Tim Kaine

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I will just direct it, and my answer is going to reveal my naivete because my corporate sector in Virginia--and my companies were like everybody's companies--were saying: Hey, drop that 35 percent rate to 28. I may have had one that said to 25, but they were basically saying: If you do it at 28, we are going to be equivalent to other nations. When the bill was put on the table--and, remember, we got it with handwritten interlineations late in the evening when we didn't even have an ability to even decipher what some of the handwritten interlineations were, but we realized they had dropped it to 21 percent. I almost thought it was a typo. It was one of these handwritten things. I thought it was a typo because the companies were only asking for 28 percent. Then I looked further in this massive bill, and I realized that all the individual tax cuts were tiny, temporary, and expiring rather than being big and permanent. So I went to my colleagues, and I said: Have I got a great idea for you. You can take all of these individual tax cuts, if you shave off some of the ones to the most wealthy, and you can make them permanent and still do what the corporations had wanted us to do by having a corporate tax rate equivalent to other nations. I thought I was being helpful. I had a solution to a math problem that I thought they were going to like. Instead, what they said is, no, it has got to be 21 percent and these individuals are going to be weighted to the wealthy and they are going to be temporary.

Mr. KAINE. I hope we can take this up in the Budget Committee. I have some Budget Committee colleagues who are here on the floor. Senator Whitehouse has been the lead Democrat on the Budget Committee for some time and is now at the helm of another committee. But Senator Merkley, who spoke passionately a couple of minutes ago, is now the lead Democrat on the Budget Committee. We need to take up the issue of these tax cuts as proposed and explore what the long-term consequences will be. The consequence will be to bust the deficit. The consequence will be to put dollars in the hands of those who don't need them and take dollars out of the hands of those who do when you combine it with the tariff effect, but the consequence will also be significant on the national debt. As Senator Murphy said during his comments, the national debt gets financed, and it gets financed in ways that ends up coming back. And who pays for it? Everyday folks. So you will have a compounding effect on everyday folks where they will not get tax relief. They may see their taxes increase. They will see their prices go up with this tariff blitz, and then they will end up being saddled with the consequences of debt. We should take the time to do this right. We should take the time to do--again, I use the example of what the Finance Committee did last year on the R&D tax credit, the child tax credit, and the low-income housing tax credit. It is not that that bill was perfect, and it is not that it included everything that you might want to include, but it is an example of you don't have to jam this through with one party holding the pen and excluding the other party. You can do a tax bill that can get 357 votes in the House of Representatives on something that will be paid for, not increase the deficit, that will help businesses innovate, help children get a good start in life, and help people afford affordable housing. If you do it the right way, we will come up with a good plan, and I hope that we will.

Mr. KAINE. I will yield for another question.

Mr. KAINE. Precisely zero, even though that phrase that ``they will pay for themselves'' or that ``they have paid for themselves'' was used all the time, but no one would, under oath, say that that actually happened. It reminds me of a great political maxim. I think it was Eugene McCarthy, a former Senator, who once said the issues candidate is the one who says the word ``issues'' the most times. Just saying these cuts will pay for themselves is not the same as its being true. It wasn't true in the 2017 tax cuts, and we could never find any credible witness who would come and testify to that effect. With that, I have other colleagues on the floor who are ready and raring to go, and I yield to them.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I spoke on the Senate floor on December 11 about birthright citizenship--the guarantee contained in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are deemed citizens. I reviewed the legal history of this provision, the legal guarantee designed to erase the horrible legacy of slavery that had been embodied in the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision. It was a desire to correct that decision that led to the inclusion of this definition of citizenship in the 14th Amendment. I also rebutted, during that speech, too, common misconceptions: first, that children born in the United States to parents from other countries are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States-- that has been ruled false by the Supreme Court since the late 1890s-- and, second, a claim often made by the President-elect that the United States is unique in the world in guaranteeing citizenship to all who are born within this country. Indeed, as I will discuss in a few minutes, the United States did, in fact, lead the way in guaranteeing birthright citizenship in the 1860s, but in doing so, it has led to a global movement that many other countries have decided to embrace. I believe the constitutional basis for birthright citizenship is clear, and those challenging the notion are mounting an argument with no legal basis. But, today, I want to move beyond the legal history and talk about the good that birthright citizenship brings to our Nation. Children born in America to immigrant parents from all corners of the world and from all social conditions have been an enormous benefit to our country and, indeed, to my Commonwealth of Virginia. More than 47 million people living in the United States were born in another country, and another 16 million American children were born here to immigrant parents. Currently, more than 25 percent of all American children live in a household where at least one of their parents is an immigrant. How has immigration affected American society? Let's use one example--crime. The statistics are compelling and longstanding that immigration does not increase crime. Instead, the evidence is strong that crime has decreased as immigration has increased. In 1980, immigrants made up 6.2 percent of the American population--45 years ago. By 2022, the percentage had more than doubled, with immigrants now making up nearly 14 percent of the American population. What happened to crime during that period as the percentage of immigrants in the United States doubled? During this time, the crime rate in this country--as measured by crimes committed per 100,000 people--had fallen by 60 percent. So, again, as the portion of our population that is immigrant has more than doubled, the crime rate in our country has fallen by more than 60 percent. A recent study conducted by scholars at Northwestern University pulled crime data from the United States going back 150 years, and during that 150-year period, they were able to reach a uniform conclusion that immigrants during this 150-year period have always been incarcerated at lower rates than native-born Americans. Another recent study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice, within the DOJ, looked at all crimes committed in Texas from 2012 to 2018 and found that undocumented immigrants--the earlier statistics I have been giving are about immigrants generally, but this study in Texas found that undocumented immigrants are arrested at less than half of the rate of native-born U.S. citizens for violent crimes and drug crimes and at less than a quarter of the rate of native-born citizens for property crimes. Immigration is a plus for the American economy. Immigrant households generated more than $236 billion in income in 2022 and paid nearly $66 billion in local, State, and Federal taxes. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that immigration flows to the United States that are projected would likely increase the American gross domestic product by nearly $9 trillion between now and 2034. And I know, because of the background of the President, this next statistic will not surprise you: More than 45 percent of Fortune 500 companies in America were started by immigrants or by the children of immigrants. This is not just a relic of the past; it sticks to today. In 2023, 17 percent of new businesses that were started in America during that year were started by immigrants, and another 17 percent were started by the children of immigrants. Fully, 34 percent of new businesses in 2023 were started by immigrants or by the children of immigrants. So it is clear to me--the great-grandson of seven Irish immigrants and a Scottish immigrant whose dad was Scottish and mother was Irish-- that, throughout our history, immigrants have tremendously benefited this Nation, and that is not something that is suddenly turning from a positive to a negative. In Virginia, for example, when I was born, in 1958, about 1 out of 100 Virginians had been born in another country. Today, it is more like 1 out of 8, and that has coincided during my lifetime with Virginia moving from bottom quarter per capita income among American States to top quarter, and that movement has been significantly advanced by talented people from around the world deciding that they wanted to make Virginia their home. Enough of the statistics. How about some stories? Children of immigrants have made powerful contributions to the very essence of America. Where would American fashion be without people like Ralph Lauren, who just got a Presidential medal--born Ralph Lifshitz, in the Bronx, to parents who had emigrated from Poland? Where would American politics be without people like Kamala Harris, born in California to parents who had emigrated from Jamaica and India; or Marco Rubio, born in Florida to parents who had emigrated from Cuba; or Nikki Haley, born in South Carolina to parents who had emigrated from the Punjab region of India; or General and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, born in New York to parents who had emigrated from Jamaica? Where would American sports be without people like figure skater Michelle Kwan, born in California to parents who had emigrated from Hong Kong; or baseball legend Alex Rodriguez, born in Manhattan to parents who had emigrated from the Dominican Republic? Where would American acting be without people like Renee Zellweger, born in Texas to parents who had emigrated from Switzerland and Norway; or Bruce Lee, born in California to parents who had emigrated from Hong Kong and Shanghai? Where would American business be without people like ketchup magnate Henry Heinz, born in Pittsburgh to parents who had emigrated from Germany; or outdoor gear entrepreneur Eddie Bauer, born in Washington State to parents who had emigrated from Russia; or cosmetics titan Estee Lauder, born in Queens to parents who had emigrated from Hungary and Slovakia; or entertainment executive David Geffen, born in Brooklyn to parents who had emigrated from Mandatory Palestine? Where would American music be without people like Frank Sinatra, born in New York to Italian immigrants; or George Gershwin, the child of Russian immigrants? All of these Americans were born here to immigrant parents, some of whose immigration status was unclear at the time of their births and some of whose parents were clearly undocumented. And that is the point of birthright citizenship. When America is at its best, the status of our parents doesn't limit our ability to contribute to our community, and that is part of the genius of our Nation. I believe birthright citizenship--put into our Constitution in the 1860s to rectify the sin of slavery and the egregious Dred Scott decision--has really been a blessing to our country, and it has actually inspired a global movement, especially among nations in the Americas, to guarantee citizenship to all born within their borders. There are slightly more than three dozen nations in the world that guarantee birthright citizenship, predominantly in the Americas. And why did it catch hold in the Americas? We called ourselves the New World. That was a phrase we often kind of used for the United States and the Americas to contrast it with an old world--mostly nations in Europe--that tended to lock you in a social status based on who your parents were. That was a reality that was pretty common when the English arrived in Jamestown in 1607 or at Plymouth Rock in 1619. As Europeans and others were coming to the United States before we declared our independence in 1776, it was fairly common for people to be locked into the status to which they were born, and that is why so many of our ancestors wanted to come to the United States--because they would not be locked into a social status based upon their parents' social status or have to look into a future where their own kids and grandkids and great-grandkids would be locked into a status. So the United States, in the 14th Amendment, decided to embrace a definitively new-world concept that, if you are born in this country, you are a U.S. citizen. It doesn't matter who your parents are, and you have the same opportunities and responsibilities as anyone born in this country. It is part of the genius of this country. I could tell thousands of stories like the ones that I have shared. I plan to speak more on this topic in the months to come because I am going to vigorously defend the constitutional principle of American birthright citizenship against any who would try to dilute it or tear it down. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I am glad to be here with my colleagues from Tennessee and Alabama to speak about this Mexican government's unfair, discriminatory treatment of Vulcan Materials and to encourage colleagues to support the Defending American Property Abroad Act. Before I get into the details--and I see I am engendering an amazing response from the Gallery--I do want to say, I was a strong supporter of the USMCA. NAFTA was 20 years old. And any deal after 20 years, you would have learned what worked, what didn't, how to make it better. And I viewed USMCA as a significant achievement of the Trump administration, which I was glad to support. It got the overwhelming and bipartisan support of this body as well as the House. I am very worried about incursions into this deal. We will have plenty of time to talk next year about one worry I have, which is the incoming administration's proposal to levy tariffs against Canada and Mexico. My thought is: Once you have a trade agreement that is a state- of-the-art trade agreement that has been voted for by an overwhelming bipartisan majority, that gives you an avenue of communication that you should be able to use with Canada and Mexico, and you shouldn't need to use tariffs against these trade partners. You should use the framework of the agreement to resolve disputes that you have. But that is a matter for another day. Today, I want to talk about, in some detail, the matter that my friend and colleague Senator Hagerty raised, which is the treatment of Vulcan Materials. And it is not just the treatment of Vulcan, but what it might say either about the Mexican government's treatment of American companies generally or, frankly, the American government's posture of either battling to protect American companies or standing by while they are mistreated. Vulcan is headquartered in Alabama--I see colleagues from Alabama on the floor--but employs over a thousand people in Virginia, nearly 70 facilities in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Vulcan has been operating in the Yucatan Peninsula for more than 30 years. Senator Hagerty and I came to the floor to talk about this matter a number of months ago in the hopes that we might be able to avert what the AMLO administration has done. But, nevertheless, even