightly over 21,000 pounds of fentanyl--devastating, devastating. How about fentanyl seized coming from Canada into the United States--half of that? a quarter of that? a 10th of it? It is about \1/2\, 000th of it. The estimates have been-- although there is a new report that is just coming out, as I am speaking on the floor, from The Globe and Mail, saying even these estimates are high--21,000 pounds from Mexico and 43 pounds from Canada in the entire year of 2024. The Toronto Globe and Mail is doing an assessment of the 43 pounds, and here is what they found: that the 43 pounds is an overstatement. The 43 pounds includes fentanyl interdicted in some northern cities like Spokane, WA, and those were put on the Canadian interdiction stat even though, when we have dug into it, what we have discovered is, even though Spokane is pretty far north, that fentanyl didn't come in from Canada; it came in from Mexico, and all the people who were arrested as the fentanyl was interdicted in these northern cities were connected to Mexican cartels. So this gives some scale: 21,000 to 43 pounds, and the 43 pounds is dramatically overestimated. We think this actual number may be down in a very, very few pounds. It is not an emergency from Canada, and it is certainly not an emergency that would justify treating Canadian products with exactly the same tariff that we would levy on products from Mexico and from China. I think that allies are really important, and I think it is wrong to call an ally an adversary. Here is an article that appeared in the AP a little bit ago that I just want to read into the Record: ``A beloved library that united the U.S. and Canada faces new border restrictions'' because of the President's emergency declaration. This appeared in the Associated Press on March 26, just last week. Let me just read this into the Record. For Allyson Howell, her hometown library is more than just a place to borrow a book; it's also a unique space where different cultures from the U.S. and Canada have mingled and developed ties for more than a century. Howell and others fear that could change under a new regulation implemented by President Donald Trump's administration as tensions continue to rise between the two countries. The Haskell Free Library and Opera House straddles the line between Howell's village of Derby Line, VT, and the town of Stanstead, Quebec. The entrance to the imposing [brick-style] and stone building is on the U.S. side, but an informal agreement between the two countries has allowed Canadians to enter [the library] without a passport. Canadians cross the border on a sidewalk leading directly to the library that is monitored by the [USCBP]. The nearest border checkpoint is not within eyesight of the building. Inside the library, there is a line on the floor marking the international border, though residents of both countries have been able to move freely among the stacks. But since Tuesday, the only Canadian visitors able to enter on the U.S. side have been cardholders and library [staff]. All others have had to use an emergency exit on the Canadian side. Starting October 1, all Canadians will have to enter from their side of the border or pass through a security checkpoint on the U.S. side. It's a big change from the honor system arrangement the two countries have always used, users of the library said. ``This feels like . . . one more step of building this chasm between these . . . nations,'' said Howell, who described the library as ``really special'' and a ``real symbol'' of international cooperation. Derby Line is a village of . . . 700 people within the town of Derby, located in the rural Northeast Kingdom section of Vermont. Stanstead is a town of about 3,000 residents. Like many rural border communities in the U.S. and Canada, their economies and cultures are linked. But the ties have become strained under [President] Trump, who has advanced tariffs and tightened border protections in some communities that [rely upon one another]. Why do this? Why do this? Like President Trump, I think it is right to say, ``America first,'' but I don't want America alone. I don't want an America pushing aside its longstanding allies who have stood with us. Canada stood with us on 9/11. Canada has stood side by side with U.S. troops in every war we have been in. They have fought with our troops. They have bled with our troops. They have died with our troops in every war since the War of 1812. Yet we are going to treat them like an enemy, and we are going to make them go through an emergency exit through a library. This calls up to my mind memories that I have of a South, when I was born, where a certain kind of people couldn't go in the same doors as other kinds of people. This is no way to treat an ally. This is no way to treat a friend. As I conclude--I see other colleagues here, ready to speak--I am happy to say that the S.J. Res. 37 has picked up the support of a whole lot of people who I think are pretty important people outside this Chamber. This morning, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce weighed in, in support of S.J. Res. 37. I am going to read from the letter that they have sent to Senators: [T]he tariffs being imposed on imports from Canada and Mexico, America's two top trading partners, are inflicting real harm on American workers, companies, and farmers. Tariffs are taxes--paid by Americans--and they will quickly increase prices at a time when many are struggling with the cost of living. These import taxes are also harming U.S. manufacturers and drawing retaliatory duties, worsening their impact on our economy. [Further], these tariffs are at odds with commitments the United States made in the landmark USMCA, which was negotiated by the first Trump administration. