Mazie Hirono

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, it has been hard, at times, to find the words to describe the full harm that Donald Trump has inflicted on our country. We can spend hours dissecting how his policies have made us less safe and less healthy, but his Presidency has also been a profound moral failure. Let me tell you a story. A few years ago, a father from Hawaii joined me at one of my talk-story sessions in my office, and he asked me a question that struck me hard at that time and has stuck with me until today. He said: How can I tell my son that lying is not OK when the President of the United States lies every single day? I struggled to answer his question then, and I am not sure I could offer an adequate answer now. But this conversation remains a clear example of how we do not live in normal times. How is it normal as we and the world watched in horror as an angry mob stormed the U.S. Capitol? Blood was shed. People were hurt. Vandalism occurred. It is not normal when we have a President who lies every single day. And even in the face of this vandalism, this mob, he really doesn't have much to say except: I love you. You should go home now. It is not normal when, in the middle of a pandemic that has claimed the lives of over 350,000 Americans, which is nearly the combined population of the islands of Maui and the Big Island, we have a President who only seems to care about spreading conspiracies to undermine confidence in our elections and our democracy. It is not normal when duly elected Senators who took an oath to uphold the Constitution pull a stunt to try and nullify millions of votes in six States so that Donald Trump can remain President. I call this effort a stunt because it is doomed to fail. We have a strong bipartisan majority, as noted in the vote that we just took, in both Chambers of Congress who reject this stunt, and courts have ruled against Trump and his allies in more than 60 cases. So whenever this farce ends, the result will be the same: Donald Trump will have lost the election, and Joe Biden will become the 46th President of the United States. You can tell a lot about a person from the way they handle defeat. The way Donald Trump has handled defeat says a lot about who he is. Watching so many of our colleagues indulge the President tells us a lot about them too. We don't have to look back very far in history to find examples of candidates who lost tough races but demonstrated their character in defeat. Our colleague Senator Romney graciously conceded his defeat to President Obama in noting: At a time like this, we can't risk partisan bickering and political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the aisle to do the people's work, and we citizens also have to rise to the occasion. And in 2000, during an election with substantial irregularities and partisan intervention from the Supreme Court, Al Gore, nevertheless, put his country first and he said: Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the Court's decision, I accept it. . . . And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession. As I reflect on the service of these distinguished public servants and the acts they took to maintain our democracy, I am also drawn to remarks President Obama made 4 years ago in his farewell address to the Nation when he warned that our democracy is threatened whenever we take it for granted. It is a particularly sage warning as we contend with the President of the United States seeking to nullify a free and fair election simply because he lost. We have to stand up, speak out, and fight back because our democracy itself is at stake. American democracy has endured over these centuries in large part because our institutions serve as guardrails to keep us from going over the cliff. As elected officials, we can strengthen these guardrails by listening to our own conscience in moments of peril, by having what our friend John Lewis called ``an executive session with myself.'' Before making a big decision, John would say: Listen self, this is what you must do; this is where you must go. Today, we can follow John's example, listen to our conscience, stand up for our Constitution, and do what is right I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I was absent for the rollcall vote No. 279, on the motion to invoke cloture on Calendar No. 757, the nomination of Beth Harwell of Tennessee to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, during the last year Americans everywhere have experienced the health, social, and economic impacts of COVID-19. Millions of workers and families have experienced unemployment or underemployment, and millions more have struggled to cover rent, utilities, groceries, and other everyday living expenses. People in Hawaii have fully experienced these challenges. We went from having one of the lowest to one of the highest unemployment rates in the United States. At the height of the pandemic in May, Hawaii's unemployment rate reached 23.5 percent--an unprecedented number for our state. Family-owned businesses have closed, in many cases permanently, putting pressure on those families, their employees, and the communities they serve. Larger and medium-sized businesses have also closed, meaning furloughs, fewer hours, and reduced wages for their employees. Because of this, many families have had to make difficult decisions regarding their household finances. Some families have had to use whatever limited resources they have saved over the years, including retirement savings, to keep their heads above water. Others have had to find different ways to make ends meet and pay their bills--despite fewer hours and reduced wages. Simply put, the economic downturn has been widespread, deeply-felt, and shared. 2020 has been a difficult year, and businesses, workers, and families will continue to feel its effects for many years to come. Congress needs to continue its work to provide relief for workers and families, so today I am introducing the Social Security COVID Correction and Equity Act. Specifically, this bill would provide temporary emergency relief for individuals who rely on Social Security, including retirees, disabled workers, dependent children and grandchildren, and others. Separately, the bill would also make a technical correction (or ``fix'') to the Social Security ``notch'' to make sure individuals who turn 60 this year (those in the ``1960 cohort'') are not unnecessarily penalized for the recent economic downturn. Social Security benefits are calculated based on an individual's lifetime earnings, but are indexed to account for wage increases over time. As a result, lower wages this year will mean permanently lower benefits for certain beneficiaries unless Congress acts. This bill addresses how wages are indexed to calculate earnings when determining benefits. By some estimates, the downturn could reduce benefits by around $960 per year for the average worker. Preventing these reductions is a bipartisan issue, and I hope we can work together to address the issue for the millions of individuals who would be affected nationwide--including the 17,800 seniors in Hawaii who turn 60 this year. While most of these individuals will not receive their benefits for another two years, future retirees and other beneficiaries are concerned about the issue now, and we have an opportunity to provide them with some certainty during these difficult times. Workers and families are hurting now, and we need to do what we can to prevent them from being harmed in the future too. I encourage my colleagues to support this important bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative Act. This legislation would formally establish the Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative--or SVI-- within the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, DOJ. While the SVI was created in 2015 as an initiative within the DOJ, this legislation is needed to give the initiative authorization to protect the legal interests of servicemembers, veterans, and their families. I thank Representative Escobar and Representative Taylor for introducing this important legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. Our Nation owes a tremendous debt to our servicemembers, veterans, and military families for the sacrifices they make to protect our freedoms. Deployment can seriously compromise a servicemember's ability to meet obligations back home and protect their legal interests. Servicemembers and their families have been charged unlawful lease termination fees when they receive permanent change of station or deployment orders. While deployed overseas, some have been denied voting rights, while others have had their property unlawfully sold. Members of the Reserve forces and the National Guard have been unjustly discriminated against and denied employment because of their military service. Servicemembers, veterans, and their families continue to be targeted by financial scams and fraud schemes. They deserve better than this, and we must ensure that our government protects their civil rights during deployment, transition back home, and as they settle into their civilian lives. The DOJ recognized that, while there are laws on the books to protect servicemembers, veterans, and their families, more is