in a transition of government, Mexico has continued to ratchet up efforts to seize Vulcan's property in the Yucatan. These actions against Vulcan were initiated, to be sure, by the Lopez Obrador administration. But with the inauguration of the new President Sheinbaum earlier in 2024, these efforts that would continue to degrade the rule of law in Mexico continue. They are chilling investor confidence. They are making Mexico a more challenging place for American firms to do business. In August, I joined Senators Cardin, Risch, and Rubio in expressing our deep concern over proposed constitutional reforms in Mexico. Separate and apart from the matter of Vulcan, there is a larger context of actions in Mexico that should cause us some significant concerns. There is a judicial reform underway in Mexico promoted by the AMLO administration that was widely viewed by civil actors within Mexico, human rights and other organizations, as an effort to undermine the independence of the judiciary and make it harder for the Mexican judiciary to stand up against actions, illegal actions, by the Mexican government. We strongly urged the AMLO administration in this bipartisan letter, as well as the incoming administration, to pursue only reforms that enhanced the professionalism and the independence of the judiciary; but, unfortunately, neither administration has heeded our call and, instead, moved forward on implementing reforms that weaken the independence of the Mexican judiciary. Taken together, the direct bad-faith actions against Vulcan and the two administrations' insistence on degrading the independence of the Mexican judiciary are jeopardizing critical economic security interests of both of our nations. Mexico is one of the top three trade partners of the United States, whether you measure by outgoing or incoming top three; and, certainly, it is the same in Virginia. Our two countries have a long history of friendship, and our cultural ties run deep. The NAFTA, followed by USMCA, have integrated supply chains in the United States, Canada, and Mexico in a degree that I view as generally positive. We do share essential traditions of democracy, and they require consistent work to ensure strong and independent institutions. Looking more closely at the USMCA in particular, my colleague talked about worries that rules are being renegotiated around the resolution of disputes that would make it harder for Vulcan and companies like Vulcan to seek assistance. We have been in this Free Trade Agreement for three decades now. In exchange for preferential access to American markets, which has resulted in the intertwined supply chain that I described, Mexico has committed to uphold certain standards that American workers, consumers, companies, and investors expect. The standards were reinforced and strengthened in the USMCA in 2019. They include robust protection for workers, for the environment, and for companies operating abroad. And the standards not only protect Americans but promote economic growth in Mexico, helping address the root causes of migration and other challenges. The protections for American investments, for instance, give certainty to other companies and investors looking to participate in helping grow and expand the Mexican economy. Particularly as companies are looking to near-shore in the aftermath of COVID and looking to bring supply chains back to the United States and nations closer to the United States with which we have free-trade agreements, Mexico has been seen as a very attractive destination, but actions like those that are being taken against Vulcan now undermine that momentum. So in response to these actions, Senators Hagerty, Britt, Tuberville, Barrasso, Budd, and I introduced the Defending American Property Abroad Act earlier this year. The bill would make it clear that the United States does not condone discriminatory treatment against American companies, particularly with our free-trade agreement partners. We understand, even if we don't accept the notion, that some American companies are put at great disadvantage in nations where there are not trade agreements, but where there are trade agreements--particularly like USMCA, which is going to be scheduled for a renegotiation and consideration in 2026--we should not condone mistreatment of American companies by our trade agreement partners. The bill that we have introduced would reiterate that it is a bipartisan priority in Congress for the U.S. Government to work to uphold the USMCA's investment standards in the upcoming 6-year review of the trade agreement. It would work to deter Mexico and any country in our hemisphere from illegally seizing additional U.S. assets. We must make it clear that this behavior will not be tolerated. I note for my colleague with some sense of dismay that I think I have some colleagues on my side of the aisle who don't like the notion that a disappointed company can seek relief against a regulation put in place by another country. They are concerned about whether that is a violation of sovereignty in some sense. Yes, it is the case that the USMCA leaves wide latitude for the participating nations to adopt their own regulatory framework, but there should be no disagreement in this body that an effort to completely seize the property of an American company can never be justified as an appropriate regulatory action, and that is what is happening with Vulcan. I would hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in thinking about companies in their own States, would realize that if this is allowed to happen with the United States turning a blind eye or shrugging their shoulders to it, you will see a lot more of it, and we need to stop this now. I look forward to continuing to work to pass our bill next Congress. We must ensure that the future of the U.S.-Mexico relationship continues to be grounded in the rule of law. I am the chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee. I care about this relationship. I want it to get stronger and stronger. I celebrate its successes. I celebrate Mexico's successes. But I don't hesitate to stand and challenge actions either by the Mexican Government or the inaction of the U.S. Government that pose risk to Americans and American companies. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, in 2013, in my first year in the Senate, a 10-year-old child in Virginia, Loudoun County, named Gabriella Miller passed away from an inoperable brain tumor. Nothing could be worse for a family. Her parents, Ellyn and Mark, and her brother suffered greatly in this. But as many do, in an amazing way, in a mysterious way, in a time of suffering, they turned their tragedy into a cause. Shortly after I came to the Senate, Mark and Ellyn Miller came to see me and talk to me about their daughter Gabriella. They asked me a question: Senator, what percentage of medical research in this country is devoted to pediatric conditions? I thought, well, you know, pediatric--under age 18. Maybe it is 12 percent of the population. So I guessed 12 percent. They said: Less than 1 percent. Less than 1 percent of medical research funding in the NIH and other Agencies was devoted to pediatric conditions. There was kind of a--I don't know--it was a conventional wisdom of: No, we don't put research into that, but if we can research adult conditions, we can kind of apply it to pediatric conditions--which everyone here knows that is not the case. Many pediatric conditions are very different than adult conditions. So I began to work with the Miller family on a bill to increase research at the NIH and other Federal Agencies for pediatric conditions, especially pediatric conditions of the kind that killed Gabriella Miller. The following year, in 2014, I partnered with Virginia Congressman-- and then a Republican leader in the Senate--Eric Cantor and others to pass the Gabriella Miller Kids First Pediatric Research Program to fund NIH research on pediatric cancer, and the 10-year bill that we passed is up for reauthorization. I partnered with Senator Jay Moran, my colleague from