Tim Kaine

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I am thrilled to join my colleagues on the floor to talk about the importance of this border security bill, but I am also going to talk about my own naivete and admit to being a very naive Senator. When I came to the Senate in 2013 with Senator Murphy, one of the first things we did in June of my first year in the Senate was to pass a significant and bipartisan immigration reform bill. That immigration reform bill was comprehensive, including a $40 billion-plus investment in border security. We passed it in a bipartisan way in this body with nearly 70 votes. My naivety was this: Yes, there was a Republican House. When the bill went over there, having been a Governor and having watched how State legislatures worked, I assumed that the Republican House wouldn't just embrace our bill but that they would do their own version of an immigration bill, and then we would sit down in a conference and hash out some middle ground. No. I was wrong. The Republican majority House decided to bottle the bill up in committee. They never took it up and never did their own bill. That was in 2013--the education of a naive Senator. Years later, in 2018, during the Trump administration, when we had a Republican majority in this body, we dealt directly with President Trump. He wanted $25 billion in border security over 10 years. We basically came up with an offer that was, Can you take yes for an answer? I was part of an eight-member crew negotiating a bipartisan deal: protection for Dreamers and $25 billion in border security--every penny Donald Trump asked for and not one penny less. He told us that he supported Dreamers. He told us that if the bill got to him, he would sign it. Because we had a Democratic House, if we could get it through this body, we would get it to President Trump's desk. But as soon as we rolled out the bill with eight Democrats and eight Republicans as cosponsors, President Trump did a 180, turn tail. He trashed the Dreamers. He said the bill was awful and encouraged Republicans to vote against it, and we couldn't get to the 60-vote margin. So, for the second time, we did a bipartisan deal that was going to do good things and invest a whole lot in border security that was killed by President Trump and now this most recent effort. I so applaud Senator Murphy, Senator Sinema, Senator Lankford, and others from the administration who worked on this deal, a bipartisan border security provision with other important provisions: the normalization of Afghan refugees. We have more in Virginia than almost any other State. There is really important work in this bill-- bipartisan. It is not lost on me how hard it is to do a deal where both the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the Border Patrol union, which tend to be quite opposite politically, take a look at a compromise and say: You know, this isn't perfect, but we need to do this. I don't know of another issue where these two organizations have said: We need to do this. That was the needle that these Senators were able to thread after months and months and months of negotiation. But just as in the first two instances, a significant effort to protect our border and make our country safer in a bipartisan way got shot down when President Trump came out and encouraged Republicans to oppose it. Even though they had been briefed on the negotiation every step of the way and supported it, as soon as President Trump said they should oppose it, folks turned tail and ran. President Trump was honest. I mean, I will give him this. He was honest about the reason. He didn't say to oppose it because he didn't like clause A or clause C. He pretty much said: We don't want to fix this problem. We would rather raise heck about this problem and blame Joe Biden about this problem than fix this problem. We are sent here to solve problems, and when we have a bipartisan solution that fits this narrow window where both left and right say it is the right step to take, we should do it. I am so glad that this is going to be up on the floor for a vote tomorrow. I look forward to joining my colleagues in supporting it. I urge others to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Aleta Lee Spicer, who sadly passed away on February 21, 2024. She was a pillar of her community after more than 50 years in public and social service and a dedicated community leader who proudly served the people of southwest Virginia. Aleta was the executive director of the Southwest Virginia Workforce Development Board, an organization that provides businesses with a well-prepared workforce. Its focus is to help individuals obtain employment and further their careers with access to programs and initiatives that were established through Federal legislation to address workforce development. These programs and initiatives focus on helping disadvantaged groups in the southwest Virginia region find and maintain successful careers. For example, one of the programs Aleta helped run includes the Reengagement and Opportunities and Pathways to Employment Success--ROPES--program. This program helps job seekers recovering from substance use disorder or those who have criminal backgrounds with job training, mental health referrals, and supportive services. Other programs, such as Living Expenses While Training Stipend--LETS Train--and Cars to Work, help individuals who are unemployed or underemployed with living stipends or transportation to and from work. Programs like these and the work that Aleta contributed to in southwest Virginia help build our workforce and grow our economic success in the region and throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. Aleta's goal was to improve the lives of people in southwest Virginia by assisting individuals in obtaining employment and furthering their career skills. More importantly, Aleta helped give individuals pathways toward a well-paid, satisfying career to help maintain their quality of life. We are truly grateful for her dedication and support. Aleta rose to the challenge every day to help southwest Virginians find success in the workforce. Her dedication and sense of love for her community were unmatched. I am grateful for her service to the constituency of southwest Virginia. She will be dearly missed, and I wish the best to her family.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Thank you, Senator Warner. I also want to thank the Senate majority leader. Mr. President, I have spoken on the floor a number of times about this, and I don't need to rehash the deep concern I have about the excessive delay that already exists at Reagan National, the excessive cancellations that already exist at Reagan National, and the excessive need to put planes into holding patterns circling over a city with very restricted airspace at Reagan National. I deeply oppose the jamming of more flights onto this runway, and I oppose that it was done with no involvement from Virginians whatsoever, no opportunity for us to weigh in. We are not on the Commerce Committee. So the only way we have to have an impact on this is to have an amendment on the floor. We may win it or we may lose it, but this is our hometown airport. It is all being done without us. The only impact we have is to be able to do something on the floor. So the proposed amendment that I introduced was simply to strip the slots, to follow the advice of the FAA, to follow the advice of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, to follow the advice of people who know what they are doing so as to avoid a potential catastrophe. I am not going to get that amendment. I am not going to get that amendment. So, instead, what Senator Warner has done, together with our Maryland colleagues, is propose a compromise. We will accept the 5 slots--5 slots are equal to 10 flights--if, as Senator Warner indicates, the Secretary of Transportation says with respect to each slot: It will not increase delay, it will not raise the risk of cancellation, and it will not risk passenger safety. We should all want that, not only for the airport that the Capital region uses but for all airports--not increasing delay, not increasing the safety risk, not increasing the cancellation risk. That is what this amendment is. We want a vote on our amendment about our hometown airport, and we have offered a compromise to protect safety and the convenience of passengers. And I would hope that my colleagues would see fit to allow the home State Senators in whose territory this airport is to at least have an amendment vote. And, with that, I yield back to the majority leader.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise today, certain that, by now, some of the desk staff have memorized the speech I am about to give because it is the third time that I will have given it in the last few weeks on a topic that is really important to Virginia--the FAA reauthorization bill that is now pending before the body. I want to thank Chairwoman Cantwell, Ranking Member Cruz, and the members of the Commerce Committee because, as a general matter, this is a necessary bill with a lot of good provisions in it--in particular, the work on air traffic control recruitment and training and pilot training hours. I feel very, very good about that work that has been done. But the gist of this bill is to promote air safety, and there is one provision in the bill that is dramatically contrary to the thrust of this bill. It will not increase air safety. It will reduce air safety, and it will reduce air safety in the Capital of the United States--at Reagan National Airport, otherwise known as DCA. I am going to summarize quickly the arguments I made in the last couple of weeks, but then I want to respond to at least three questions that folks who take a position opposite to me have raised and use some data to demonstrate that those questions, though honestly raised, have answers, and the answers actually verify and uphold the position that I and my Maryland and Virginia colleagues take: that we should not be jamming more flights onto the busiest runway in the United States. Reagan National Airport, DCA, was built a long time ago. It is a postage stamp; it is 860 acres. By order of comparison, Dulles Airport is about 12,000 acres; Dallas-Fort Worth is about 19,000 acres; and Denver is 32,000 acres. When Reagan National was built, it was a little bit the trend to build these smaller airports near downtowns because the airplanes were smaller, they were props with fewer passengers, they were lighter, and they didn't need as much runway space to take off or land. When Reagan National was built on these 860 acres--and if you have been there, you know that it is 860 that can't be expanded because it is surrounded on three sides by water and on the other side by the George Washington Parkway; there is no way to expand this--it was built with three runways: a primary runway and two commuter runways. The estimate was, in the 1960s, that Reagan National, with these three runways, could accommodate 15 million passengers a year--15 million passengers a year. Well, where are we today, circa 2024? Reagan National has now 25\1/2\ million passengers a year--25\1/2\ million passengers--an additional two-thirds over what it was built for on a landlocked footprint, with three