needed to be done by the Federal Government to improve education about what those laws are and what rights they protect and to increase Federal enforcement actions to ensure those rights are protected. To that end, the DOJ announced the creation of the SVI to further its efforts to enforce statutes that protect the civil rights of servicemembers, veterans, and their families. The SVI works closely with the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Judge Advocate General offices at military installations to educate servicemembers, veterans, and military families about their rights and how to report abuse. It also serves as a resource for anyone looking to obtain legal assistance and legal practitioners seeking information. Through the work of the SVI, the Department of Justice has brought a number of successful claims, including one against the city and county of Honolulu in February 2018 for illegally auctioning cars belonging to servicemembers. DOJ launched an investigation into the city's actions after receiving information from a military legal assistance officer and two Navy legal assistance attorneys that Honolulu had on at least three occasions failed to obtain court orders before auctioning cars belonging to servicemembers while those servicemembers were deployed aboard U.S. Navy ships. The city had violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, SCRA, by denying these servicemembers their right to obtain a court's review of whether the auction of their vehicles should be delayed or adjusted to account for their military service. The settlement that DOJ reached with Honolulu mandated that the city ensure servicemembers receive notice that their car has been taken into custody and that the city obtain a court order or SCRA waiver prior to auctioning a car owned by an Active Duty servicemember. The Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative Act recognizes the work this initiative has carried out on behalf of servicemembers, veterans, and military families in Hawaii and across the Nation by making it permanent within the DOJ. This bill also tasks the initiative with serving as legal and policy advisor to the Attorney General, and liaison between the DOJ and military departments. The SVI is further tasked with coordinating prosecution of fraud that targets servicemembers and their families and enforcing Federal laws to protect servicemembers and veterans. I call on my colleagues in the Senate to support the DOJ's efforts to defend the rights of those who protect our country by swiftly passing the Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative Act during the 116th Congress.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative Act. This legislation would formally establish the Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative--or SVI-- within the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, DOJ. While the SVI was created in 2015 as an initiative within the DOJ, this legislation is needed to give the initiative authorization to protect the legal interests of servicemembers, veterans, and their families. I thank Representative Escobar and Representative Taylor for introducing this important legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. Our Nation owes a tremendous debt to our servicemembers, veterans, and military families for the sacrifices they make to protect our freedoms. Deployment can seriously compromise a servicemember's ability to meet obligations back home and protect their legal interests. Servicemembers and their families have been charged unlawful lease termination fees when they receive permanent change of station or deployment orders. While deployed overseas, some have been denied voting rights, while others have had their property unlawfully sold. Members of the Reserve forces and the National Guard have been unjustly discriminated against and denied employment because of their military service. Servicemembers, veterans, and their families continue to be targeted by financial scams and fraud schemes. They deserve better than this, and we must ensure that our government protects their civil rights during deployment, transition back home, and as they settle into their civilian lives. The DOJ recognized that, while there are laws on the books to protect servicemembers, veterans, and their families, more is needed to be done by the Federal Government to improve education about what those laws are and what rights they protect and to increase Federal enforcement actions to ensure those rights are protected. To that end, the DOJ announced the creation of the SVI to further its efforts to enforce statutes that protect the civil rights of servicemembers, veterans, and their families. The SVI works closely with the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Judge Advocate General offices at military installations to educate servicemembers, veterans, and military families about their rights and how to report abuse. It also serves as a resource for anyone looking to obtain legal assistance and legal practitioners seeking information. Through the work of the SVI, the Department of Justice has brought a number of successful claims, including one against the city and county of Honolulu in February 2018 for illegally auctioning cars belonging to servicemembers. DOJ launched an investigation into the city's actions after receiving information from a military legal assistance officer and two Navy legal assistance attorneys that Honolulu had on at least three occasions failed to obtain court orders before auctioning cars belonging to servicemembers while those servicemembers were deployed aboard U.S. Navy ships. The city had violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, SCRA, by denying these servicemembers their right to obtain a court's review of whether the auction of their vehicles should be delayed or adjusted to account for their military service. The settlement that DOJ reached with Honolulu mandated that the city ensure servicemembers receive notice that their car has been taken into custody and that the city obtain a court order or SCRA waiver prior to auctioning a car owned by an Active Duty servicemember. The Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative Act recognizes the work this initiative has carried out on behalf of servicemembers, veterans, and military families in Hawaii and across the Nation by making it permanent within the DOJ. This bill also tasks the initiative with serving as legal and policy advisor to the Attorney General, and liaison between the DOJ and military departments. The SVI is further tasked with coordinating prosecution of fraud that targets servicemembers and their families and enforcing Federal laws to protect servicemembers and veterans. I call on my colleagues in the Senate to support the DOJ's efforts to defend the rights of those who protect our country by swiftly passing the Servicemembers and Veterans Initiative Act during the 116th Congress.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, every woman in this country owes a debt of gratitude to my friend, Congresswoman Patsy Takemoto Mink. Americans probably know Patsy best for her fiery advocacy to pass title IX into law. This landmark piece of gender equity legislation, which now bears her name, has benefited millions of women and girls across our country. But I would wager that very few people know about how Patsy changed the course of history for women's equality and helped to enshrine the right of women to control our own bodies in the Supreme Court. Let me tell you a story. In 1970, the same year that Hawaii became the first State in the country to decriminalize abortion, Patsy did something no one had done before. She made women's rights a key issue in a Supreme Court nomination when she testified against the nomination of Judge G. Harrold Carswell. In her testimony, Patsy brought up Judge Carswell's decision in the case of Ida Phillips, a woman denied a factory job because she had preschool-aged children. Of course, no such rule applied to fathers. Judge Carswell, along with 10 of his colleagues on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, had refused to hear Ms. Phillips' case. Patsy told the Senate Judiciary Committee: ``Judge Carswell demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the concept of equality. . . . His vote represented a vote against the right of women to be treated equally and fairly under the law.'' When a Republican Senator tried to defend Judge Carswell by pointing out that 10 other judges had also voted to refuse to hear the case, Patsy responded: ``But the other nine are not up for appointment to the Supreme Court.'' Patsy understood the critical role the Supreme Court plays in the lives of every American. She pointed out to the committee that ``the Supreme Court is the final guardian of our human rights. We must rely totally upon its membership to sustain the basic values of our society.'' Patsy's testimony marked a turning point in Judge Carswell's nomination, which the Senate ultimately rejected. Her courageous action paved the way for President Richard Nixon to appoint Justice Harry Blackmun to the Court. Then, 3 years later, Justice Blackmun wrote the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, recognizing a woman's