Kansas, to reauthorize it with the support of colleagues on both sides--numerous, numerous colleagues. The Republican House has passed a version of this bill. The lead sponsor on the House side is Congresswoman Jennifer Wexton, who is retiring because she has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of supranuclear palsy, which is an advanced form of Parkinson's disease. My colleague Jennifer Wexton is no longer able to speak without an AI- assisted device, but in these last few days of her time in the House, she has made the passing of the reauthorization of the Gabriella Miller Act her chief priority. The reauthorization was included in the health package in the bipartisan version of the CR bill that we negotiated with the House, but that package was left on the cutting room floor of the CR that was just passed in the House. Advocates of the bill, including Ellyn and Mark Miller and others who care about pediatric research, were bitterly disappointed. I am going to vote for the CR when it comes over from the House, but if I am going to have to explain to advocates that I share their disappointment in the fact that this 10-year program, which has now produced more than $125 million in research into pediatric cancer, is going to be left on the floor, I have to at least make an effort here on the floor to authorize this program going forward. The good news is, the bill that Representative Wexton has put in the House was authorized flat funding for another 5 years. I give credit to my colleagues on the Senate HELP Committee because the Gabriella Miller Act was reauthorized in the Senate for 10 years at an increasing level of funding, beginning at the current funding level of $12.5 million a year and escalating to $25 million over the course of 10 years. But the time is late--no time to fool around. The bill that has passed not only in committee but was passed in the House of Representatives--5-year funding at its current level, $12.5 million a year, to continue to invest in research into children's cancer and pediatric conditions. I respect my colleague's sincere commitment to responsible Federal budgeting. One of my colleagues, Senator Paul--I have worked with him to hopefully lift an objection that he had to this bill by agreeing to work with him to make sure that there are not other overlapping programs where we are spending money to do the same thing. We have recently talked about other legislative initiatives that we will work on together, but my understanding as I stand here today is, with this commitment I have made to Senator Paul, he is dropping any objection to including this by unanimous consent. I think, while it is not everything I hoped and it is not everything the Senate HELP Committee did in a bipartisan way, it would continue this important program. Gabriella Miller, when she was diagnosed with brain cancer at age 10, didn't go quietly into the good night. I think that is a Dylan Thomas line. She instead said: I am going to raise every bit of money I can for cancer research. In the last year of her life, she raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for cancer research on her own with little bake sales and fundraisers. The brain tumor that was in her brain was the size of a walnut, and she created a nonprofit foundation called the Smashing Walnuts Foundation. The comments I make tonight and the effort I undertake with Representative Wexton truly are to honor her and to thank her parents for their advocacy. In particular, I want to thank her mother Ellyn Miller, who has been a force of nature in creating this program and keeping it going. We need to keep it going. It is bipartisan, it is bicameral, and it is making groundbreaking research possible. I ask my colleagues to let it pass into law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that as if in legislative session, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3391 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. KAINE. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

Mr. KAINE. I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. KAINE. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. KAINE. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleagues Senator Warner and Senator Van Hollen. We just had a press conference where Senator Cardin and Senator Hirono also came to speak about the importance of this issue. As everybody knows--you learned this in civics in grade school-- officials in the United States swear loyalty not to the President but to the Constitution of the United States. Under the Constitution, Congress passes laws, and the President enforces them. But from the beginning days of our country, the President can't do all the enforcement and implementation on his or her own; it is too big a job for an individual. In a big and complex country, you need people whose whole job might be enforcing a particular law--say inspecting a meat- processing plant. You need people to make sure planes don't crash into each other at airports, people to prosecute anybody running a scam to cheat the elderly out of their life savings, people to bust tax cheats or catch somebody dumping toxic chemicals into a stream, in violation of the Clean Water Act. Federal employees do all these things. They work to ensure that critical resources and services are provided in countless communities across America. They work to keep Social Security up and running, manage veterans' benefits, research medical diseases, and develop cures and vaccines. Enforcing the law and running government requires people who are duty-bound to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and to obey the lawful orders of the President, all subject to the overriding duty to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. But we swear fealty to that Constitution, not to a person. Early in the Republic, as my colleague indicated--Senator Van Hollen--the executive branch operated under what is known as the spoil system, as in the expression ``to the victor go the spoils.'' But there quickly arose an obvious problem: If the people who enforce American laws answer only to the President, then if you are on the President's team, they go easy on you, and if you are against the President, they bring Federal law down on you like a hammer. That is not the rule of law. It took a century, from the founding of America until enactment of the Pendleton Act--and Senator Van Hollen talked about a tragedy that occurred at the foot of Capitol Hill, which was once a train station where President Garfield was assassinated in 1881. It took that tragedy to basically galvanize this growing awareness that our Federal employees should be hired based on merit, not political loyalty. Since then--nearly 150 years--our Nation has recognized the value of a nonpartisan and merit-based system to carry out Federal Government functions. Having a dedicated civil service based on merit rather than political loyalties is in the best interest of everyone. It not only promotes professionalism and reduces cronyism, it also promotes stability. We saw in the last Trump administration the track record of the political appointees. There was a revolving door in many of these positions. How many Secretaries of State? How many Secretaries of Defense? How many Secretaries of the Navy? When you are switching positions out, you get worse and worse quality of service. The professional civil service is not just about merit, it is also about stability. Our civil service is tasked with protecting so many important values: national security, economic productivity, guiding public health, and so much more. There have been attempts in recent years to erode the independence of the Federal civil service, and that is why I am here on the floor, where I will in a minute request Senate passage of the Saving the Civil Service Act. The bill upholds the merit system principles to ensure that the Federal Government is equipped with the most qualified and experienced individuals. Specifically, the Saving the Civil Service Act will prohibit the reclassification