runways. There have been a couple other important changes at Reagan National. The idea was to spread the 15 million passengers over three runways, but that was when the planes were smaller and they were props. Now they are jets, and they can't land on the shorter runways. So today at Reagan National, 90 percent of the traffic into Reagan National has to use the main runway. Think about this: If it was 15 million equally divided, then each runway would bring about 5 million passengers a year. Now the main runway doesn't have 5 million, it was 22\1/2\ million passengers a year, with only about 2\1/2\ to 3 million on the other two runways. There has been another major change since this projection of 15 million a year was made, and that is 9/11. In the aftermath of 9/11, we imposed dramatically more stringent security requirements on the air patterns over Reagan National to make it much harder to get into a landing zone to land or to take off. So what does that mean? Built for 15\1/2\ million on a landlocked spot, now at 25 million--what does it mean? Well, it means that the main runway at Reagan National is now the single busiest runway in the United States. Reagan National, because it is small, is not the busiest airport in the United States. It is only 19th in terms of total passengers in and out. But that main runway, with 90 percent of the traffic, is the busiest runway in the United States. What does that mean? What does it mean to have one primary runway with 90 percent of the traffic that is the busiest in the United States? Well, it is pretty easy to predict. It means very significant congestion. Let me give some stats about that. Reagan, as the 19th busiest airport in the United States, has the 8th most daily delays. You calculate daily delay by the percentages of incoming and outgoing that are delayed and multiply it by the average delay. More than 20 percent of flights into and out of Reagan National are delayed. They are not delayed by a little. There are some airports that have worse on-time records, but the delay is a little bit of a delay. The average delay of flights in and out of Reagan National, once delayed, is 67 minutes already. That accounts to over 11,000 minutes of delay every day. What does delay mean? Delay means, OK, you are late arrival or you are late taking off. But if you are taking off, you might be trying to make a connecting flight. It also means you take off late, and you are likely to miss your connecting flight. If you are coming in late and the plane is supposed to leave to take some people out and go somewhere else, the delay cascades down, and it affects the entire system. Delay isn't the only measure of this airport's congestion; the second one is the number of canceled flights. Some airports have cancellations--I mean, maybe in Madison when the weather is not so great or Anchorage or the Windy City or Minneapolis. DCA has the third worst cancellation rate among these airports. And it is not because of weather. The weather here in DC may not be great, but it is not catastrophic either. The delay is a function of congestion. Here is another measure: Planes that are landing, that upon landing have to get rerouted into a looping pattern--DCA is the third worst in that. Why does that matter? Well, first, it creates delay, but second, if you are looping planes through a constricted airspace as planes are taking off and landing every minute, you are increasing the risk of accident. By all these measures--delay, average daily delay, cancellations, looping patterns--this airport, built for 15 million and now at 25 million, has serious problems already before you add any more flights to it. The problems are more than just delay; the problems are also safety. I mean, we are all experienced folks, and we know that on roads, the more congested the road, the more likely an accident. Roads that are lightly traveled are less likely to have accidents. Roads that are more heavily traveled are more likely to have accidents. I talked about this before I had a chance to play the air traffic control tape for colleagues of mine. I can't do that on the floor of the Senate. But about 2 weeks ago, there was a plane maneuvering on the main runway to take off and another plane trying to maneuver to one of the smaller runways to take off, and they almost collided. The frantic voice of the air traffic controller can be heard shouting ``Stop! Stop!'' These planes ended up stopping within 300 feet of each other, inside 100 yards of each other, at this super-busy airport. Thank God a collision and a catastrophe were averted, but more and more planes on this busiest runway in the United States is just going to increase the chance of a significant incident. Don't take my word for it. Even though as Senators I know we like to think we are experts about everything, there are experts on this--the Federal Aviation Administration and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. What does the FAA say about this? They point out--all the statistics I have just given you come from the FAA. There is a Senate proposal before us that would add 10 flights into Reagan National. That is called five slots. Each slot is a flight in and a flight out--a total of 10 more flights a day. What does the FAA say about it? They have given the committee and they have given the Senators from the region the same set of data, and what they say is that you can't even add one flight in without increasing delay, which is already significant, but if you add 10--5 slots--the delay will increase by 751 minutes a day. There are already more than 11,000 minutes of delay a day. If you take the flights that are delayed and you multiply it by the minutes that they are delayed, adding 5 slots--10 flights--will add to that 751 additional minutes of delay; 751 minutes that make people late, that jeopardize their ability to get a connection, that cause cascading delays in the other airports, which are going to maybe be the recipients of planes taking off later from Reagan National. That is what the FAA, charged with the safe and efficient operation of American airspace, is telling the U.S. Senate. The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority--Congress created it in the late 1980s. Congress appoints its Board and charges it with the operation not only of Reagan National but also Dulles Airport. What does the MWAA say? MWAA says: Stop. Stop. Don't add any more flights because the delay is already unacceptable, and if you jam more flights onto the busiest runway in the United States, you raise the safety risk. Again, we Senators like to think we know a lot. We don't know as much about efficient and safe air traffic operations as the Federal Aviation Administration. We don't know as much as the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. So when the delay statistics already point out that this is unacceptable, when the cancellation and looping into loop statistics are dangerous, when we have had a near collision that is a flashing red warning signal right in our face before this vote, when the FAA has said you can't even put one flight in without increasing what is already unacceptable delay, and when the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority that we created, and we appoint their Board, says don't do this, why would we do this? Why would we do this? The Senators from the region who have the most at stake stand uniform--Senators Cardin, Van Hollen, Warner, and I--opposed to the slot increase that is in the Senate bill that is pending before us. We have an amendment that would strip those 5 slots--10 flights--out so that we don't make this worse. Since I last appeared on the floor to talk about this last week, colleagues have come up to me with some questions. They have raised three. Here is one: DCA is under capacity because DCA was approved for more than 1,000 flights a day in the 1960s, and there are only 890 flights in and out today, so therefore there must be more capacity at DCA. Those who ask that question are stating a truth. DCA was approved for over 1,000 flights a day in the 1960s when most of the flights had props, not jets; when most of the craft were smaller and had fewer passengers and could take off and land on shorter runways. So, yes, in the aviation world of the 1960s, DCA was approved for over 1,000 flights, but in the aviation world of 2024, where it is jets with more passengers that take more time to land and take off, that isn't that relevant. It is not that relevant. In fact, another change that has happened that is important, that I alluded to earlier, is we were set up for more than 1,000 in and out in the 1960s--well, 9/11 happened since then. After 9/11, thank God, we have imposed much more stringent criteria on air traffic over the DC region--the Capitol, the Pentagon, the White House, Congress--to make sure there aren't challenges in the airspace that would lead to really serious harm and risk to people on planes and people who live in the area. So the FAA has said: You are right, we did approve a higher capacity in the 1960s, but the changes in the number and size of planes have constricted them to the one runway, and changes in the airspace have made it harder. That is why even though we are not at the capacity that was established in the 1960s, you can't even put one more flight--one more flight--into DCA without expanding delay. So that is the first argument. Yes, the 1960s was different, and 2024 is a completely different kettle of fish. You shouldn't be jamming flights onto this runway. The second thing I have heard said is, well, DCA actually has pretty good on-time percentage--not bad delay, good on-time percentage. It is true, if you just look at the percentage of planes that land or take off on time, DCA is better than some airports. Now, it is kind of sad to say that 20-plus percent of our flights are delayed in and out, and that is better than some others. But here is what you have to know: Which airport would you feel more comfortable flying into--one with an 80-percent on- time record but where the average delay in that 20 percent was 67 percent or what if you flew into one with a worse on-time record but where the average delay was 10 minutes? Sixty-seven minutes is a hassle. Sixty-seven minutes means a missed connection. Sixty-seven minutes means cascading delay throughout the system. Three minutes or ten minutes doesn't. So just looking at the on-time percentage doesn't give you the full picture of this airport, and that is why the FAA measures delay not in on-time percentage but in total daily delay. Based on that measure, DCA is not a high performer. It is already a poor performer, and we shouldn't add to it. The last thing I will say, and then I will yield to other colleagues who wish to speak, is that some have said: Oh, this is just a fight between some airlines. You know, United likes it one way. Delta likes it another way. Maybe some other airlines aren't expressing their position. Who cares about them? Who cares about the airlines? We ought to care about safety. We ought to care about passengers. We ought to care about the 25\1/2\ million people who are using this DCA airport on an annual basis, and we ought to weigh that 25\1/2\ million a lot heavier than a couple of dozen people in the Senate who would like to have