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports S.J. Res. 37, and they join a number of other organizations: the AFL-CIO. That is threading a needle when I get the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on the same page on a matter of such importance. We have the United Steelworkers; the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers; the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers; the National Retail Federation. Retailers don't want to see costs of products increase; North America's Building Trades Unions; Sheet Metal Workers; the U.S. Conference of Mayors; Foreign Policy for America; the National Taxpayers Union. Tariffs are a tax; and Advancing American Freedom, a think tank that was established by former Vice President Mike Pence. They all have weighed in to support S.J. Res. 37. Tariffs are a tax. Tariffs will hurt our families. Canada is not an enemy. Let's act together to fight fentanyl. We can do that. We have done that. We have shown it with the HALT Fentanyl that we passed 2 weeks ago. Let's not label an ally as an enemy. Let's not impose punishing costs on American families at a time they can't afford it. Let's not hurt American small businesses. Let's not make our national security investments and ships and subs more expensive. I earnestly request that colleagues support S.J. 37 when we vote on it later today. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise for some concluding comments. I believe the vote will follow. I want to acknowledge my colleague from Idaho's comments about the northern border. This is a bill that is fundamentally about tariffs. I acknowledge what my colleague said, that there are issues at the northern border, and I have colleagues who have shared that, and there are mechanisms for working out those issues. And I would ask my colleagues if you are concerned about any issue on the northern border, do you think we will more likely be able to deal with it if we work hand in hand with Canada, or do you think the path to success is punitive actions against Canada? I would argue plainly that the right way to deal with any issue at the border with Canada is to work with Canada, not wage a trade war against them. This vote, though, is fundamentally about tariffs--the President's imposition of tariffs against Canada that will be a costly tax increase on American families. If the President has concerns about trade issues with Canada, guess what: This President negotiated a signature trade deal, the USMCA, that got 89 bipartisan votes in this Chamber, and he has a negotiating process to find a resolution to any issue he cares about. The imposition of tariffs does nothing more than put a tax on American families. What I would like to do--I did speak earlier today. But what I would like to do is just read quickly from many stakeholders who have weighed in, in support of S.J. Res. 37. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce: Tariffs are taxes--paid by Americans--and they will quickly increase prices at a time when many are struggling with the cost of living. [That is why] it is appropriate for Congress to exercise its authority under IEEPA and pass SJ Res 37. North American Building Trades: The United States and Canada share far more than just a border--we share a deep, enduring economic and workforce partnership that has strengthened both nations. . . . That partnership is enshrined in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), a comprehensive trade agreement that President Trump himself negotiated. We shouldn't circumvent this agreement. Sheet Metal Workers: Tariff penalties aimed at Canada for non-trade objectives have already caused harsh and unnecessary economic pain for US workers and harm to our nation's construction and related metal fabricating . . . businesses. National Retail Federation: U.S. retailers depend on Canada for a wide range of consumer goods. These operations are all now being significantly disrupted because of the tariffs applied to Canada. U.S. Conference of Mayors: These actions are raising prices for consumers, disrupting key industries such as construction and manufacturing. . . . They also risk increasing already high housing costs, as . . . lumber, steel, aluminum, and other critical building materials will make housing . . . more expensive. The AFL-CIO: Imposing large, across the board tariffs on Canada aimed at non-trade objectives will only cause unnecessary economic pain for workers and businesses. The International Association of Machinists: These new tariffs on Canada, one of our closest allies . . . are unjust and will have a lasting negative impact on American and Canadian workers. The National Taxpayers Union: Canada is an important supplier of goods that strengthen U.S. security, including crude oil, natural gas, steel, and aluminum. Tariffs that restrict our access to these supplies and increase their cost will weaken our industrial base. The Taxpayer Protection Alliance: TPA enthusiastically supports [the effort] to overturn President Trump's February 1, 2025, national emergency declaration. This use of . . . IEEPA is fraught with issues. The ensuing trade war will inevitably raise costs for consumers. United Steelworkers: These new tariffs are misdirected, unsubstantiated by facts, and harmful to the very workers we represent. And, finally, Advancing American Freedom, the think tank formed by former Vice President Mike Pence: Tariffs are a tax on American families and businesses. The first Trump administration cut an excellent deal with Canada with the USMCA. The president should not abandon this agreement. We have a chance to stand strong for our businesses and consumers, our foresters and farmers, our national defense industry and shipbuilders, against cost increases that will hurt people's pocketbooks, hurt American competitiveness, and hurt our national security. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on S.J. Res. 37. I will yield back all time on the resolution.