of Federal employees to schedules outside of the competitive civil service without congressional consent. If Congress agrees to this, that is one thing, but to do the reclassification over the objection of or without even consulting with Congress would be barred by this bill. Over 2 million Federal employees work in all 50 States and U.S. territories. There are 147,000 in Virginia. In New Mexico, there are more than 22,000 Federal employees who work in critical areas such as nuclear research. Some of the most important research that has been done in the history of the United States was done in New Mexico by highly trained scientists, and that continues today. In Missouri, which my colleague Senator Schmitt represents, Federal employment is more than 37,000, and many work for the VA, for the Treasury, for the Army, for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and for the Department of Homeland Security. This shouldn't be a partisan bill. We don't have any need and never have had a need for Democratic meat inspectors or Republican air traffic controllers, Democratic VA nurses and Republican cancer researchers; we just want people who have expertise. These experts may have their personal political opinions, but as long as they are doing their jobs, they deserve protection from political retaliation. To be clear, the President can govern as he or she sees fit within the bounds of statute. Many Federal laws have ambiguity. If there is too much ambiguity, we in Congress need to fix it. The President is empowered to use flexibility within the law as he sees fit, and career Federal employees have to follow those directives and implement the President's interpretation of the law falling within legal bounds. The President, additionally, has the ability to appoint 4,000 political appointees, some of whom must be confirmed by the Senate but many of whom don't even require Senate confirmation. If a President tries to go outside the law, someone should be able to stand up and say, ``Mr. President, that is illegal, and you can't do it. Telling your boss ``That is illegal, and you can't do it'' is not disloyalty. That is patriotism. That is loyalty to the Constitution and to the law. Again, we all take the same oath. The oath is to the document, not the President. Third and finally, my bill does not mean that we don't expect accountability from Federal workers. In any large organization, government agency, or large company, there is a potential for unnecessary bureaucracy to develop. In a large pool of people, there may be some bad apples not doing their job. Nothing in this bill protects Federal employees from accountability for their performance. In fact, the National Federation for Federal Employees has testified before Congress on more than one occasion about the circumstances in which Federal employees have been terminated for cause. That demonstrates that while they exist to defend the rights of their members, they are not going to apologize for or shirk responsibility for bad behavior of employees whose performance merits termination. I am all for solutions that increase accountability and efficiency. I am on the Foreign Relations Committee, and I followed with great interest the efforts of President Trump's first Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, and his team in 2017 in that space. The rights of civil servants and the goals of an efficient, responsive Federal Government shouldn't be in competition, and I refuse to dismiss as naive the idea that Federal workers can have a range of personal political views but still serve faithfully and carry out the law and the faithful orders of the Commander in Chief. I know this is possible because it is exactly what we ask of the American military--my oldest son is a marine--and the military delivers that in a significant way. Every servicemember is allowed to vote, but whoever is duly elected--that is whose lawful orders they follow. The bill is about basic fairness. The American people should have high expectations of Federal workers and should know that the people enforcing American laws aren't going easy on someone just because they happen to be a friend of the President, Democratic or Republican. Some will argue that this is necessary because the Federal Government is too big and inefficient. In fact, the Federal Government is smaller today than it was during its peak in the post-World War II years, with more than 3 million Federal employees at that time. So I am looking forward to working on this and making sure that we uphold this value that has stood the test of time since 1883--a professional civil service, not one placed on political loyalty or cronyism. With that, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 399 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, just a brief response. My colleague from Missouri mentioned the fact that recent decisions of the Supreme Court have put more burden on the shoulders of Congress not to abdicate decision-making responsibility but to own it, and that is precisely what my bill would do. It would not block a President from trying to make reforms to the Federal civil service; it would just require that the President do so in consultation with the article I branch. That article I branch, come January 3, is going to be two Republican Houses. I can't imagine why a Trump Presidency would be afraid of two Republican Houses. If any proposal with respect to the Federal civil service has merit, it would seem that the President should have some sense of confidence that he can convince the next Congress of the United States to go along with it. But if, in fact, he is worried about his ability to convince two Republican Houses to go along with plans with respect to the Federal Civil Service, I think that should tell us something. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise today to discuss a fundamental question: Who is a citizen of the United States? My comments are inspired by an interview given recently by the President-elect in which he announced that he would try to end birthright citizenship on day one of his Presidency. In the same interview, he claimed that the United States was the only nation on Earth offering birthright citizenship. What is birthright citizenship? Is the United States the only nation that has it? Let's start with the Constitution. The 14th Amendment enacted by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the States in 1868 contains a clear definition of citizen. Section 1 states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. A very straightforward definition. If you are born in the United States or naturalized by law--and that is covered in article I of the Constitution that Congress may set up a process for naturalizing--you are a U.S. citizen so long as you are subject to the jurisdiction of this country. And there is no equivocation, ``all persons'' in either category are U.S. citizens. The Constitution was first adopted, as we all know, in 1787. Why was this definition of citizen added to the Constitution in 1868--90 years later? Surprisingly, there was no definition of citizen in the Constitution as originally issued. The word ``citizen'' was used once without definition. Article II defines the qualifications to be President as follows: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President. But the word ``citizen'' was not defined. The records of the Constitutional Convention show that the Framers considered defining the term ``citizen,'' but they had disagreements. And they couldn't reach a definition that satisfied them, and so they left the term ``citizen'' undefined in the Constitution as originally promulgated. This definition was added in the 14th Amendment in 1868 to fix a problem, a grievous problem: America's embrace of slavery. Dred Scott was born enslaved in Virginia in 1799. His parents were also enslaved, and his family had likely resided in this country for generations. Scott's owner took him first to Alabama and then to St. Louis and finally sold him to Army surgeon John Emerson when he was about 