more convenience on flights at DCA. And this is ultimately about the Senate, because, as I have said to my colleagues, the House took up the same issue in the FAA reauthorization bill, and in the committee, they chose not to jam more flights into DCA. Then, when the bill was on the floor, someone tried to make the amendment that is the same amendment that is before us today: Hey, why not add 5 flights, 10 flights? And the House rejected this. So this is not a battle with the House. The House has accepted the advocacy of the FAA and MWAA and the regional delegation. They paid heed to the potential impacts on delays and cancellations and even potential collisions, and they said: We are not going to run this risk. The last thing we want is for there to be something bad happen out at that airport, and people stick a mic in our face and say: You knew all this, and you were warned. But you voted for it anyway? So the House rejected this, and what Senator Warner and I and Senators Van Hollen and Cardin, the four Senators from the region affected by this bill--affected very dramatically by the bill--are asking is, we hope our Senate colleagues will too. We want to support this FAA bill. It has a lot of good in it. But when it comes to jamming more flights on the busiest runway in the United States, we are saying exactly what this air traffic controller said, narrowly avoiding a collision: Stop! Stop! For God's sake, stop! I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to talk about the FAA reauthorization bill that is pending before the Senate now. And I want to begin by thanking the chair of Commerce, Senator Cantwell, and her ranking member, Senator Cruz, for doing something very important. It is critical that this FAA reauthorization bill happen. And as I look at the bill, I see many provisions that I strongly support, and I applaud the committee for their work. In particular, the committee has addressed the critical shortage in air traffic control, which is incredibly important to the safety of our skies; and, second, the committee dealt with a challenging issue surrounding pilot training hours, and, I think, came up with a solution that is going to be the right solution. So I begin with: This is a big bill with a lot of provisions, and I find much to like in almost all of it. But I rise to address the one piece of it where I am not supportive, and that is the mandate that the Senate committee version contains to add five slots--or ten flights--to one of the most delay-prone and congested airports in the United States, Reagan National Airport, otherwise known as DCA. And I want to spend a little bit of time going into this issue, as the Senator representing Virginia. But I stand together with the support of colleagues--the Senators from Maryland, Senator Van Hollen and Senator Cardin; the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner. We are filing an amendment to remove the additional slots at DCA in this provision, and I want to just explain why to my colleagues. First, just a word about DCA. Most of us know it, but maybe not all know it and can put it in the context with other airports in this country. DCA is a postage stamp of an airport. It is 860 acres. By comparison, Dulles is built on 12,000 acres. The Denver airport is nearly 30,000 acres. The Dallas airport is, I think, 18,000 acres. The DCA airport was built at a time when air traffic was not so intense, wasn't so normal, wasn't so critical to the Nation's economy; and it was built on this small footprint. And everyone who has flown into DCA knows there is no way to expand it. You are essentially kind of wrapped around on nearly three sides by water, and then, on the fourth side, it is U.S. 1 and a rail line. There is no way to make it bigger. DCA has three runways. There is a primary runway--the long runway-- and then there are two commuter runways on these 860 acres. When DCA was built and, more recently, as studies have been done, the estimate has been that DCA should, on that footprint with those 3 runways, accommodate 15 million passengers a year in and out of that airport. Where is DCA today? Today, DCA is pressed to the gills and 25\1/2\ million passengers a year are coming into or out of DCA. And it is pressed in another way. The airport was built so that the 15 million passengers would be spread across the 3 runways: larger planes from farther away on the main runway and then commuter planes from near distances on the 2 commuter runways. But there have been significant advances in the configuration of airlines, and commuter airplanes that used to be turboprops are now jets. And so what has happened at DCA is that 90 percent of the flights that come into DCA have to use the primary runway, and that number is increasing as the commuter planes change in their configurations. So to just kind of summarize that, a very small airport that was designed for 15\1/2\ million passengers spread across 3 runways is now dealing with a passenger load of 25\1/2\ million passengers, with 90 percent of those having to land on the main runway. How does that make DCA rank with other airports in the United States? Well, again, because of its small size, there are a number of airports that have more passengers in and out. DCA is the 19th busiest airport in the United States, if you look at the entire airport. But if you look at the main runway at DCA, that main runway is the single busiest runway in the whole United States. LaGuardia doesn't beat it. Kennedy doesn't beat it. Newark doesn't beat it. LAX doesn't beat it. Atlanta Hartsfield doesn't beat it. This runway that we use in this region is the busiest runway in the United States. What does that mean? What does it mean to have these 25\1/2\ million passengers mostly on 1 runway at DCA? Well, the first thing it means is very significant delay. Remember, I mentioned that DCA is the 19th busiest airport in the United States. But if you look at the average delay per day, it is No. 8. In other words, it punches really far above its weight when it comes to delay. And what kind of delay? You know, a delay of 2 or 3 minutes, I mean, hey, that wouldn't be a problem. But the average delay at DCA--and more than 20 percent of flights in and out of DCA experience delay--the average delay of those that do is not 10 minutes. It is not 30 minutes. It is not 45 minutes. It is 67 minutes. That is the average delay on these more than 20 percent of the flights that come into and out of DCA. How about beyond delay? What other measures? Well, again, I told you that DCA was the 19th busiest airport in the United States. But it is No. 3 in canceled flights. Now, some jurisdictions have canceled flights because the weather is horrible. You know, you might expect a lot of cancellations in an Alaska or maybe in a Minneapolis or maybe in a Chicago, the Windy City. With so many flights coming in, you might expect that they would have a lot of cancellations. The problem at DCA isn't weather. The problem is congestion, and it is No. 3 in the country in terms of cancellations. There is another measure that is a combination of both, a kind of a delay and safety measure: the number of times--and I think we have all experienced this--if you are flying into DCA, that you are put into a routing circle or loop before you can land. Now, that is part of what contributes to the 67 minutes of delay that is experienced by these more than 21 percent of the planes that have delay, but it also poses some additional challenges. When you are looping a plane over a very restricted DC airspace as other planes are taking off--one per minute from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m., taking off or landing; one per minute--you raise the risk of accident, and you also subject neighborhoods with loop patterns to noise. And that was one of the original controversies that led Congress to decide to take these airports out of the Federal control and put them into the control of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority--the idea that we can manage this better for safety, for convenience, but also to reduce noise in the neighborhoods in the DMV. So delay, cancellation, and looping patterns that are both a delay factor and a convenience factor and a neighborhood amenity factor, and that is DCA today. There is another challenge with DCA, and that is, with congestion, you run into risks of safety. As we were considering this matter just in the last few weeks, before the FAA bill was pending before Congress--but work had been done in the committees and work had been done in the House--there was a near miss on the runways at DCA. A plane was getting ready to take off on the main runway, a flight to Boston--a JetBlue flight to Boston--and another plane was trying to cross over to one of those shorter commuter runways, and they came within 300 feet of a collision. If you listen to the audiotape--and I can't play the tape in the Chambers; I wish I could, but I played it for colleagues outside the Chamber--you hear this conversation of the air traffic controllers. And, I will tell you, they are the most even-keeled, monotone people on the planet Earth. It is ``just the facts, ma'am,'' and you never hear emotions in their voice. But in this particular instance, you hear the tension ratcheting up, as these two planes are getting closer and closer, until you hear, in a frantic and worried way, one of the air traffic controllers just yelling, ``Stop! Stop!'' to these two planes because they are about to collide with one another. Three hundred feet isn't very much. It is not very much, and yet you raise the risk of accident with congestion. I mean, it stands to reason. Auto accidents don't happen as often on roads that aren't congested. But when roads are congested, you run the risk of greater accidents. And that is what is happening at DCA right now, before we talk about adding slots. Now, I do appreciate the fact that, in this bill, as I said, one of the things I like is the focus on air traffic controllers, because that is a key part of this. But it just stands to reason that, if it is already the busiest runway in the United States, and it is already one of the most delayed airports in the United States, and it is already near the lead in cancellations and needs for flights to loop around, it is a problem waiting to happen. And I have described this accident in the last few weeks as a flashing red warning signal to Congress: Please, do not add more flights. Don't jam more flights into this busiest runway in the United States. The proposal before the body is to add 10 more flights, what we call 5 slots. It doesn't sound like a lot. I will admit that ``five slots'' doesn't sound like a lot. And maybe in an airport where there wasn't already a severe congestion problem, it wouldn't be a lot. And maybe in an airport that wasn't so small and whose size is already creating safety challenges, it wouldn't be a lot. But at DCA, it is a lot. And so we have asked the FAA, charged with air traffic safety and experts in this--and I am definitely not an expert: What would 10 more flights mean? And, again, in the five slots, each slot is a flight in and a flight out. So 5 slots are 10 flights. What would 10 flights a day mean to DCA? And what the FAA said was, OK, even one flight would increase delay in operations