Mr. KAINE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KAINE. Well, thank you to my friend, Senator Booker, and to all who are gathered to watch this very, very important vigil. And the question that I am going to ask in slow motion to give you a chance to think of a response--

Mr. KAINE.--is a question that was inspired by your colloquy with Senator Coons.

Mr. KAINE. Your discussion, where you were doing some Bible quoting back and forth. And as, you know, I am a big Bible reader. And the thing I thought about, and actually I thought about it during your talk since last night, is this part of the Gospel of Matthew where he is challenging people he thinks are hypocrites. And he says to them: You can discern the faces of the sky, but you can't discern the signs of the times. That is Matthew 16:2 and 3. You can discern the faces of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the time. The way I viewed this vigil that you have been powerfully engaged upon is you are attempting to discern and explain the signs of the times to your colleagues and to our country, and that is very important that we do. And I would like to ask you one question about the signs of the times economically to follow the discussion of what we are seeing, but then I want to ask you a question about the signs of the times more in the nature of our democracy. So to begin, on the economy, you walked through how strong the economy was on the day this President was inaugurated, and 2 months later, the challenges of a volatile stock market, the challenges of rising prices, the challenges of declining consumer confidence, the challenges of predictions that there might be slow growth or even a recession. We will have a vote on the Senate floor tomorrow about Canadian tariffs based on a resolution that I have introduced that we will have a vote on. You talked at length about those tariffs and the effects that they have on Americans and others. As I have traveled around my Commonwealth, my farmers, my small businesses, they have seen it before. They saw it in Trump term one. They know how dangerous it will be. They don't want to pay more for groceries. They don't want to pay more for building supplies. Farmers don't want to pay more for fertilizers. My shipyards don't want to pay more for aluminum and steel. They were promised that they would pay less, not pay more. They don't want to be part of a campaign to demonize a nation that has been a friend of the United States and stood side by side with us in every war since the War of 1812. They don't want to be part of a juvenile assertion by this President that that sovereign nation is the 51st State. They don't want to be part of a name-calling effort to call the prime minister of a sovereign nation Governor. They are trying to read the signs of the times. Why is this administration that came in with such a strong economic hand doing so much so quickly to both hurt us economically, but also to tarnish a relationship that has stood the test of time with an ally? The President often says that his goal is ``America First.'' We would all agree as Members of this body in ``America First,'' but we would all passionately disagree with ``America Alone.'' What is ``America Alone'' going to get us? What will we turn to, who will we turn to when the allies that we have spent decades building relationships with now feel pushed aside? Yesterday, China announced that they were going to be working with Japan and Korea on a free trade zone, possibly to respond to U.S. tariffs.

Mr. KAINE. Other nations are having to engage in hedging behaviors because they thought we were friends and now they doubt that reality anymore. And so as you look at the signs of these economic times--and then I will get to a second question about the signs of the times in our democracy--how are we to understand this? And more importantly, how are we best to rectify it? How can we stand up for our families and reduce their burdens, not increase them? How can we stand shoulder to shoulder with linked arms with our allies to face off against adversaries? Reflect on the signs of the times and point us in the right direction, please?