constitutional right to control her own body. Justice Blackmun, unlike Judge Carswell, understood the right of women to be treated equally. Upon his retirement, he observed Roe was, ``a step that had to be taken. . . . toward the full emancipation of women.'' This story about Patsy is not very well known, but it underscores how one person can make a difference and how one vote on the Supreme Court can make a difference. During his years on the Court, Justice Blackmun became a reliable vote for racial and gender equality, and his decisions reflected an understanding of how the Court's decisions impact the lives of millions of Americans. If Judge Carswell had been confirmed to the Supreme Court instead of Justice Blackmun, Roe v. Wade would not exist as we know it, nor would a host of civil rights protections for students and racial minorities. Our Nation finds itself at a similar judicial crossroads today as we debate whether Judge Amy Coney Barrett should replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. The choice we face as Senators is clear. It is the same choice Patsy Mink presented to the Senate 50 years ago. We can choose to protect equality for women, healthcare for millions, and other basic values of our society, as Patsy put it, or we can choose a Justice selected to do precisely the opposite: strike down the Affordable Care Act, overturn Roe v. Wade, and continue to decide cases like her conservative mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia. This is neither an abstract nor a hypothetical choice. President Trump repeatedly promised to appoint a Justice who would eliminate the ACA and Roe v. Wade, and he took only 3 days after Justice Ginsburg's death to pick Judge Barrett to fulfill this promise. His selection was easy because Judge Barrett had already publicly signaled that she opposed the Affordable Care Act and reproductive rights. Judge Barrett is on record criticizing Chief Justice Roberts for, as she put it, ``push[ing] the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute'' in a case upholding the ACA in 2012. Justice Scalia wrote the dissent in that case. She also signed a newspaper ad committing to ``oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization.'' The same ad called for ``an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade.'' With Judge Barrett, President Trump and Senate Republicans know exactly the kind of vote they are getting on the Supreme Court. That is why they are rushing Judge Barrett onto the Court through this hypocritical, illegitimate process. In a little over 2 weeks, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in California v. Texas--a lawsuit where the Trump administration and 18 Republican State attorneys general are asking the Court to invalidate the Affordable Care Act, like Justice Scalia voted to do in two earlier cases. My Republican colleagues know they can count on her to provide the decisive fifth vote on the Supreme Court to strike down the ACA, to help them win through the courts an outcome they tried and failed to achieve 70 times--70 times--in Congress. The consequences of Judge Barrett's vote to strike down the ACA would be catastrophic. It would be catastrophic for the 20-plus million Americans who obtain health coverage under the ACA and the 100 million- plus Americans who would lose the law's protections for people living with preexisting conditions. These are the types of real-world consequences Justice Ginsburg placed at the core of her judicial philosophy and approach to the law, which her conservative colleagues often ignored. We saw this time and again in Justice Ginsburg's classic dissents in cases like Shelby County v. Holder, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire, and Epic Systems v. Lewis. Judge Barrett sees things much differently. When my Democratic colleagues and I pressed her about how she would take the real-world impact of millions of people losing access to healthcare into account, she said those are ``policy consequences'' for Congress to address. She also tried to parry our questions by using terms like ``severability'' and testifying that protections for people with preexisting conditions were not at issue in the Trump administration's lawsuit. She ignored the fact that more than 100 million people with preexisting conditions would be harmed if the lawsuit succeeds. Not an issue? Give me a break. My Republican colleagues hope that the American people will accept these weak attempts to divert our attention, but they can't obscure the real human costs of striking down the ACA. It is why my Democratic colleagues and I have shared the stories of people Judge Barrett would harm when she votes to strike down the ACA. I want to share their stories again because their lives are what is at stake in this nomination fight. Jordan Ota, an elementary school teacher from Ewa Beach, has PNH--a very rare blood condition. To treat it, she receives infusions of a medication that costs around $500,000 per year without insurance. If Judge Barrett strikes down the ACA, Jordan's insurance company could put a lifetime cap on benefits, leaving her without coverage for her lifesaving medication. Jordan's father Dean told me that ``without the medicine, she will die.'' Kimberly Dickens from Raleigh, NC, couldn't afford health insurance until the Affordable Care Act became law. Kimberly used her new insurance to get a checkup and a mammogram that found her breast cancer. With her health insurance, Kimberly was able to get a mastectomy and has been cancer-free ever since. Kimberly said: The ACA saved my life. . . . It scares me to think: If I didn't have insurance, how far advanced would the cancer have grown? These powerful stories demonstrate the real-world danger of Amy Barrett's judicial philosophy if she is confirmed to the Court. But their healthcare is not the only fundamental right at risk for Americans. We know this because Judge Barrett has also aligned herself with the conservative wing of the Court, long led by her mentor, Justice Scalia. At her nomination ceremony, Judge Barrett announced that Justice Scalia's ``judicial philosophy is mine too.'' Aligning herself so closely with Justice Scalia has implications for a whole host of rights and protections the Court has granted over the years. Justice Scalia, for example, wrote dissents in the landmark cases recognizing LGBTQ rights from Romer v. Evans to Lawrence v. Texas, and United States v. Windsor. Most recently, he wrote a dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, sharply criticizing the majority for recognizing a right to same-sex marriage that in his originalist view was not in the Constitution. Because Judge Barrett calls herself an originalist and shares Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy, his decisions provide a preview of how she would have ruled in those cases. For example, although the Supreme Court has already affirmed marital rights for LGBTQ Americans, Judge Barrett's radical views on precedent put these rights at risk. Judge Barrett has argued that as part of her duty, a Justice should ``enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it.'' Clearly, Judge Barrett's confirmation would put Obergefell at risk, and her would-be colleagues on the Court have taken notice. During this nomination process, Justices Thomas and Alito--also originalists--released an alarming statement in Davis v. Ermold, which the Court declined to review. But these two Justices criticized Obergefell for ``read[ing] a right to same-sex marriage into the 14th Amendment, even though that right is found nowhere in the text.'' In effect, these two Justices invited a challenge to Obergefell by calling it ``a problem that only [the Court] can fix.'' This type of signaling is a dangerous and increasingly common practice among the Court's conservative wing. By making their views known in this way, these Justices are inviting would-be litigants to bring challenges to the Court so the Court can then use those challenges to invalidate landmark precedent, which is what happened in Janus v. AFSCME. As a member of the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barrett has also demonstrated a willingness to signal her views on precedent that could have significant implications if she is confirmed to the Supreme Court. One example came in Price v. City of Chicago, where Judge Barrett joined a decision that upheld the so-called abortion clinic buffer zone law. The decision made clear that her circuit court was forced to uphold this law under the Supreme Court precedent, but it signaled a strong disagreement with that precedent. The decision, which she joined, criticized the precedent as ``incompatible'' with the First Amendment and ``impos[ing] serious burdens.'' Judge Barrett's alignment with Justice Scalia, her radical views on Supreme Court precedent, and her disregard for real-world impacts on her decision making as a judge show how many rights and protections are at risk: LGBTQ rights, voting rights, women's equality, healthcare--you name it. These rights didn't just materialize out of thin air. They came after hard-fought battles and tremendous sacrifices from trailblazers like Patsy Mink and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. When Patsy called the Supreme Court ``the final guardian of our human rights'' that ``sustains the basic values of our society,'' she deeply understood what that meant--for women's equality, for civil rights, and for so many other rights. Republicans understand that clear majorities of Americans support the ACA, a woman's right to choose, and the right for LGBTQ couples to marry. Yet, because Republicans fear they are losing the election, they are erasing Judge Barrett's nomination through a hypocritical and illegitimate process to put her on the Court for life before voters can make their voices fully heard. But we have all seen the news coverage of thousands of voters standing in line for hours on end in the cold and rain to make sure their voices are heard and their votes are counted. Clearly, the voters understand what is at stake. They are doing their part. Now it is time for the Senate to do ours by rejecting Judge Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court. By doing so, we can stand up for what Patsy Mink called the ``basic values of society'' and against Donald Trump and Senate Republicans' assault on healthcare, a woman's right to control her own body, and LGBTQ rights, among so many others. This nomination fight is close to being over, but the broader fight for the future of our Nation continues I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, recently Hawaii public schools resumed classes for the start of the 2020-2021 school year. Faced with the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, our schools had planned to combine in-person, distance, and blended learning this year. Unfortunately, a sudden increase in coronavirus cases required a shift to fully distance learning through the first quarter. Now schools are navigating distance learning as they determine how they will return to the classroom. The pandemic has made it difficult to plan, and our principals, teachers, parents, and students are doing the best they can. Many are still recovering from earlier this year, when the coronavirus closed campuses for two months--resulting in 46 fewer days in the classroom for students, who almost certainly experienced learning or instructional loss. I have heard from parents and students, and they have been effusive in their praise for educators who are making this school year work. I have also heard from educators, who have been clear in their need for more training and resources--especially when it comes to learning new strategies for providing effective distance learning and addressing instructional loss in students. Many educators are concerned about how the pandemic will disproportionately impact at-risk and marginalized students. In Hawaii, educators are concerned about how it will impact Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander students, who before the pandemic already experienced achievement gaps in reading, math, and science, and graduated from high school and attended college at lower rates than their peers. These are not new challenges that we need to address, but they could certainly be made worse by the pandemic unless we provide the appropriate resources. Until a vaccine is widely available, we must make decisions based on the best science and public health information we can get in order to keep families, teachers, and school support staff safe. For many school districts around the nation, distance learning will be a key component of our education system, and we owe it to our students to do it right. For these reasons I am introducing the Learning Opportunity and Achievement Act, or ``LOAA'', which would provide professional development and training resources for educators, tutoring and academic services for students, and resources for innovation grants, learning hubs, and research and best practices related to instructional loss in at-risk and marginalized students. No one anticipated how the coronavirus would change our schools, as the abrupt shift to distance learning this past spring showed. Our educators need additional professional development and training resources so that they can provide the most effective educational experience to students of all ages and backgrounds. LOAA provides these resources through new and existing programs. Specifically, the bill provides $2.25 billion for ESSA Title II-A programs, $50 million for new professional development programs, and $100 million for new training programs. Building on what we know about effective professional development, the bill promotes programs that are evidenced-based, collaborative, job-embedded, content-based, and sustained. These kinds of programs will be helpful for educators. We do not know the full impact the coronavirus will have on schools, but preliminary estimates have indicated that recent closures could result in severe setbacks for students--including, on average, 7 months of instructional loss for all students, 10.3 months for Black students, 9.2 months for Hispanic students, and more than a year for low-income students. LOAA provides $50 million for new tutoring programs to address instructional loss in at-risk and marginalized students. The bill also includes funding for innovation grants and learning hubs to give public schools the resources they need to provide effective, equitable distance learning opportunities to all students. These resources will allow different school districts to take different approaches based on their local needs and circumstances, while offering opportunities for at-risk and low-income families who cannot afford to create privately tutored ``pods'' to ensure that their children don't fall further behind. And finally, the bill includes requirements for the U.S. Department of Education to identify and disseminate best practices for schools to address instructional loss. It also requires the Department to study instructional loss in at-risk and marginalized students. Let me be clear. K-12 schools need additional support during this difficult time. Senate Democrats are fighting to provide this support, including at least $175 billion for K-12 schools, and will continue to do so. But we can go even further to make sure our educators have the resources they need to help students succeed--not only during the 2020- 2021 school year, but also in future years. LOAA would help to provide these resources. I encourage my colleagues to support this important bill.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Neighbors Not Enemies Act. This long overdue legislation would repeal the Alien Enemies Act, one of four laws from 1798 that were collectively known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. These controversial laws were enacted during a period of threatened war and were an attempt to severely limit freedom of speech and press and the rights of noncitizen residents. Of the four laws, only the Alien Enemies Act remains in effect. The Alien Enemies Act allows the President of the United States to ``apprehend[ ], restrain[ ], secure[ ] and remove[ ],'' noncitizens without due process during times of war. In 1941, President Roosevelt used the authority of the Alien Enemies Act to apprehend ``alien enemies deemed dangerous to the public health or safety of the United States by the Attorney General or Secretary of War.'' These actions allowed for the detention of Japanese, Italian, and Germans as well as confiscation of their property. Then in 1942, Roosevelt expanded on his actions by issuing Executive Order 9066, which authorized the mass removal and incarceration of 120,000 Japanese Americans, both U.S. citizens and noncitizens, during World War II. The internment of Japanese Americans was a shameful act, and it was not until 1988 that the Civil Liberties Act was passed, formally apologizing to Americans of Japanese ancestry and providing reparations of $20,000 to each surviving victim who was incarcerated during World War II. During the 2016 election, Donald Trump invoked President Franklin D. Roosevelt's application of the Alien Enemies Act during World War II when he called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States. Since taking office, President Trump has continued to advance divisive policies and hateful rhetoric that target and demonize Muslim and other minority communities. The President's cruel anti-immigrant policies have resulted in the separation of children at the border, detention of families with no end in sight, and many more harmful policies that betray the principles and values on which our Nation was built upon. The President has brought the need to repeal the Alien Enemies Act to the forefront. We must stop his attempts to divide us through intolerance and fear. We must prevent civil and human rights travesties from happening on U.S. soil again. Sadly, we cannot trust the President. The Neighbors Not Enemies Act would help keep our Nation from repeating history in targeting an entire group of noncitizens for unconstitutional and discriminatory arrest, detention, and deportation. The repeal of the Alien Enemies Act is long overdue, and I call on my colleagues in the United States Senate to swiftly pass the Neighbors Not Enemies Act during the 116th Congress. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, there is no shortage of examples showing how our Nation systemically fails communities of color and other minorities, but the events of 2020--namely COVID-19 and the killings of Black Americans--have brought heightened attention and urgency to addressing inequities and disparities throughout our nation. Tragically, these inequities and disparities pervade our health care system, resulting in poor health outcomes and barriers to care for far too many communities. Mr. President, I believe that healthcare is a right--not a privilege--and that this right should extend to everyone in our Nation. Yet, this is not the case. Our Nation falls short in ensuring that right to everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, immigration status, or any other factor, which is why I am reintroducing the Health Equity and Accountability Act (HEAA). This bill is a comprehensive blueprint of bold policy solutions that address a wide spectrum of health equity concerns. Despite progress made through the Affordable Care Act, health care access remains a problem in the U.S., with minority communities disproportionately facing barriers to coverage. HEAA expands access to health care for many communities in need including immigrant communities, rural communities, and of particular importance to my state, citizens of the Freely Associated States who are living in our country under the Compacts of Free Association. We know that diversity in our health care workforce can improve health outcomes, and yet racial and ethnic minorities remain underrepresented in our health professions. HEAA seeks to address the lack of diversity in our health workforce through loan repayment programs and health professions fellowships. The bill would also help providers better serve a diverse patient population with culturally and linguistically appropriate health care services through investments like cultural competency education and expanded language access services to assist the over 12 percent of Hawaii residents and about 8 percent of people nationwide with limited English proficiency. Women, children, and adolescents often face additional barriers and disparities in accessing information, health education, health services, and coverage. HEAA aims to dismantle those barriers and address a range of infant, maternal, sexual, and reproductive health needs, particularly for marginalized and underserved communities. For example, HEAA would invest in sexual health education for underserved, minority, and LGBTQ youth and link them to services related to positive health behaviors. The bill also seeks to address our country's tragically high maternal mortality rate, particularly for Black women, who have a maternal mortality rate three to five times that of White women. HEAA would expand services to pregnant and postpartum women, develop maternal health initiatives in rural areas, and establish a program to address implicit biases and cultural competency in providers. HEAA doesn't stop there. The legislation would also expand and promote mental and behavioral health services for minority communities, increase Federal resources for diseases that disproportionately affect minorities--such as heart disease and diabetes in Native Hawaiians--and improve data collection and reporting so we can more completely recognize and address health disparities. In Hawaii, these investments through HEAA will help combat diseases like viral hepatitis, which disproportionately affects Asian Americans, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities, and better understand the health disparities faced by Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders through disaggregated data collection. Finally, HEAA addresses the ``social determinants of health''--non- medical factors like the environment, housing, education, and economic stability that ultimately affect individual and community health. HEAA would require non-health federal agencies like Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Transportation, Department of Agriculture, and Environmental Protection Agency to work together to improve the social determinants of health. Achieving health equity is achievable and to do it we must make bold, substantial investments in transforming our health and health care systems. I thank my colleagues for joining me in introducing the bill, and encourage others to join us as we work to level the playing field and empower everyone in our nation to achieve their full health potential.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, there is no shortage of examples showing how our Nation systemically fails communities of color and other minorities, but the events of 2020--namely COVID-19 and the killings of Black Americans--have brought heightened attention and urgency to addressing inequities and disparities throughout our nation. Tragically, these inequities and disparities pervade our health care system, resulting in poor health outcomes and barriers to care for far too many communities. Mr. President, I believe that healthcare is a right--not a privilege--and that this right should extend to everyone in our Nation. Yet, this is not the case. Our Nation falls short in ensuring that right to everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, immigration status, or any other factor, which is why I am reintroducing the Health Equity and Accountability Act (HEAA). This bill is a comprehensive blueprint of bold policy solutions that address a wide spectrum of health equity concerns. Despite progress made through the Affordable Care Act, health care access remains a problem in the U.S., with minority communities disproportionately facing barriers to coverage. HEAA expands access to health care for many communities in need including immigrant communities, rural communities, and of particular importance to my state, citizens of the Freely Associated States who are living in our country under the Compacts of Free Association. We know that diversity in our health care workforce can improve health outcomes, and yet racial and ethnic minorities remain underrepresented in our health professions. HEAA seeks to address the lack of diversity in our health workforce through loan repayment programs and health professions fellowships. The bill would also help providers better serve a diverse patient population with culturally and linguistically appropriate health care services through investments like cultural competency education and expanded language access services to assist the over 12 percent of Hawaii residents and about 8 percent of people nationwide with limited English proficiency. Women, children, and adolescents often face additional barriers and disparities in accessing information, health education, health services, and coverage. HEAA aims to dismantle those barriers and address a range of infant, maternal, sexual, and reproductive health needs, particularly for marginalized and underserved communities. For example, HEAA would invest in sexual health education for underserved, minority, and LGBTQ youth and link them to services related to positive health behaviors. The bill also seeks to address our country's tragically high maternal mortality rate, particularly for Black women, who have a maternal mortality rate three to five times that of White women. HEAA would expand services to pregnant and postpartum women, develop maternal health initiatives in rural areas, and establish a program to address implicit biases and cultural competency in providers. HEAA doesn't stop there. The legislation would also expand and promote mental and behavioral health services for minority communities, increase Federal resources for diseases that disproportionately affect minorities--such as heart disease and diabetes in Native Hawaiians--and improve data collection and reporting so we can more completely recognize and address health disparities. In Hawaii, these investments through HEAA will help combat diseases like viral hepatitis, which disproportionately affects Asian Americans, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander communities, and better understand the health disparities faced by Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders through disaggregated data collection. Finally, HEAA addresses the ``social determinants of health''--non- medical factors like the environment, housing, education, and economic stability that ultimately affect individual and community health. HEAA would require non-health federal agencies like Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Transportation, Department of Agriculture, and Environmental Protection Agency to work together to improve the social determinants of health. Achieving health equity is achievable and to do it we must make bold, substantial investments in transforming our health and health care systems. I thank my colleagues for joining me in introducing the bill, and encourage others to join us as we work to level the playing field and empower everyone in our nation to achieve their full health potential.