at DCA. Even one would increase delay in this top-10 most delayed airport in the United States. But 10 flights would add an extra 751 minutes, more than 12 hours, of delay at DCA every day--751 minutes of delay at DCA every day--and it would likely affect 183 flights. Now, this airport, as I have said, is already one of the most delayed in the United States, and if you add that 751 minutes to the average daily delay at DCA, you are now over 12,000 minutes of delay every day at DCA. So DCA would be climbing a ladder. They wouldn't be the eighth most delayed airport. They would be climbing the ladder and really cement their place in the top 10 or bottom 10, depending on how you would want to look at it. You all know that delay is bad. You don't want to arrive at a location late. Already, 67 minutes is the average that it would increase. It doesn't increase by average. Some would increase by a lot, some by a little. But remember that delay also has a compounding effect. If you are late leaving, delayed by 67 minutes and then some, then you might miss a connection or two. Or you might cause planes to wait for you, which then delays a whole lot of other people. So in our air traffic system, delay builds on delay, and it is kind of a geometric progression that creates massive inconvenience. The argument that we are making, those of us who are in this region-- we are not on the Commerce Committee. We weren't involved in the negotiation. We made our intentions known. We made them known for a very long time. And the intentions we have made known are that this is already an overburdened airport with the busiest runway in the United States, and there are both passenger convenience and safety reasons to not do this. But it is not just us. It is not just us. The FAA has not said: Do this or don't do it. But the FAA has said: If you add even one plane, you are going to increase delay at this very delay-prone airport. But there is also another body that is offering us advice. Congress created an authority called the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority during the Reagan administration. I have a personal connection to this story. My father-in-law had been the Governor of Virginia and was somewhat of an expert in transportation, and President Reagan's Secretary of Transportation, Liddy Dole, asked him to come and lobby Congress to let go of control of these airports and instead create an authority. My father-in-law, Linwood, died about 2 years ago, at age 98, but it was one of his proud moments. And it was hard to convince Congress to give up control of these airports. It was very hard. It was a tough battle, but he eventually did it. And Congress agreed that DCA and Dulles would be operated by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. And Congress appoints that board. Certain members have to be from DC, certain from Virginia, certain from Maryland, and certain are Federal appointees who can be from anywhere. But we appoint that board, and we exercise oversight over that board, and they have responsibility for the safety of these two airports. What are they saying about this proposal? Well, those who are charged with operating these airports every day are saying: Don't do this. They are essentially saying the same thing that this air traffic controller is saying: Stop! Stop! The way to manage this extra congestion and delay and safety danger at DCA is not putting more flights in here; it is taking advantage of more capacity at Dulles and more capacity at BWI. So my colleagues and I are offering this amendment, recognizing the good work that the committee has done to promote safety throughout this reauthorization bill but pointing out that in this one instance, the proposal in the bill is directly contrary to the safety of 25 million people who use this airport, is directly contrary to the safety of neighborhoods surrounding this airport, and will take an already overburdened, delay- and cancellation-prone airport and make matters much worse. We will do all we can to press for a vote on this amendment, to hopefully convince our colleagues to vote with us. The last thing I will say before I sit down is this: The near miss 2 weeks ago is a warning light. We have all been warned. It is rare--it is rare--to have legislation where there is no downside to it. There is always going to be potential downside, and sometimes we can assess what the downside is, and sometimes the downside--we may not be able to assess what it is. There is nothing we do here that doesn't have a downside. But I have been here for about 12 years now, and I will say that this is a piece of legislation--unlike any other that I have considered--where the downside has been placed on the table right before us in such a stark way as we are coming up to consider this bill. I just hope my colleagues will see the warning for what it is, will heed the advice of the FAA, and will listen to those we have empowered to operate this airport. If they are telling us that this should not be done and that if it is done, you can increase the risk of something bad happening, we should listen to them. We should listen to them. The one last thing I will mention because it is often relevant in bills like this is, if we were to make this change and accept the amendment and strip away these 10 additional flights, are we going to cause problems over on the House side? You know, we had this debate about the FISA reauthorization. We have this debate on appropriations bills all the time. We know the FAA bill reauthorization needs to be done by the end of next week. If we were to strip out the 10 flights, are we going to have problems over on the House side? The answer to that is no because the additional slots were only included in the Senate bill. The House considered the same proposal and rejected it in committee--no extra slots jammed into the busiest runway in the United States. None. Now, some didn't like that, so on the floor of the House, they offered an amendment to add these 5 slots, 10 flights, and the amendment failed. So we know what the will of the body is on the House side already, and that was a vote that took place before this near miss. My surmise is, if they were against it before the near miss, they are going to be even more against it after the near miss. So we needn't worry that if we adjust the bill before us to take this out, there is going to be a danger on the House side of compromising the bill and causing us to miss the deadline on the reauthorization. With that, I appreciate the attention of the body and yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise, alongside my colleague Senator Warner, to comment on a near-miss incident that occurred yesterday at Reagan National Airport and what it means in the context of the FAA reauthorization bill that we are considering and will take up likely right after recess. The incident yesterday was a big warning light flashing red, telling Congress not to take steps that would weaken the safety of this airport. Yesterday morning, at 7:40 a.m., a Southwest Airlines plane and a JetBlue plane nearly collided while simultaneously attempting to cross the same runway. One flight was preparing to take off from runway 4, which is a smaller commuter runway, while the other was attempting to cross from an apron to the main runway, runway 1, that carries 90 percent of the flights in and out of DCA. Yesterday was not an unusually busy day; it was a typically busy day on the Nation's busiest runway at DCA. And while the FAA is still investigating the incident, there is disturbing audio that is circulating that I hope every Member of this body will listen to. In the audio, you can hear air traffic controllers frantically yelling at each plane over the communications to ``Stop! Stop!'' before both planes were able to halt their movements and narrowly avoid a collision. We are all relieved that disaster was averted and that no injuries or damages occurred, thanks to the actions of the ATC professionals at DCA. But I am incredulous that in a discussion about reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration--a bill that is meant to make travel safer--some Members of Congress view this package as an opportunity to jam even more flights for their own personal convenience into a runway at DCA that is already overburdened and can't handle extra capacity. The gamble is exactly the opposite of improving public safety. The Federal Aviation Administration and the regional airport commission created by Congress, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, both agree that adding any flights--any flights--to DCA will increase delays due to the increased risk for incidents like this. Any flights into DCA will increase delays due to the increased risk for incidents like this. DCA is a fraction of the size of our other two regional airports, Dulles and BWI, and the length of its runways are shorter. In fact, two of the runways are so short that 90 percent of the traffic--800 flights a day--has to be put onto the main primary runway. Since 1986, Congress has recognized the capacity limits at DCA by restricting the number of nonstop flights that can originate out of DCA to airports outside of a 1,250-mile perimeter, with Dulles and BWI planned as the growth airports for the region's aviation needs. However, in the past and right now, during discussions about FAA reauthorization, certain Members in both Houses have attempted and in some cases succeeded in making changes to these rules that have disrupted the balance in the airport system by adding additional flights from Reagan to destinations outside the perimeter. These changes have produced significant stress on DCA's facilities and created frustrations for travelers, businesses, and local residents. We have been warning about this for over a year, but I hope that the incident yesterday may help Members finally take note of the evidence that the system is already overflowing its capacity, and we can't risk public safety by cramming more flights into and out of DCA. The House of Representatives passed their version of the FAA reauthorization bill with a floor vote that resoundingly rejected additional flights at DCA on a bipartisan basis. But, unfortunately, here in the Senate Commerce Committee, a package was produced that adds 10 more flights in and out of DCA without so much as an up-or-down vote on that provision. While some may point to other safety features in the FAA reauthorization bill to help avoid near-misses in the future, I can't stand by and assume that adding safety risks by allowing more flights-- my constituents will not tolerate that, and the 20-plus million people who fly into and out of DCA every year should not have to tolerate that. So to sum up, a provision was added to the Senate FAA bill in committee that had been explicitly rejected by the House of Representatives, that has been warned against by the FAA, that jeopardizes safety, that negatively impacts the performance of three airports, and the provision was negotiated by a committee on which none of the Senators who represent the region sits. This is unsatisfactory, and I am going to say to this body and then act in accord with what those air traffic controllers said yesterday: ``Stop! Stop!'' I yield to my colleague Senator Warner.