31 years old in 1830. Dr. Emerson then took Dred Scott first to Illinois, a free State, and then to the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was prohibited. Dred Scott worked as an enslaved laborer for the Emerson family for 16 years after they had purchased him. And he had attempted, over the course of those years, to purchase his own freedom and also the freedom of his wife Harriet. But the Emerson family refused to allow him to purchase his own freedom. So he eventually filed a freedom suit in St. Louis, seeking to be released from slavery on the grounds that when he resided in Illinois, a free State, and then in the Wisconsin Territory, a free territory, that residence extinguished his slavery and rendered him a freedman. The trial court in St. Louis ruled in his favor, granting him his freedom. But the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the decision. The matter was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court: Was Dred Scott free or enslaved? The U.S. Supreme Court rendered one of its most notorious decisions, Dred Scott v. Sandford, in 1857. Under the guidance of Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court didn't simply confront the lower court issue, whether an enslaved person traveling to a free State or territory thereby gains freedom; instead the Court went much further, finding that no person of African descent, free or enslaved, no matter how long they or their family had lived here, could ever be considered a citizen of the United States. And without being a citizen, Dred Scott did not even have the right to seek relief in an American court. The heart of the Dred Scott opinion is very, very chilling. Justice Taney, in writing about African descendants living in the United States, said this: We think . . . that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ``citizens'' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none [none] of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. Even though the Constitution contained no definition of citizen, the Court declared broadly that no one of African descent could ever--could ever--attain that status. The Dred Scott v. Sandford decision was immensely controversial. It went far beyond Dred Scott's situation and held that all 4 million enslaved Black Americans in 1857, as well as hundreds of thousands of free men and women, were not and could not nor ever be citizens of the only country they had ever known. Two of the Justices of the Court dissented from the ruling, and one resigned partially to protest it. The backlash over Dred Scott v. Sandford was so severe that it became one of the precipitating causes of the Civil War a few years later. As the Civil War came to a close, with hundreds of thousands dead, with much of the South in ruins, with President Lincoln assassinated, and with slavery abolished by the 13th Amendment, the reunited Nation realized it needed to fix the damage done by the Dred Scott case, and to do so, it needed to finally add a definition of citizen to the American Constitution. And that is what Congress and the States did in adopting section 1 of the 14th Amendment. All persons--all persons--either born in the United States or naturalized by law are citizens so long as they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. This sentence, this one sentence, turned the formerly enslaved and all free African-Americans born here into citizens. The 13th Amendment rendered them not slaves, and yet they were not yet citizens so long as Dred Scott was the law of the land. This sentence was what turned liberated slaves and free African-Americans into U.S. citizens: If you are born in America, citizenship is your birthright. In the 1890s, the notion of birthright citizenship was tested in the Supreme Court. A man by the name of Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were not U.S. citizens. He traveled to China, and then, in traveling back to the United States, his birthplace and home, he was denied reentry into this country based on the Chinese Exclusion Act, an egregious law of the time attempting to bar Chinese immigration. He sued to overturn the congressional ban, and the Court ruled in 1898 that he was a U.S. citizen based on the plain language of the 14th Amendment, and the Chinese Exclusion Act could therefore not apply to bar him entry into this country. Lawyers in the case attempted to argue, as some do today, that Wong Kim Ark, although born in the United States, was not subject to the jurisdiction of this country, but the Court dispatched this argument quickly by finding that Wong Kim Ark was clearly subject to the laws of the land of his birth. This ruling from 1898 has been the clear understanding of American law ever since. Birthright citizenship means that you are a U.S. citizen if you are born in America. Your right to citizenship does not depend upon the status of your parents. Dred Scott, Wong Kim Ark, and Donald Trump all meet that test. This birthright was only guaranteed following incalculable bloodshed, the centuries-long depravity of slavery, and the mass slaughter of the Civil War. The citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment was meant as an atonement for and a repair of that suffering. Anyone who wants to reverse or curtail birthright citizenship is acting directly contrary to the plain meaning of the Constitution, and they are attempting to move the United States back to a pre-Civil War mentality where certain kinds of people, although born in and long residing in the United States, are viewed as subordinate and unequal because of their parents' status or their ancestry. One additional point is important: The President-elect's claim that only the United States recognizes birthright citizenship. This statement is either ignorant or willfully deceptive. Thirty-three nations--many in the Americas, including Canada and Mexico--grant full birthright citizenship to all born within their borders. The United States is not alone in embracing birthright citizenship. In fact, I would argue that the United States has been the leader of a global movement to embrace birthright citizenship. I have described the painful history of how America reached the conclusion that all born here are entitled to citizenship so long as they are subject to the jurisdiction of this country. In future weeks, I will return to the Senate floor to describe the many benefits that birthright citizenship has bestowed on our Nation, and I will do so by telling the stories of Americans born to immigrant parents, whose contributions have enriched this country and even enriched the place we stand today--the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, it is my honor to recognize the distinguished career of Barry DuVal, who is retiring as the president and CEO of the Virginia Chamber of Commerce after more than 14 years in the position. I offer these comments with the support of my colleague Senator Mark Warner. Born and raised in Virginia, Barry began his career in public service in 1988, when he was elected to the Newport News City Council. Two years later, he became mayor of the city at just 30 years old. As mayor, he launched the city's first residential recycling program and worked to diversify the city's local economy. Following his 6 years as mayor, Barry took the helm of the Hampton Roads Partnership, a regional organization focused on economic development for a region that was then home to 1.6 million Virginians. In 1998, Barry was appointed as secretary of commerce and trade for the Commonwealth of Virginia by then-Governor Jim Gilmore. As secretary, he successfully worked to secure 1,500 economic development projects--representing more than 156,000 new jobs and $13.7 billion in private investment. Barry was tapped as the president and CEO of the Virginia Chamber of Commerce in 2010. At the time, the chamber had approximately 1,000 members. Today, it counts more than 33,000 members, a testament to Barry's leadership and impact. During his tenure at the chamber, Barry oversaw the launch of Blueprint Virginia, a