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill that provides fairness to our Federal employees who work day in and day out to help the government function and serve the public. The importance of their role has become even more apparent as our Nation continues to suffer in the midst of a global pandemic. In a normal year, the average Federal employee can accumulate up to 240 hours, or 30 days, of annual leave. At the end of the year, if a Federal employee has more than 240 hours, they either have to use the amount of leave over 240 hours or lose it. These excess hours are commonly known as ``use or lose'' leave. But these are not normal times. We are in the middle of a global pandemic and we have a President who lies about how dangerous this virus is and does little to address the severity of it. We see the results, nearly seven million people in the United States have contracted COVID-19 and more than 200,000 have died. The United States now has the unenviable distinction of being the Nation with the most COVID-19 cases and the most deaths. Through all of this, people continue to go to work and try to carry out their duties the best they can. In the Federal Government, there are National Institutes of Health researchers, Internal Revenue Service workers, Social Security staff, law enforcement officers, and others, working each day to provide government services to the American public. Some are not able to take leave because their job is a critical part of the response to the pandemic. Others are simply unable to take leave because they are limiting their exposure to the virus or are following state and local rules to prevent the spread of COVID-19. To try and address this issue, on August 10, the Office of Personnel Management published an interim rule that recognizes the COVID-19 pandemic as an ``exigency of the public business'' and allows some federal employees to carry over use or lose leave. However, this policy is limited to employees who are designated as essential by their agency. This contrasts with the Department of Defense which issued a memo on April 16, allowing all active-duty service members to accrue leave in excess of their 60-day limitation, regardless of job responsibilities or duty station. All Federal employees contribute to their agency's mission, regardless of the job they hold. No one should lose earned annual leave due to this pandemic. To resolve this inequity, I am introducing the Federal Worker Leave Fairness Act which will allow all Federal employees to carry over annual leave above the 240 hour cap, regardless of whether they are considered essential. My bill also resolves this issue for future pandemics declared a national public health emergency by allowing ``use or lose'' leave to be rolled over during the emergency declaration. This legislation is being introduced in the House by Representatives Derek Kilmer and Jennifer Wexton and is supported by the National Treasury Employees Union; American Federation of Government Employees; Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers; National Federation of Federal Employees; Federal Managers Association; FAA Managers Association; National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association; and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. This bill is a small act of fairness in an otherwise stressful and overwhelming year. I urge my colleagues to support this bill in recognition of our hardworking federal workforce. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill that provides fairness to our Federal employees who work day in and day out to help the government function and serve the public. The importance of their role has become even more apparent as our Nation continues to suffer in the midst of a global pandemic. In a normal year, the average Federal employee can accumulate up to 240 hours, or 30 days, of annual leave. At the end of the year, if a Federal employee has more than 240 hours, they either have to use the amount of leave over 240 hours or lose it. These excess hours are commonly known as ``use or lose'' leave. But these are not normal times. We are in the middle of a global pandemic and we have a President who lies about how dangerous this virus is and does little to address the severity of it. We see the results, nearly seven million people in the United States have contracted COVID-19 and more than 200,000 have died. The United States now has the unenviable distinction of being the Nation with the most COVID-19 cases and the most deaths. Through all of this, people continue to go to work and try to carry out their duties the best they can. In the Federal Government, there are National Institutes of Health researchers, Internal Revenue Service workers, Social Security staff, law enforcement officers, and others, working each day to provide government services to the American public. Some are not able to take leave because their job is a critical part of the response to the pandemic. Others are simply unable to take leave because they are limiting their exposure to the virus or are following state and local rules to prevent the spread of COVID-19. To try and address this issue, on August 10, the Office of Personnel Management published an interim rule that recognizes the COVID-19 pandemic as an ``exigency of the public business'' and allows some federal employees to carry over use or lose leave. However, this policy is limited to employees who are designated as essential by their agency. This contrasts with the Department of Defense which issued a memo on April 16, allowing all active-duty service members to accrue leave in excess of their 60-day limitation, regardless of job responsibilities or duty station. All Federal employees contribute to their agency's mission, regardless of the job they hold. No one should lose earned annual leave due to this pandemic. To resolve this inequity, I am introducing the Federal Worker Leave Fairness Act which will allow all Federal employees to carry over annual leave above the 240 hour cap, regardless of whether they are considered essential. My bill also resolves this issue for future pandemics declared a national public health emergency by allowing ``use or lose'' leave to be rolled over during the emergency declaration. This legislation is being introduced in the House by Representatives Derek Kilmer and Jennifer Wexton and is supported by the National Treasury Employees Union; American Federation of Government Employees; Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers; National Federation of Federal Employees; Federal Managers Association; FAA Managers Association; National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association; and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. This bill is a small act of fairness in an otherwise stressful and overwhelming year. I urge my colleagues to support this bill in recognition of our hardworking federal workforce. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the COVID-19 Disinformation Research and Reporting Act. I thank Representative Jennifer Wexton for working with me on this important piece of legislation, which will help shine a light on the ways social media and other online platforms amplify and spread misinformation and disinformation about the coronavirus pandemic to the detriment of public health. Representative Wexton was able to get the substance of this bill included in the HEROES Act, a bill passed four months ago by the House of Representatives to provide much needed relief to those suffering from the coronavirus pandemic and accompanying economic downturn. Because the Senate failed in its duty to pass the HEROES Act, I am introducing the COVID-19 Disinformation Research and Reporting Act with my colleagues--Senators Booker, Blumenthal, Klobuchar, Warren, and Reed. As I stand here today nearly 7 million Americans have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and over 200,000 have died from the virus. The numbers alone are staggering. But when you hear and read the personal stories of individuals and families who are suffering, it is truly tragic. It makes you mournful that for many of the individuals who died, they died alone in the absence of their loved ones. While many things contributed to this massive loss of life, I am here to talk about one in particular: the insidious spread of coronavirus- related misinformation and disinformation online. This ``infodemic'' has undercut the efforts of public health officials at every turn, and threatens to prolong the virus's impact on the health of our people and economy long after a safe and effective vaccine is available. The online spread of misinformation about public health is nothing new. Claims that the 2014 Ebola epidemic was a form of population control spread across social media. Anti-vaccination groups have long used Face book and YouTube to share junk science and recruit new members. However, social media platforms' response to coronavirus was supposed to be different. Early in the pandemic, the major social media platforms announced new measures to combat misinformation while making sure users had access to accurate, authoritative information about the virus. Facebook added a COVID-19 Information Center to the tops of users' News Feeds and announced it would remove misinformation that could contribute to imminent physical harm. Twitter verified accounts that provided credible updates on the pandemic and committed to removing false or misleading content that contradicted information from health authorities. YouTube began directing users who searched for COVID-related information to the WHO or other health authorities