Mr. KAINE

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

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, it is my honor to recognize the life of long-time basketball coach Charles ``Lefty'' Driesell, who sadly passed away on February 17, 2024, at the age of 92, in Virginia Beach. Driesell was born on Christmas Day, 1931, in Norfolk, VA. He started down the coaching path early in life, earning a varsity letter for the Granby High School basketball team in fourth grade for his service as a manager for the team. Driesell later became a star player for the team. While a senior in high school, he led his team to the Virginia State championship and was named tournament MVP. After high school, Driesell accepted a scholarship to Duke University, where he played center and eventually graduated with a degree in education. Soon after college, he returned to Granby as the junior varsity coach and then later accepted a job as the varsity coach at nearby Newport News High School, where he won another State championship. In 1960, Driesell joined the college coaching ranks, accepting the head coach position at Davidson University. Over the course of nine seasons, he accumulated 176 wins and made three NCAA tournaments. Following Davidson, Driesell coached 17 years at the University of Maryland. While there, he won 348 games, made the NCAA tournament eight times, won the Atlantic Coast Conference-- ACC--twice, and won the 1972 National Invitation Tournament--NIT-- championship. Driesell's teams at Maryland were consistently among the highest ranked in the Nation, and the team was one of the powerhouse programs of his era. After Maryland, Driesell became the head coach of James Madison University, where he won another 159 games. His teams had the best record in the Colonial Athletic Association--CAA--for five straight seasons. Driesell finished his coaching career at Georgia State, winning 100 games. This made him the first coach to win 100 or more games at four different Division I schools. In 2018, Driesell was inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. He is also a member of the National Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame, and Davidson, Maryland, Southern Conference, and Virginia Sports Halls of Fame. Driesell's impact on the game of basketball goes well beyond his 786 career wins. He also brought more fans to the game with innovations like Midnight Madness. On the first day college teams were allowed to practice for the season, Driesell invited fans to join the team for a 12:03 a.m. run. This became an annual tradition, where thousands of fans would show up to celebrate the start of a new season with the team. Soon, other schools picked up on the practice, and these events have become a widespread and cherished part of college basketball. Driesell's impact was felt by the many assistant coaches and staff he worked with over his 40 years of coaching, the hundreds of student athletes he coached, and the countless fans who found joy in the game of basketball watching Lefty Driesell-coached teams.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, it is my honor to recognize the River Bend Bistro for 10 years of outstanding service. I would like to congratulate Caroline and Bill Ross and all the staff of River Bend Bistro on their success and wish them many more years of success. Chef and co-owner Caroline Ross, a graduate of Fort Hunt High School, has been in the food industry since she was 18 and is a veteran of several other regional mainstay restaurants. In 1990, she was awarded a scholarship from Les Dames d'Escoffier to gain culinary skills in Paris. Co-owner Bill Ross has been a businessman in Alexandria for decades before he and Caroline teamed up to create River Bend Bistro, and he also continues to operate a Potomac River sightseeing business. River Bend Bistro strives to use local and seasonal ingredients, including fresh ingredients from local farmers. Caroline has had relationships with its meat and seafood suppliers going back years before this particular restaurant. Many employees have been with them since the beginning. And thanks to hard work and ingenuity, as well as assistance from the Paycheck Protection Program from the CARES Act, they were able to navigate through pandemic lockdowns. Whenever people sit down at River Bend Bistro, they will not just be experiencing outstanding food and drink; they will be supporting a small business with deep roots in the community and a deep commitment to excellence. I wish Caroline and Bill Ross and their staff continued success and growth for many more years.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, the first child born in vitro in the United States was Elizabeth Carr, and she was born in Norfolk, VA, in 1981. Elizabeth's parents were Massachusetts residents. They struggled with infertility, and their dream was to have a child. Yet it was not to be--until they heard about a husband-and-wife team, Howard and Georgeanna Jones, who had been reproductive physicians at Johns Hopkins and then went to England to train with the early pioneer of in vitro fertilization, and they came back to the United States wanting to open a clinic to help couples deal with fertility issues. It must have been a hard road for them to find a place that said yes because this seemed like science fiction at the time, but the Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk said: Open a fertility clinic here. I was 23 years old then, and in my memory, there was something about it on the cover of Newsweek. I have gone back and realized, no, it was Life magazine. Because it seemed like science fiction. The science is so hard to even wrap your head around, and yet the Carrs read about this, and they started to travel--they were not people with much money--they started to travel to Norfolk and became patients of the two doctors, and their daughter Elizabeth was born in Virginia in 1981. She is 42 years old today. She is raising her own family today. Elizabeth has been followed--wrap your head around this: What seemed like unimaginable science fiction in 1981, there are now, by best estimates, 12 million people walking this planet who were born by IVF, living their lives, being happy, raising families, contributing to their communities--12 million people. What could be more pro-life than in vitro fertilization? Twelve million people. Elizabeth was interviewed 2 days ago by WBUR, a public radio and television station in Boston. Here is what she said. She talked about her life and what she is doing, and then she said this, very chillingly: ``For the first time in my life, I feel like an endangered species.'' ``I feel like an endangered species.'' I think many of us believed that the Dobbs decision--and we made predictions about it--was not fundamentally about pro-life; it was about control. It was about control of women's decisions with respect to abortion, with respect to contraception, and now with respect to deciding: If there is a path out of infertility, I can have a child. They want to control that too. That is what the Alabama Supreme Court has done, and that is what Dobbs was about, and that is why I am proud to sign on to the bill led by Senator Duckworth, the Access to Family Building Act. It is as simple a bill as can be. Healthcare providers have a right to provide fertility treatment, including in vitro services. Patients have a right to access fertility treatment, including in vitro fertilization services. This is not a mandate. The enforcement provisions are provisions that allow a person or a healthcare provider to bring action against the State or governmental entity that tries to interfere with the right that they have. No State should interfere with this right--none. This is a very simple bill that would enable the Elizabeth Carrs of the world to continue to be born and to continue to live happy and productive lives. I am so glad to be a cosponsor. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I had not intended to speak today, but I had the good fortune to be on the floor to hear my colleague from Minnesota describe this urgent amendment, which we do need to take action on. I want to commend her for the work that she has done for our Afghan allies over a number of years. I do believe that if this is offered as an amendment, it will get an overwhelmingly positive vote in this body. I wanted to just share a little bit about these Afghans in Virginia. In 2021, when Afghans were coming to the United States at the end of the war, they came to Virginia. Almost all of the Afghans who came to the United States came to Dulles Airport. They were then taken to a facility that was a Dulles conference center, where they were processed. I had the opportunity to see them both at the airport and at the Dulles convention center. After initial processing, these Afghans were distributed to eight military bases across the United States, and three of those bases were in Virginia: Quantico, Fort Gregg-Adams, and Fort Barfoot. In those months, October and November of 2021, I visited each of the bases to interview the Afghans and hear about their journey but also about their hopes for life in this country. It was tremendously inspiring. When Afghans would arrive at these bases on a bus from the Dulles conference center, they would be met by our troops standing outside the bus, waving American flags. That was their welcome. I had a chance to visit with Afghans when I visited Fort Barfoot in southern Virginia. I happened to be there the day before Veterans Day. I went around to all these families, and I said: I am giving a Veterans Day speech tomorrow. What do you want me to tell American troops, veterans, and their families? Over and over and over again, what I heard from these Afghans was their descriptions of their love and affection for American troops, their love and affection for this country, the perils of the journey to get here but their excitement that they might now be opening a new chapter of free life in the United States. More Afghans have chosen to settle in Virginia than any other State by raw numbers and certainly per capita. In those years since 2021, I have visited with Afghans all around our Commonwealth. About a year after they arrived, we did a welcome celebration at Mount Vernon. I had a chance to interview so many Afghans who were settling into life in the United States and hear what they were doing. My colleague from Minnesota described some of the things they are doing to already improve their community. I talked to young activists who were using the internet to try to help family members still in Afghanistan or gain reports about human rights or the treatment of women in Afghanistan or work on community support for Afghan communities around Virginia and around the United States. Just recently--just recently--I paid an amazing visit to a small city in southern Virginia, Danville, VA. I went there because of another part of this national security package. In the national security package, there is an investment in something called AUKUS--the United States-Australia-UK cooperative defense agreement in the Indo-Pacific--whereby the United States will help train Aussies to build nuclear subs, sell Virginia-built nuclear subs to Australia during the 2030s but eventually enable Australia to build their own nuclear subs in the 2040s. The Navy, at my urging as a member of the Armed Services Committee, has helped stand up a training program in Danville. Danville is a great manufacturing city but then lost a lot of manufacturing, tobacco, textile, furniture during the 1990s, but it has fought back strong. Danville is experiencing a renaissance. About a year ago, the Navy opened up a facility in Danville to train the next generation of shipbuilders and sub builders in this Nation. On the Armed Services Committee--as chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, I wanted to see this innovative program. It is an 8-week program, five different disciplines. People come from employers all over the United States to train together to help meet the requirements of our own defense and these AUKUS commitments that we have made. As I walked in each of the five classes and looked at who was there learning, it started to dawn on me: It was youngsters from Danville. It was people from all parts of the United States whose employers had decided they wanted to send them to this training program. It was Aussies, Australian shipbuilders. Those who built the current diesel- powered subs in Australia were sending people to Danville, VA, for 8 weeks so they could learn side by side with their American counterparts. But it was also Afghans. It was Afghans who have been in this country less than 2 years but who have already sacrificed to support the defense of this Nation and who decided when they heard about this opportunity: You know what, why don't I be a shipbuilder? Why don't I be a part of the submarine industrial base? Watching Afghans sit next to Australians standing next to kids from Danville, VA, to train, to build, and to manufacture the most complicated items that are built on the planet so that they could defend this country and defend freedom around the world--these are not only people who have sacrificed for us; these are people who are already becoming good citizens in this country, contributing to the Nation, contributing to their communities. They don't deserve to be held in a legal limbo, where every day they question what their status will be tomorrow. That is why supporting the Afghan Adjustment Act, as negotiated into an amendment on this bill, might be one of the very best pieces of this bill. It is my deep hope that we can get this done before we leave here, and pass the supplemental. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I rise to discuss the supplemental emergency security package that is currently being debated in this body. Yesterday, the comprehensive package that included the bipartisan border provision was voted down after Republican colleagues did a 180 and chose to oppose it. But there is an urgent need to move forward with a supplemental package, and so what we are now working on in this body is a slimmed- down version that would still do a tremendous amount of good: humanitarian aid for Gazans and others around the world who need it; State disaster relief funds for States that suffered flood, hurricane, drought, wildfire; support for our allies in the Indo-Pacific to promote regional stability there; support for defense aid to Israel; and support for defense aid for Ukraine. And we are in the process of trying to find how we can move forward together on that package, and, in my view, it is very important that we do so and that we finish this before we recess. And it is my hope that when we do, we will be able to do it in a way that carries a significant bipartisan vote because that will increase the likelihood that it will be acceptable to the House of Representatives. I want to talk about one particular aspect of this discussion, an amendment that I am filing together with 28 colleagues that, frankly, should be a no-brainer, accepted on a voice vote by all 100 Senators, and it has to deal with the provision of military support for the defense of Israel. The proposal that President Biden made, which is now more than 2 months old, to the body included a recommendation of defense support for Ukraine, for Israel, for Taiwan, and then also potentially other nations in the Indo-Pacific. Some of the funding is to implement the AUKUS framework between the United States, Australia, and the UK. Defense aid given by the United States to other nations traditionally carries with it a congressional notification requirement, and that requirement--to kind of short-form it--works in a very simple way. Even when we voted to allow the defense aid to go forward and we have appropriated money for it, when an administration of either party is ready to transfer the aid, they give a notification to Congress about the transfer so that Congress can review the aid and make sure that it is the kind of military aid that was intended when the bill was passed. So, to give you an example, if we are doing transfers of foreign military aid to Egypt--and we have done that in the past--and the purpose of is it to enable Egypt to fight terrorism, we often want to see what the weaponry is so we can determine, wait, are those weapons that would be useful in counterterrorism or are those weapons that could be misused against civilian protesters, for example. So the congressional notification requirement is an important way that Congress can check to make sure that support that we have voted for is actually being provided in the way that we intended. The notification requirement isn't onerous. It requires that Congress be given a certain--not lengthy but short--period of notice where we can analyze to determine whether the aid is the kind that we intended, and if it isn't, we don't necessarily have the ability to veto it, but we can ask additional questions of the administration. This is what oversight is about. This is what Congress needs to do. And this is tradition with respect to arms transfers to any nation. In the request that was delivered to Congress 2 months ago, there was a small provision in the request that puzzled me, and it said that the traditional congressional notification provisions under the supplemental bill would not apply to any of the defense aid to Israel. I support defense aid to Israel, and I have supported it during my entire career in the U.S. Senate, but I don't support this administration or any administration bypassing Congress and not providing us the notification about this aid. In the supplemental bill, the notification would still apply to aid to Ukraine; it would still apply to aid to Taiwan; it would still apply to aid to other nations but not to aid delivered to Israel. I reached out to the White House nearly immediately to ask why this was done, and the answer was: We will have to get back to you. And I have not gotten any answer, much less an acceptable answer, about why we would want to bypass congressional notification of this aid. Why should Congress vote to bypass ourselves? Why should Congress say: Yes, you can bypass us and not give us notice of this aid, as is traditional? The congressional notification provision does have an exception for emergencies. In the event of emergencies, the administration can say: This is an emergency, and we need to do it right away. And that emergency power has been used twice in the last couple of months to do expedited aid to Israel. I would not propose to take that power away, whether it be for Israel or Ukraine or any other nation, but why would we want to allow Congress to be bypassed in nonemergency situations? And so the amendment that I have filed with 28 colleagues, many of whom are standing on the floor with me today, would simply say that the same standard should apply to aid to Israel as applies to Ukraine and the other nations; that, yes, we are supporting this aid, but when an administration transfers it, Congress should get notice so we can ask questions if we determine that we need to. I endeavored to get this provision in the base language of the bill that we will hopefully be voting on soon, and I failed in that. I was told the reason is that my Republican colleagues did not support it. Why wouldn't Republican colleagues want a Democratic administration to give them notice about arms transfers so they could ask questions about it? I don't get it, but that is the reason that it is not in the base bill. Yet it is my hope, as we get into this debate--and I know there is significant discussion about the extent of amendments, if any, that will be offered--that I would hope to be able to bring this up, and I would think it should get an overwhelming vote in this body. I have colleagues who are here to speak, and I want to just say one last thing as I conclude. This is not a box-checking thing. Congress having oversight over war, peace, and diplomacy is critically important. We see what is happening more broadly in the Middle East with the United States engaged now against the Houthis in the Red Sea and in Yemen, with the United States engaged against the Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria, with the escalation of Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel. And I think many of us are worried about the United States sliding, slipping, stumbling into another war in the Middle East, which, in my view, would be a disaster. The United States should be providing support for allies. But, in my view, it would be a disaster for the United States to be engaged in another war in the Middle East right now. It would be Vladimir Putin's dream. It would be Xi Jinping's dream. It would be others' dream to have us entangled in the Middle East right now. But I think it would be a horrible thing for the United States to do that. But if that is to be a possibility on the table, let it be debated here. Let it be debated by Congress in full view of the American public. Let's see what the stakes and the consequences and the risks and the benefits would be. But let's not stumble or slide our way into an escalating set of military hostilities in the Middle East with U.S. troops involved. The provision about congressional notification on arms transfers is part of this very thing: to make sure that important matters of war, peace, and diplomacy are not just done by any Executive but that there is full buy-in by Congress, lest we find ourselves in a war we shouldn't be in. And so I am going to work to see if I might be able to get this as part of the package that we are negotiating. And, again, I would think any Member of the article I branch should not casually accept an evisceration of its oversight powers over arms transfers. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I would like to ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellows Hannah Kaufman and Angellica Perkins be granted floor privileges for the duration of their time in my office.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate Religious Freedom Day, recognized by Presidential proclamation since 1993. The day is timed to honor the passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom on January 16, 1786. This statute became the basis of the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom for all Americans. I was inspired to offer these thoughts by the moving address on anti- Semitism delivered in this Chamber by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer a few weeks ago. His powerful comments addressed the fears felt today by so many Jewish Americans, the connection between those fears and the tragic global history of anti-Semitism, and how Americans can come together to reject religious bigotry against Jews. As a person who takes my own Catholic faith seriously, it is important to listen to those who feel discriminated against due to their religion. During our history, Catholics have often been targeted by groups like the Ku Klux Klan. I am fortunate to say that I have never faced anti-Catholic bigotry, but those who haven't faced religious discrimination need to be sensitive to the real fears of those who face it every day. All of us are God's children--brothers and sisters meant to dwell together in unity. The final part of Senator Schumer's address regarding what we can do as Americans to reject anti-Semitism or any discrimination based on religious beliefs reminded me of the principles imbedded in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and I am convinced that part of the solution to the rise in anti-Semitism is to go back to first principles and remind ourselves of the values that we have long proclaimed as Americans. The Virginia statute was first drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1777. Its purpose was simple and powerful--to declare that a person could freely choose whether and how to worship and would neither be preferred nor punished for that choice. This was at stark odds with prevailing English practice, in which the Church of England was the state- sponsored church, and other Christian sects and non-Christian religions were discouraged, punished, or outlawed. Official discrimination against Jews in English law persisted well into the 19th century, and life in the American Colonies of England before the Revolutionary War showed the continuation of this preferential treatment for certain religious practices over others. The operative clause of the Virginia statute is as follows: [N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to protest, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. We complain that things move slowly in the U.S. Senate. This is not a new complaint about legislative bodies. It took 9 years for the Virginia General Assembly to take up and pass Jefferson's statute, and the State legislative leader who finally gained passage of the measure was Madison. Madison witnessed discrimination against Baptist ministers in Virginia by those associated with the Church of England, and he believed deeply that religious liberty needed protection. The Virginia General Assembly passed the statute on January 16, 1786, in a building at the corner of 14th and East Cary Streets in downtown Richmond, a few blocks from where I live. Today, that site is a small museum, the First Freedom Center, highlighting the idea of religious freedom and how it became a bedrock principle of American law. Madison was soon charged with drafting the Bill of Rights to the American Constitution. He used the Virginia statute as the basis for the religious protections of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The statute also informed article VI, clause 3 of the Constitution: [N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. These provisions demonstrate a powerful intent to form an America where all can worship as they please without fear. The meaning of these clauses was well understood at the time. Early in his first term as President, George Washington corresponded with the Jewish community of Newport, RI. In his beautiful letter from August 1790--he had been President a little bit over a year--he described an America that was not merely tolerant of religious pluralism but where all could equally claim the blessings of citizenship. Here is what he wrote: All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens. He concluded with a wish specifically directed at American Jews: May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of other inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. ``[A]nd there shall be none to make him afraid.'' This is our birthright as Americans. Those of us who take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States have pledged to act in way to make these words real. We have to guard, protect, and celebrate--not merely tolerate--a society where people of different religious faiths can live in the same neighborhoods, attend the same schools, work