comprehensive business-led plan for long-term economic development. The Blueprint has become an institution in and of itself in Virginia, with the chamber presenting an updated Blueprint at the beginning of each of the last four Governorships. It provides valuable insights to business leaders and policymakers on the direction, challenges, and opportunities facing Virginia's economy. Barry has become a trusted leader in Virginia whose counsel is heeded by both Republican and Democratic officials. He embodies the bipartisan spirit that helps ensure Virginia's economic development strategy progresses forward, regardless of the political composition of Richmond or Washington. The results of Barry's work and collaboration with elected officials can be seen in the regular recognition of Virginia as one of the best States to do business in. During his tenure, CNBC has ranked Virginia as the ``Top State for Business'' four times. Over the course of his career, Virginia's been ranked in the top five best States for business in 10 out of 14 rankings. Similarly, Forbes has regularly had Virginia toward the top of their rankings of best States for business. In the time that Barry led the chamber, Virginia was in Forbes' top five best States to do business for 8 out of 10 years. As Virginia's Senators, it has been our pleasure to work with Barry over the years. His impact on Virginia will be felt long after his retirement. We wish Barry well in his retirement and thank him for his service to the Commonwealth.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to commend the 10th anniversary of the Recovery Court Program in the New River Valley of Virginia and extend recognition to Lori Trail, who has served as program manager and coordinator since the program's creation. Lori Trail's service to the community is reflected in the hundreds of lives of New River Valley residents whom she has supported in their recovery journey. Her positive leadership and tireless work have paved the way for the success of Recovery Courts across five jurisdictions in Virginia, beginning in Pulaski County in 2014, and expanding to the counties of Floyd, Giles, and Montgomery, as well as the city of Radford. Over the past decade, Lori has dedicated her life to creating opportunities for New River Valley residents in recovery. She has helped people with substance use and mental health disorders reclaim their lives and served as a bridge for people to mend relationships. Not only has her work positively impacted the participants of Recovery Courts, but their loved ones and families, as well. Lori's staunch advocacy and dedication has raised the standards for the staff around her, and the community members she works alongside. She is an inspiration to those in the New River Valley and across the Commonwealth. Although her success can be measured through each life she has guided through the program, her influence on the New River Valley is immeasurable, and her legacy will remain as an embodiment of compassion, service, and hope.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, shortly, I will ask for unanimous consent to confirm Mark G. Eskenazi and Amanda Wood Laihow to serve as members on the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Just a word about the Commission. The Commission is an independent Agency that plays a vital role in ensuring safe and healthy workplaces and working conditions for American workers. What the Commission does is it provides fair and timely adjudication of workplace safety and health disputes between employers, employees, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. So this independent body adjudicates claims between the Federal OSHA employers and employees. However, the three-member Commission has lacked a quorum since April 2023, which means that for 18 months, they have been unable to adjudicate these claims between employers and employees in OSHA. Amanda Wood Laihow is a reappointment. She first served on the Commission from January 2020 until April of 2023, when her term expired. Mark Eskenazi was nominated a few months ago in June of 2024. They both received very strong bipartisan support in the HELP Committee, on which I sit, for their nominations, and I urge my colleagues to join me in confirming these well-qualified candidates by enabling this important adjudicatory body to have a quorum so that they can take up claims by workers and employers. For that reason, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 374 and 785; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, let me just say I do not believe it is President-elect Trump who is being hamstrung by stopping these nominations; it is workers and employers. Unless the President-elect has a current claim pending before the Committee, he is not being hamstrung by creating a quorum. The absence of a quorum is hurting American workers, and I regret that my colleague objects. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellows Julia Burnell, Steven Ramdilal, and Ryan Gallagher be granted floor privileges for the duration of their fellowships with my office.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President. I rise today to recognize the incredible work of the Scholarship Fund of Alexandria, SFA. Since its founding in 1986, the SFA has played a vital role in propelling high-achieving students with financial need into top colleges across the Commonwealth of Virginia and the country. Its ongoing dedication to removing barriers for these students through wraparound advising, coaching, and scholarship programs has made a profound impact on their futures--and, by extension, on the community at large. The recent milestone of awarding over $1.4 million in the last year to support more than 400 Alexandria City High School graduates' matriculation to more than 60 different institutions is a testament to the SFA's commitment to ensuring that no student is left without the opportunity to pursue their educational and career goals. In the nearly four decades that it has been helping students, the Scholarship Fund of Alexandria has awarded nearly $20 million in scholarships and helped send more than 5,700 Alexandria students to college. Equally significant is the role the SFA plays in college and career advising. Starting as early as the ninth grade, the SFA guides students through the complex process of applying for financial aid, selecting a best-fit institution, and navigating the rigor and demands of postsecondary education. Through partnerships with the National College Attainment Network, the Virginia College Affordability Network, and annual Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) workshops, SFA provides individual FAFSA assistance to ensure Virginia scholars have ample opportunity and boundless choice. Furthermore, the SFA's participation in the first beta testing phase of the 2025-26 FAFSA highlights the organization's national leadership in improving access to financial aid. The SFA was one of only six organizations selected nationwide, a testament to and reflection of its deep connections to the vibrant and diverse set of student and contributor populations within the Alexandria community. Thank you to the Scholarship Fund of Alexandria and its leadership, staff, volunteers, and community partners for continuing to open doors for the next generation of scholars and future leaders.