and banned false information contradicting health authorities on treatment, prevention, diagnosis, or transmission of COVID-19. Unfortunately, these measures proved lacking and insufficient. The conspiracy film Plandemic was viewed more than 8 million times across social media platforms, and the sequel was viewed over 100,000 times on YouTube during its first week alone. A study by advocacy group Avaaz found that misinformation about vaccines and other health topics had been viewed an estimated 3.8 billion times on Facebook in the past year--four times more than factual, authoritative content from institutions like the WHO and CDC. The study also found that only 16% of previously fact-checked health misinformation on Facebook carried a warning label. Spend even a small amount of time on the internet or social media and you will find rampant misinformation and conspiracy theories about COVID-19. Some examples of these falsehoods include: Bill Gates created the virus to use a vaccine as cover to implant microchips into Americans. No, actually, Dr. Fauci created the coronavirus to seize political power. You shouldn't wear a mask to protect against the coronavirus, because wearing a mask actually weakens your immune system. And do not worry if you catch the corona virus--you can treat it by drinking bleach. These claims might seem ridiculous, but they have real word consequences. A study published in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene found that 5,800 people had been hospitalized and at least 800 people died in the first three months of this year alone as a direct result of coronavirus-related misinformation. As recently as August, the Georgia Department of Health and the Texas Poison Control Center had to warn people not to drink bleach to treat COVID. While more Americans regularly wear masks in public, a recent poll found that 15% still do not. And, perhaps must troubling, polls suggest that between 35% and 50% of the U.S. population will not get a COVID vaccine when it is approved. If we hope to get past the coronavirus and avoid similar public health crises in the future, we must understand where misinformation originates, how it spreads, and strategies to stop it. This is exactly what the COVID-19 Disinformation Research and Reporting Act will do. It directs the National Science Foundation to partner with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a study on the spread of COVID-19-related disinformation and misinformation on the internet and social media platforms. This study will provide critical information on the roles disinformation and misinformation have played in the public response to COVID-19; the sources of COVID-19-related disinformation and misinformation and the ways it has influenced the public debate; the role social media plays in the disseminating and promoting this disinformation and misinformation; and potential strategies for combatting misinformation and disinformation in the future. This information will not stop the next pandemic from coming. And, it will not force the next Administration to take it seriously and follow the advice of doctors and scientists. But it can give us the knowledge and tools necessary to avoid another infodemic and ensure the American public receives accurate and authoritative information when it is most needed. I therefore encourage my colleagues to support the COVID-19 Disinformation Research and Reporting Act.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, this past Friday, our Nation lost a giant of a jurist and a champion of gender equality, workers' rights, voting rights, and civil rights. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg understood the critical importance of the Supreme Court in safeguarding our constitutional individual rights. About 2 years ago, I was sitting next to Justice Ginsburg at a dinner, and we were talking about the concerns we had about a very divided Supreme Court. She shared her concerns that we would see many more 5-to-4 decisions coming in the future, decisions that would roll back civil rights' protections, workers' rights, individual rights, efforts to address climate change, and, clearly, a woman's right to choose--decisions that would harm everyday Americans. As someone who had been on the Court for more than a quarter of a century, Justice Ginsburg had understood the dangers of partisan split decisions. She had spent more than two decades standing up for gender equality, voting rights, workers' rights, and civil rights. She was often also a key vote in upholding critical rights for everyday Americans, such as clean air and clean water protections. Within a few years of joining the Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg had written a landmark opinion in a 7-to-1 decision that had struck down the Virginia Military Institute's traditional male-only admissions policy. She had spoken for nearly the entire Court when she had written that the differential treatment of men and women ``may not be used . . . to create or perpetuate the legal, social, and economic inferiority of women.'' More recently, Justice Ginsburg's powerful voice had led dissents against partisan 5-to-4 decisions. In 2007, she led the dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., where the bare 5-to-4 majority of the Court had undermined the plain language ability to bring gender pay discrimination claims. Justice Ginsburg took the rare step of reading her dissent from the bench, saying: ``In our view, the court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.'' I was a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives when the Ledbetter decision came down, and I was appalled that a bare majority of the Court interpreted the relevant statute in a way that it had not been intended. Justice Ginsburg invited the Congress to fix the statute to make its intent clearer. At that time, Representative George Miller, the chair of the House Education and Labor Committee, on which I served, then led the way to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and it was the first bill that President Obama signed into law in 2009. In 2013, Justice Ginsburg wrote a scathing dissent in the 5-to-4 decision of Shelby County v. Holder, where a bare majority of the Court once again gutted the Voting Rights Act. She wrote then: ``Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.'' Immediately after Shelby County, as should have been expected, many States passed voter suppression laws that made it much more difficult for communities of color to vote. That was the intention of those laws that these States passed. These voter suppression efforts are ongoing even as we speak, and they will have a negative impact--a really negative impact--on the 2020 election. In 2018, she rebuked the 5-to-4 majority in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, which allowed companies to force their workers to arbitrate their claims one by one instead of seeking collective action in court. Why one by one? Because the employer thought all of these employees are not going to fight us one by one by one. In calling the majority's decision egregiously wrong, Justice Ginsburg noted: ``The inevitable result of today's decision will be the underenforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well-being of vulnerable workers.'' In fact, Epic Systems was one of the cases I brought up with Justice Ginsburg when I sat next to her at dinner. I said that it was a horrible decision, and she said: ``And I wrote the dissent.'' To honor Justice Ginsburg's legacy, we should honor her final wish not to be replaced until a new President is installed. In fact, that is the rule the Senate Republicans made up in 2016. About 1 hour after Justice Scalia died on February 13, 2016, Senator McConnell announced an unprecedented new rule--that the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President. Then, for the next 11 months, Senator McConnell blocked President Obama from replacing Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. That vacancy existed for almost a year. Back then, it didn't take much for other Republicans to join Senator McConnell. In fact, the rumor was that the majority leader had his Republican colleagues all lined up to side with him before he even announced the so-called McConnell rule. That was then. This is now. Now that the tables are turned and we have a Republican President instead of a Democratic one, Senator McConnell and his Republican colleagues are going back on their word. Within hours of Justice Ginsburg's death, Senator McConnell vowed: ``President Trump's Supreme Court nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate.'' This is what is known as a 180-degree turn--or talking out of both sides of your mouth. Of course, he is not the only one. In 2016, Senator Gardner said: ``I think the next president ought to choose the Supreme Court nominee, and I think it is only fair to the nominee themselves, and I think that is only fair to the integrity of the Supreme Court.'' Yet, after Justice Ginsburg's passing, Senator Gardner flip-flopped, indicating that, if President Trump nominates someone he likes, he will vote to confirm. In 2016, Senator Tillis came to the Senate Chamber to declare: ``It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our