side by side, and do so as friends. When we live up to this promise, it is not only for the benefit of those living here. There are many places in the world where this protection of religious freedom is nonexistent, barely possible to even imagine. Yet, if people around the world can see America as a place where people of different faiths live together in respect, equality, and friendship, they can at least believe in that as a possibility for their own societies. We need a recommittal to the first freedom--religious liberty. While comprehensive statistics on religiously motivated harassment are not complete, there is a disturbing spike in anti-Semitism as well as harassment directed at Muslims or people of Arab descent, who are targeted either for religious or ethnic reasons. We have seen Jewish students harassed on campuses in recent months, following upon horrific violence directed against Jews in Charlottesville in 2017 and Pittsburgh in 2018. We have seen the bigotry-fueled murder of a 6-year- old Muslim boy in Illinois and the heartless shooting of three Palestinian college students in Burlington--Mr. President, the State you represent--just within the last few months. One troubling form of discrimination is targeting Americans for events occurring elsewhere in the world. In Williamsburg, VA, just a few weeks ago, a Jewish group was denied the ability to display a menorah at a local festival because organizers claimed that they didn't ``want to make it seem like we're choosing a side'' in the ongoing war in Gaza. American Jews celebrating Hanukkah here should not be blocked from a celebration of the season because of a war thousands of miles away. Arab and Muslim Americans have long faced fear and discrimination because of the ignorant assumption that the horrific actions of extremists in the Middle East, operating on the margins of society, somehow reflect the views of an entire faith or community. That we have strong and diverse views about events happening around the world is natural. Events in the Middle East have long caused heartbreak, and the current war in Israel-Gaza is tragic. But events elsewhere give no cause for bigotry or violence against fellow Americans. Organizations monitoring hate crimes have seen significant spikes in attacks on American Jews and American Muslims and Arabs since the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7. At the very time when we should be showing the world that there is a different way, that religious pluralism can actually work, we are seeing tears in the social fabric we have worked so hard for so long to stitch together. While religious bigotry can affect any group, recent statistics indicate that the most frequent targets in America today are Jews. Jews make up only 2.4 percent of the American population, but statistics in recent years have shown that the overwhelming majority of hate crimes committed out of religious animus--nearly 60 percent--are driven by anti-Semitism. Instances of anti-Semitism between October 7 and January 7 increased by 360 percent over the same period a year ago. We also see rising anti-Semitism around the world. And increasing anti-Semitism is often an early warning sign of the fragility of a democracy. My conversations in recent months with Jewish friends and acquaintances have been saddening. Some are worried about their own safety and, even more painfully, the safety of their children and grandchildren. Some even wonder whether they might need to leave this country one day, just as Jews have been forced out of many other countries over time due to bigotry. One expressed to me the powerful feeling of wanting to belong to the American family, to be truly welcomed and safe after a history of global anti-Semitism but now feeling pushed aside. He recounted standing up for so many excluded groups over the course of his life but sadly wondered why more are not standing up for Jews now. Another friend recounted growing up in a mixed household with a Jewish father who would often say, ``The world has always hated Jews, and you think you are accepted here? You'll learn different one day.'' She told me that she and her siblings would roll their eyes at their dad when he would say this when they were kids. Now she says, ``For the first time in my life, I begin to understand what he meant.'' A third friend told me something that really shocked me. Some family members are deciding to remove the mezuzahs placed on the doors of their homes. A mezuzah is a small cylinder with a sacred Hebrew text inside, placed on the door of a home and sometimes on interior doors as well, to provide a blessing and protection to those within. My friend told me that it is an obvious--perhaps too obvious--sign that it is a Jewish household. So while this tradition dates back centuries, people are tempted to avoid it just out of fear that the presence of a mezuzah may lead them to be targeted for discrimination. I researched this a bit and found that my friend's fear was well- founded. There are many examples of people facing harassment or having their homes vandalized merely because of their mezuzah. In 2022, for example, Jewish students at the University of Indiana found that their mezuzahs were being stolen or defaced. This instance followed others on or near the campus in which swastikas and other anti-Semitic phrases appeared. Senator Schumer laid out the prevalence of anti-Semitism throughout global history. We have never been immune to it here even as we profess the freedom of each person to worship as they choose. So how should we deal with this blight on our values and recommit to respecting the religious beliefs of each person? First, let's take pride in our tradition of religious freedom and celebrate it today and every day. It has made our society rich in faith traditions. By being authentically who we are, we can educate each other about religious beliefs and grow deeper in our own spiritual understanding. I am a better Christian because of things that I have learned from friends who are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jain, and from those who have deep ethical and spiritual grounding, though not expressed as religious faith at all. And I hope that living my own Christianity may have a positive influence on others' spiritual beliefs as well. Second, let's get better at tracking hate crimes and other forms of discrimination committed on the basis of religion. We passed the Khalid Jabara and Heather Heyer NO HATE Act. Heather Heyer was the very, very remarkable young woman who was killed by neo-Nazis in Charlottesville in August 2017. I was proud to cosponsor that bill. We passed it in 2021 to provide training and implementation grants to help law enforcement agencies report and respond to hate crimes. This will solve gaps in reporting. Eighty percent of law enforcement agencies participating in national crime databases reported no hate crimes between 1996 and 2020. This is likely a serious underreporting problem rather than an indication that hate crimes don't happen. Better measurement alone will not solve the problem, but the failure to accurately measure religious discrimination renders improvement very difficult. Third, let's commit to increasing education about religious discrimination throughout our history and the reasons why America embraced the guarantee of religious freedom as our Nation was founded. I am gratified, for example, that Virginia has made education about the Holocaust an important part of our social studies curriculum. In a recent hearing on anti-Semitism before the HELP Committee, a key fact that emerged was just how poorly informed many are about this topic. And the plethora of misinformation spread by irresponsible social media platforms makes the need for better education even more urgent. If we just count on the criminal justice system to deal with this topic, we will never be successful. We need to inculcate a curiosity about spirituality and a love for religious pluralism in our young people. This is not about indoctrination; it is about respect. Fourth, let's embrace a whole-of-government response to anti-Semitism by working to implement the recommendations contained in the ``U.S. National Strategy to Counter Anti-Semitism'' announced by the Biden administration in June 2023. This comprehensive approach is built around four key pillars: education, safety, fighting the normalization of anti-Semitic words and actions, and building solidarity. It can be a model for similar work at the State and local levels. We can do more in Congress and in communities across America to make this strategy visible and meaningful. Finally, there are acts that we can each take as individuals to show we respect the religious beliefs of all. There have been powerful examples throughout history of actions of solidarity against anti- Semitism. I am pleased to partner with my Republican colleague Senator Bill Hagerty of Tennessee to recognize forgotten heroes of the Holocaust with the Congressional Gold Medal. These were diplomats from over two dozen countries who took grave personal risks to help Jews escape Nazi- occupied Europe. Their actions show us the power of an individual to be a light in the darkness, to say: I am not Jewish, but I see what is happening to Jews, and I will do what I can to help. When students at the University of Indiana confronted anti-Semitism on campus in 2022, they came up with a novel solution. Noting that the desecration of mezuzahs made Jewish students afraid to display them, a campus organization produced and then distributed mezuzahs across the campus to Jewish students and non-Jewish students alike. They reasoned that a massive display of mezuzahs on the community's doors would send a message of solidarity and render it less likely that a Jewish student would fear being targeted for bigotry. I will follow the creative idea of the Indiana students by installing a mezuzah at the entrance to my home. I want to send a message to Jews and all people that they will always be welcome. I won't put Hebrew Scripture inside of the mezuzah because I don't feel that, as a Catholic, I should appropriate that particular religious tradition, but I will put these words on a small message inside: ``None shall be afraid''--echoing the letter George Washington wrote more 230 years ago. That message applies not just to American Jews but to all who seek to live in harmony with others of diverse spiritual views. I encourage others to follow the inspiration of these young people. Find a mezuzah at a local synagogue or Judaica shop and install it on the door of your home. Place within it a message of hope and acceptance--Washington's words or the First Amendment or another message meaningful to you. Or take other steps to demonstrate that you celebrate our religious freedom and offer welcome to all. Stand together with those of all spiritual traditions against forces that would divide or harm us. By doing so, let's move closer to the ideal that America professed at our founding. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Alaska, Senator Sullivan. He and I are good colleagues. We work together on the Armed Services Committee. I work closely with him. I learn a lot from him. And, usually, on Thursday afternoons, I am learning about an Alaskan of the week from Senator Sullivan. But here it is on a Thursday afternoon, and we are standing to offer a unanimous consent resolution in support of Taiwanese democracy. I want to drill that just a little bit more of what a good news story Taiwanese democracy is. As many of you know, Taiwan was a single-party nation under martial law through much of its history through the end of the 1980s. In the late 1980s, Taiwan made a decision. It made a fundamental decision to move toward democracy. It had its first legislative elections in the early 1990s and its first Presidential election in 1996. And since that election, as my colleague mentioned, it has had numerous Presidential elections, numerous legislative elections; and, often, those elections have led to transfer in power--transfer of the Presidency from one party to another, transfer of legislative majority from one party to another. But Taiwan has built a democracy that is stable enough to withstand that, and its respect for human rights, freedom of religion, free press, and its successful economy has borne proof to the notion that allowing all Taiwanese to participate in democracy has been wonderful for Taiwanese society. I think Taiwan is a great example. Often in this Chamber, we are grappling with really tough issues around the world. We wonder: Will Cuba ever be a human rights respecting democracy? Look at Taiwan. What about Venezuela? Look at Taiwan. What about the People's Republic of China? Look at Taiwan. What about Russia? Look at Taiwan. It is important that we shine a spotlight on nations that have made the transition from authoritarian to democracy and succeeded socially, politically, culturally, economically in that transition. As my colleague said, that is a good-news sign, but it is also a sign that makes dictators very, very worried. The purpose for this resolution is to stand and support Taiwanese democracy. As my colleague mentioned, China has been very engaged in dis- and misinformation campaigns surrounding this election. The election is this weekend. The inauguration will not be until May. We could even foresee some potential challenge between the election and the inauguration, and we need to stand strong and support Taiwanese democracy to do so. Last thing I will say is this: I led a delegation from the Senate about exactly a month ago to Guatemala under some similar circumstances, and the President who was in the chair just a few minutes before you, Senator Butler, came along with me, along with some other Senate and House colleagues. There was a Presidential election in Guatemala and President-elect Bernardo Arevalo was swept into office on an anti-corruption campaign, promising Guatemalan citizens a real democracy that they have deserved for a very long time. The outgoing government was trying to disrupt the prospect of a peaceful transfer of power, and so we took a bicameral delegation down to talk tough to the outgoing government and to speak up for the incoming government and try to preserve democracy in Guatemala. Why do I bring that up now? I bring it up because Guatemala is one of the few nations in the world that recognizes Taiwan, and there had been a very furious and corrupt effort by China to get the government or Presidential candidates to guarantee they would switch allegiance from Taiwan to the People's Republic of China. When we were there supporting the will of the Guatemalan people who overwhelmingly elected Bernardo Arevalo to be their next President, he made a commitment to us that they weren't going to change, they weren't going to succumb to Chinese pressure. They were going to continue to stand together with another democracy that is moving forward. That inauguration will happen on Sunday. The Taiwanese election happens on Saturday. We are standing here together, Senator Sullivan and I, to support democracies around the world, whether it be Taiwan in East Asia, Guatemala in Central America; the United States should stand up for those who are embracing a democratic path, and I am proud to support--along with so many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle--this UC resolution. And with that, I yield to my colleague from Alaska.