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I would like to wish North of the James magazine a happy 30th anniversary and extend a heartfelt congratulations on reaching this milestone. From its humble beginnings in a garage in Richmond's North Side, the magazine has flourished into an integral part of the Richmond community thanks to the tireless work of editor Charles McGuigan and his dedicated team. It has been delightful to watch the magazine's growth as a trusted news outlet that uplifts the voices of local businesses, amplifies the voices of everyday Virginians, and highlights the efforts of not-for-profit organizations working to create a better community. The magazine's commitment to its readers is evident through its loyal following over the decades. I was honored to have been featured by the magazine in 2012 and to have shared that distinction with many exceptional Virginians over the years. I am also proud of the accolades that the North of the James team has achieved this year, as recognized by the Virginia Press Association. Charles McGuigan and Rebecca D'Angelo earned first place for their combination picture and story, ``Alleys: Roads Less Travelled,'' and Fran Withrow received second place for his commentary writing. Catherine McGuigan earned second place for her front cover designs for ``Noah Scalin,'' ``RampsRVA,'' and ``Dawoud Bey.'' Local news is essential to our communities, and North of the James magazine continues to be a shining example of this. From covering art exhibits and local cuisine to sharing the stories of everyday Virginians, the magazine has been a cherished resource for Richmonders. Congratulations again on a remarkable 30 years.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to recognize two champions of Virginia's outdoors, Hope Porter and Marie Ridder, as they both celebrate 100th birthdays in the coming months. I offer these comments with the support of my colleague Senator Mark Warner. Hope Porter's activism and advocacy for open space dates back to the 1940s living in Fauquier County, VA. Hope had the foresight to see that the postwar boom in growth and automobile travel would require new safeguards to ensure that growth was sustainable and would not erase what makes Virginia's historic Piedmont region a special place. Through leading a series of campaigns over many years, she helped pioneer land preservation tools that are known across America today, from zoning to comprehensive land-use planning to private conservation easements. Another legacy is an open space advocacy group, the Piedmont Environmental Council, which she helped found and which for over 40 years has scrutinized proposed commercial ventures and asked tough questions while protecting hundreds of thousands of acres of Piedmont lands under conservation easement. Hope's love for Virginia's outdoors extends to her own land. She has protected 47 acres of Wildcat Mountain, a 200-acre farm near Marshall, and the farmland where she currently lives. Hope continues to follow Fauquier County government and shares her wisdom with a variety of current and aspiring leaders. Marie Ridder has been a one-woman force of nature on behalf of the outdoors in Virginia and beyond. She chaired the Virginia State Parks Commission and Virginia Council on Environment and served as vice chair of the Landmarks Commission of the U.S. Department of the Interior. She was instrumental in the growth of organizations like the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, Piedmont Environmental Council, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Lands, and the American Farmland Trust. Her individual investments and land donations have literally shaped the landscape of Virginia, protecting countless farms and viewsheds and historic properties through conservation easements. She has influenced Presidents, Governors, and international leaders. She has given of her own time and resources and spearheaded efforts to mobilize other resources to protect open space. Any person walking or bird flying through the Virginia Piedmont has Marie to thank for the natural landscape they encounter. I will join Hope and Marie, together with their families and friends, as the Piedmont Environmental Council celebrates their leadership this Saturday, September 21. We will also celebrate that Hope and Marie have been friends for 70 years. As Senators and Governors, Mark Warner and I have supported preserving Virginia's open space for future generations to enjoy. Whenever we close the deal on a particularly beautiful parcel, we get to make a speech, cut a ribbon, bask in the applause. But those moments don't happen without years of effort and persistence from people like Hope and Marie--and the organizations they have founded and the dollars and hours they have put in over many decades. I wish Hope Porter and Marie Ridder a very happy birthday and celebrate their life achievements that will be felt in Virginia for 100 more years and beyond.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I wish to recognize Mr. Dan Givens for his outstanding contributions to the Commonwealth of Virginia, the aerospace sector and the national security of the United States. Dan will retire on June 29, 2024, after serving as the spaceport director for the Virginia Spaceport Authority's Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) since 2021. Dan was hired as operations manager in 2019 and has served as a strategic member of the Virginia Spaceport Authority--VSA-- team as it works to fulfill its mandates of developing and operating an operational spaceport that facilitates reliable access to space while stimulating aerospace-related economic activity across the Commonwealth of Virginia. During his tenure, Dan oversaw the management and operations of over $240 million worth of spaceport assets, including multiple launch pads, multiple support facilities, and a UAS airfield. He supported the construction of the newest two orbital launch pads at MARS, as well as two support facilities and supervised modifications to existing pads for continued use into the future. He oversaw nine successful launches of the Antares rocket, four of the Electron rockets--including Electron's first flight from U.S. soil--and two national security missions for the intelligence community. Dan was instrumental in establishing the Virginia Spaceport Authority's partnership with Vandenberg Space Force Base, including marking the first mission VSA supported outside of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Finally, Dan supported 14 customers with 20 different programs at the UAS airfield, reflecting 630 sorties and 959 flight hours in support of emerging unmanned capabilities. During his tenure, MARS grew 108 percent, from 60 to 108 employees. VSA and MARS are fortunate to have such an effective leader in Dan Givens. I am pleased to reflect on his contributions to our Commonwealth here today and wish him a peaceful and relaxing retirement after a job well done.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise today to honor the life of Rasheed A. Malik. He was a champion in the field of childcare and a devoted community leader. Rasheed was an accomplished policy researcher and the senior director of Early Childhood Policy at the Center for American Progress. His work focused on childcare infrastructure and supply, the economic benefits of childcare, and bias and discrimination in early childhood policy. His landmark analysis identifying ``childcare deserts'' across the country advanced the Nation's understanding of the childcare crisis and drove policy action at the national, State, and local levels. He testified before Congress several times to advance knowledge and understanding of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the childcare sector, the importance of increased investments in early childhood education, and the merits of comprehensive legislation to address the childcare crisis. Malik's research has been featured in the New York Times, Vox, the Washington Post, NPR, Slate, CNN Business, and CNBC, among others. Before joining the Center for American Progress, Malik was a government affairs and communications associate for the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance, which aims to make the New York Harbor a shared, resilient, and accessible resource for all New Yorkers. He received his master's degree in public policy from the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan and a bachelor's degree in public affairs from Baruch College. Above all, Rasheed was a beloved husband, father, friend, and colleague. He was known for his warmth, generosity, and willingness to support others. I am grateful for his service. He will be dearly missed, and I wish the best to his family.