Mr. KAINE. Yes. Yes. And my citizens really remember because they suffered.

Mr. KAINE. Yes, I do.

Mr. KAINE. Yep.

Mr. KAINE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KAINE. This is a question about the signs of the times in our democracy. We will celebrate 250 years of American democracy in 2026. And I want it to be a celebration, not a coronation, not a requiem, not a wake, but a celebration. A week ago Sunday, 250 years ago, Patrick Henry stood on the floor of Henrico Parish, now known as St. John's Episcopal Church, on Church Hill in Richmond, at a moment of decision where people were challenged to understand the signs of the times, at a moment of tyranny. And he asked the immortal question. And I almost view your vigil as asking the same question about where we would stand in such a moment, and there were different forks in the road--a phrase that has attained some meaning recently. And Patrick Henry said: ``As for me, give me liberty or give me death.'' You are giving a liberty speech, my colleague. You are giving a liberty speech as the Nation begins to think about 250 years of democracy. The opposite of liberty, that which Henry was fighting against, was tyranny. It was tyranny. I am one that believes that we should mark anniversaries. We shouldn't just act steady state, like this country was ordained and will just go on forever regardless. We are coming up on 250 years of American democracy, and there is a live question about its continued existence that this generation is grappling with. Henry gave that speech at St. John's Church, and a few months later, on July 4, 1776, the United States declared its independence from England, and our history in this new chapter began. And at various points along the way--during the 1850s, say, or during the 1950s-- generation shifts like ours have had to grapple with the question of whether the experiment will continue or not. Some of our national symbols have some unusual aspects to them that point to this experiment. We have a national anthem that ends with a question--not an assertion, not a declaration, but whether the flag will still stand over the home of the free and land of the brave, question mark. The State flag that Virginia adopted on July 5, 1776, is a most unusual flag. It has a woman representing Roman virtue, standing astride a deposed tyrant whose crown is knocked off, who is holding a broken chain in his hand, and he is lying on the ground. It is one of only six State flags with a woman on it. It is the only State flag that features toplessness, which occasionally creates some raciness in schools as students ask about it. But it is also the flag with the most unique State motto of any State. All States have mottos. Forty-nine States' mottos are positive. ``Hope,'' ``Eureka,'' ``Excelsior,'' ``Onward and Upward,'' ``Ad astra per aspera.'' Michigan has the most unusual positive motto in Latin, ``If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look around you.'' I wasn't looking for a peninsula, but I would rather it be pleasant than not. Virginia's is the only flag and the only State with a motto that is not positive. It is a rebuke: ``Sic semper tyrannis.'' Thus be it always--thus be it ever--to tyrants. George Wythe, Thomas Jefferson's teacher, was in charge of designing the flag and chose that as the motto. Think about the verb tense, right? It is the only one that is a rebuke, and it has stayed on our State seal and State flag since July 5, 1776. Many State flags have been changed in the last 20 years. Utah changed, Minnesota changed, Mississippi changed, and Georgia changed. Virginia has essentially not changed since 1776. Neither the figure of virtue standing astride a deposed monarch or the motto, ``Sic semper tyrannis''--again, the verb tense, ``semper''-- always, ever. It is not in the current tense. No tyrants are down with tyrants. It is in the future tense: Thus be it always to tyrants. Thus be it ever to tyrants. The Virginia flag that we pass by in Virginia every day without thinking about it--it is in every school, and we pass it by. It asks us two questions, 250 years later: Do we retain the ability to recognize tyranny? Do we retain the virtue to defeat it? Can we recognize tyranny? Can we retain the virtue to defeat it? My friend, you are standing on the floor in the tradition of Patrick Henry, 250 years later. You are raising a question about liberty and our fidelity to it. So my question to you would be, what gives you hope that the answer we will give to these questions, as Americans--as those commemorating a quarter millennium of American democracy--what gives you confidence that we will answer these questions in a way that will honor those who came before us?

Mr. KAINE. Father Coughlin.