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, today I am introducing bipartisan legislation to protect America's historic battlefields. Specifically, the bill would make updates to strengthen the American Battlefield Protection Program, ABPP, a program within the National Park Service, NPS, which promotes the preservation of significant historic battlefields and sites of armed conflict across the United States. The program has preserved more than 35,000 acres of historic land in 20 States. I am pleased that Senator Hyde-Smith of Mississippi is coleading this effort with me, along with Senators Warner, Cornyn, Cardin, Wicker, Van Hollen, and Tillis. Protection of America's battlefields is the preservation of our Nation's history. Once these grounds are lost, we will have forever lost the opportunity to tell their unique stories. When preserved and interpreted, these lands serve as outdoor classrooms to educate both current and future generation of Americans about some of the most pivotal moments in our Nation's history. Key to the success of ABPP has been its one-to-one matching grants formula, which encourages State, local, and nonprofit investment in the preservation of Revolutionary War, War of 1812, and Civil War battlefields. Preserved battlefields are economic drivers for communities, bringing in tourism dollars that are extremely important to the economies of these communities. Over the past two decades, the sense of urgency to preserve these sites has only grown as some of the most historically significant battlefields in the Nation remain unprotected. Recognizing the success of the ABPP and the continued need for preserved battlefields to serve as places where visitors can better understand the battles and their consequences, this legislation proposes to make necessary updates that will strengthen the program for years to come. These modifications will help to ensure that these hallowed grounds are preserved forever.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, today I am introducing bipartisan legislation to protect America's historic battlefields. Specifically, the bill would make updates to strengthen the American Battlefield Protection Program, ABPP, a program within the National Park Service, NPS, which promotes the preservation of significant historic battlefields and sites of armed conflict across the United States. The program has preserved more than 35,000 acres of historic land in 20 States. I am pleased that Senator Hyde-Smith of Mississippi is coleading this effort with me, along with Senators Warner, Cornyn, Cardin, Wicker, Van Hollen, and Tillis. Protection of America's battlefields is the preservation of our Nation's history. Once these grounds are lost, we will have forever lost the opportunity to tell their unique stories. When preserved and interpreted, these lands serve as outdoor classrooms to educate both current and future generation of Americans about some of the most pivotal moments in our Nation's history. Key to the success of ABPP has been its one-to-one matching grants formula, which encourages State, local, and nonprofit investment in the preservation of Revolutionary War, War of 1812, and Civil War battlefields. Preserved battlefields are economic drivers for communities, bringing in tourism dollars that are extremely important to the economies of these communities. Over the past two decades, the sense of urgency to preserve these sites has only grown as some of the most historically significant battlefields in the Nation remain unprotected. Recognizing the success of the ABPP and the continued need for preserved battlefields to serve as places where visitors can better understand the battles and their consequences, this legislation proposes to make necessary updates that will strengthen the program for years to come. These modifications will help to ensure that these hallowed grounds are preserved forever.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the special occasion of having our Navy chaplain, Rear Admiral Todd, appear to give the invocation, and I do so noticing a ministerial hat trick in our Presider and our Senate Chaplain and our Navy chaplain all being on the floor as we open the session on this wonderful Thursday. The Navy Chaplain Corps was created on November 29, 1775, with an order by the Continental Congress that there would be divine services on the ships of the U.S. Navy, and that was 248 years ago. And often in the Senate, around the anniversary of the establishment of the Navy chaplaincy, the Navy chaplain is invited to come and open a Senate session. We are a little bit after November 29, but it is a very nice occasion to welcome Admiral Todd here. Admiral Todd is a special individual. All chiefs of Navy chaplains are special, as we know from our own Senate Chaplain Reverend Black, but--get this--here is a little bit about Admiral Todd's career: He is a native of Seattle. He joined the Navy Reserves in 1986 and then was a reservist at the same time as he was pastoring churches. He superseded to Active Duty in 1994 and has been in the Navy chaplaincy business since then--a distinguished career. But here is a mark that he holds that I am not sure anyone has or ever will hold. He has been the chief chaplain not only of the Navy but the 10th chaplain of the U.S. Coast Guard and the 20th chaplain of the U.S. Marine Corps before becoming the 28th chaplain of the U.S. Navy-- truly a servant whose service has spread far and wide to incorporate not only those who are in our military but also our civilians--and especially their families. So this is a special occasion and a good one that we should do annually to allow the Navy chaplain to open the Senate session in memory of this 248-year tradition. But in particular, I want to express my gratitude to Admiral Todd for the great service that he has provided to thousands and thousands of our sailors, of our marines, of our coasties, and their families. I yield the floor.

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I join my friend and colleague from Tennessee who, in addition to being on the Foreign Relations Committee, has background in the private sector as an economic development official for the State of Tennessee and also as a diplomat in his service as Ambassador to Japan. The issue that we are talking about is one about the economy and the economic relations between the United States and Mexico; but also, it is about diplomacy. We are here to speak about the Mexican Government's unfair targeting of this one business, Vulcan Materials Company, but they can stand as an example for many others. Vulcan is headquartered in Alabama, but they employ more than 1,000 people in the Commonwealth of Virginia at more than 70 facilities, and they have been legally operating this construction material facility and port in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico for more than 30 years. The Mexican Government in recent years, under the direction of the President of Mexico, has taken a set of actions, to include the recent filing of a regulatory notice that they intend to take over Vulcan's property in the Yucatan. This is a matter about trade; but to be sure, it is also a matter about the rule of law. Last December, we celebrated the bicentennial of diplomatic relations between the United States and Mexico. Our two countries share a 2,000- mile border, extensive trade, security, and economic relations. The relationship, as my colleague shared, is a consequential one. But that relationship will suffer unless Mexico chooses a different direction with respect to foreign investment. Mexico is a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD. That is the international forum designed to promote sustainable economic growth. The OECD membership is made up of 38 democratic countries with market-based economies, countries as small as Iceland and as large as the United States but who share a commitment to democracy, rule of law, trade, and economic growth. If you are a member of the OECD, you rest pretty comfortable in the fact that 80 percent of global trade, by many estimates, come through these 38 countries, and nearly 60 percent of the world's GDP are through OECD nations. The OECD's last economic survey of Mexico pointed out some trouble signs. They indicated that investment in Mexico has been weak for the last 9 years since 2015. And they made a key recommendation that if Mexico wants to be stronger in the OECD pillar values, they should provide investors with certainty and regulatory stability. The report notes that ``with appropriate policy settings,'' Mexico could ``reap further benefits from the strong recovery in the United States and the ongoing reorganization of global supply chains closer to consumer markets.'' In other words, Mexico has a huge upside in an economy that is globally coming out of COVID. But this type of behavior by the Mexican Government against companies like Vulcan is exactly what is limiting Mexico's ability to reap the benefits of OECD membership. Senator Hagerty and I are supporters of nearshoring and closer economic engagement not just with Mexico but with other nations in the Western Hemisphere. We are original cosponsors of S. Res. 273, which we introduced earlier this year, calling on the need to promote stronger economic relations between the United States, Canada, and countries in Latin America and Caribbean. I am not going to repeat my endlessly repeated concern that American diplomacy too often moves on an east-west axis and not a north-south axis. I have spoken about that often. We both want to have a more robust north-south axis, whether it is about trade, diplomacy, or security assistance. And Mexico is key to this. If we want to look at nearshoring, the Mexican example already through the USMCA of supply chain integration with the United States is a great example. But this is all jeopardized if foreign investors believe that their land can be taken; that they can be invaded by the Mexican military; that decades of providing jobs and investment can be taken away at the whim of the individual who is President. We are seeing a historic shift in global supply chains right now. That could be to Mexico's advantage. But if Mexico continues on the kind of behavior that Senator Hagerty and I are discussing today, Mexico will fall short of this opportunity that is right at its doorstep. I support the State Department's efforts to assist and advocate for U.S. businesses in Mexico, including making clear to the Mexican Government that their treatment of Vulcan and other companies will undermine U.S. and international confidence in that country. I urge the government to refrain from moving in this counterproductive direction. And I thank my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Hagerty, and others in this body who are focused on this issue. I thank them for maintaining a focus. I am doing everything I can to make sure this works out the right way. With that, I would like to yield back to my colleague from Tennessee.

Mr. KAINE

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

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 481, submitted earlier today.

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

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. KAINE

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

Mr. KAINE

Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nominations: All nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Space Force; that the nominations be confirmed, en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.