Republic not to launch our Nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next President.'' But it took Senator Tillis fewer than 24 hours after Justice Ginsburg's death to go back on his word and commit to supporting the ``conservative jurist President Trump will nominate.'' In 2016, Senator Graham repeatedly stated: ``The election cycle is well under way and the precedent of the Senate is not to confirm a nominee at this stage of the process.'' He even doubled down on his promise, claiming: ``I want you to use my words against me. . . . If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let's let the next President, whoever it might be, make that nomination.'' Then, a week after Justice Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham said plainly to Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic: ``If an opening comes''--of course he was talking about a Supreme Court opening--``If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process is started, we'll wait for the next election.'' When my Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee did what Senator Graham asked--that we hold him to his word; we wrote a letter to him to stick by his word--he refused. He indicated that he would ``proceed expeditiously to process any nomination made by President Trump to fill'' Justice Ginsburg's vacancy. There are other Republican Senators who stood up with Senator McConnell in 2016 and now have changed their tune, including Senators Perdue, Ernst, Barrasso, and Cornyn. The question that American people should ask is, How can you trust people who don't keep their word? This is an urgent question for the millions of Americans who will lose their healthcare and reproductive freedoms if President Trump and Majority Leader McConnell are successful in stealing yet another Supreme Court seat. The threat this nominee poses to the Affordable Care Act is not some esoteric debate we are having. It is not theoretical. On November 10, the Supreme Court will hear yet another partisan challenge to the ACA. I have no doubt that Donald Trump and the majority leader want a new Justice in place to strike down the ACA, depriving millions of Americans of their health insurance, including millions with preexisting conditions. The more than 6 million Americans who have tested positive for COVID- 19 will likely be deemed to have a preexisting condition. Add them to the Americans who will be devastated if the ACA is struck down by the Trump nominee. Our healthcare is on the line with the next nominee, regardless of who the nominee is. Note that the Republicans are saying that every single Judiciary Republican is going to vote for the nominee, and we don't even know who the nominee is. Well, obviously, it doesn't matter who the nominee is. It will be someone who is expected to strike down the ACA. After all, repealing the ACA has long been No. 1 on the President's and Republicans' hit list. But getting rid of the ACA is not the only thing the President is after. The President's nominee will also oppose abortion rights. So that is next on their hit list. Let me be clear. The future of Roe v. Wade is on the line. The future of a woman being able to control her own body is on the line. With so much at stake with this nomination, the millions of Americans who revered Justice Ginsburg are not just going to sit by and do nothing while my Republican colleagues try to steal yet another Supreme Court seat. In fact, they are showing up in droves in front of the Supreme Court to show their support for all that Justice Ginsburg stood for. They are going to fight back, and you can be assured I will be right there fighting back with them. They aren't going to fall for the trumped-up justifications, explanations, and pretexts that Senate Republicans are using to go back on their word. And I am confident that in 6 weeks' time, the American people will hold them accountable. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. M. President, in 2018, Hawaii's Kilauea Volcano erupted, destroying upwards of 700 homes, including a home purchased by a veteran using the VA Home Loan Guaranty Program. When this veteran went to replace the home he had lost by once again using the Home Loan Guaranty Program, he found that he would be forced to pay significantly higher fees for using the program a second time. Our Nation's veterans should not be penalized for losing their homes to natural disasters and it is for this reason that I come to the floor today to introduce the Veteran Home Loan Disaster Recovery Act of 2020. Congress has established a variety of programs in pursuit of both thanking our Nation's veterans and ensuring that they are able to live comfortable lives after their service has ended. One of these programs is the VA Home Loan Guaranty program, which provides eligible veterans the opportunity to access mortgages backed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Under the program the VA guarantees a portion of a home loan from a private lender allowing the veteran borrower to receive favorable mortgage terms. Participants in this program are required to pay a funding fee in place of closing cost and that fee increases based on various factors, including whether this is a veteran's first time using the program or if they have previously had a VA Home Loan. For those who have used the loan before, the fee is higher, regardless of the circumstances that led to their needing to purchase a home through the program, including if their previous home was destroyed by a natural disaster. The Veteran Home Loan Disaster Recovery Act of 2020 would exempt program participants from the subsequent loan funding fee increase if they lost their first home to a natural disaster, allowing them to access a lower rate as if they were a first-time participant in the program. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in 2019, there were 101 Presidentially-declared disasters across the Nation. So far in 2020, there have been 92 major disaster declarations alone. Right now, wildfires rage in different parts of the Nation, and we are in the midst of hurricane season in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. As we continue to experience raging wildfires, volcanic eruptions, and massive hurricanes, it is critical that we ensure that we work to limit the ripple effects from these disasters. Giving veterans the ability to replace homes lost through no fault of their own is one step in that direction.

Ms. HIRONO

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

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, actions speak louder than words, and by their actions it is clear that the majority leader and Senate Republicans have not been serious about passing another COVID relief bill that matches the urgency of this moment. First, the majority leader wanted to take a pause, and then he sat on the Housed-passed Heroes Act for months. Then in July, he introduced a series of inadequate piecemeal bills that went absolutely nowhere. Now the majority leader and Senate Republicans showed their priorities yet again by rushing to confirm five more Trump judges and offering an anemic, weak COVID bill aimed at appeasing the most conservative Members of their caucus. And we just voted on that bill. While Senate Republicans have been ``waiting for Godot'' on the next COVID bill, Senate Democrats have been listening to our constituents, and we have a sense of urgency. We have had this sense of urgency for the 4 months that we have been waiting for Congress to deal with the Heroes Act. We have been waiting for over 4 months, as I mentioned, for the majority leader to stop taking a pause. American workers and families couldn't afford a pause for 4 months, and they certainly can't afford to take a pause now. In fact, things have gotten worse. While Republicans sat on their hands, our country was facing and continues to face a grim reality. In the coming days, we are certain to pass the almost unthinkable milestone of 200,000 deaths from COVID-19. On March 29, when Dr. Fauci warned us that America could reach this milestone as an almost worst-case scenario, 2,300 Americans had died. And because Donald Trump has provided no national leadership, Dr. Fauci's warning will, more than sadly, soon come to pass. Over 6 million Americans have contracted coronavirus. Tens of millions of Americans remain out of work. Millions of Americans have lost their healthcare. Colleges and universities have started their fall sessions with students back on campus and are experiencing significant outbreaks. Millions of parents are facing the agonizing choice of sending their children to schools that aren't safe or dealing with the challenge of distance learning and childcare needs. And State after State, long abandoned by the Trump administration's failure to lead during the pandemic, are left on their own to deal with billions in budget deficits as a result of the pandemic and to make difficult decisions about how to confront new outbreaks. In Hawaii, new cases have been rising since July. The severity of our outbreak, particularly on Oahu, led the mayor of the city and county of Honolulu to issue a 2-week stay-at-home order on August 27. Yesterday, he extended this order for another 2 weeks. This order and the outbreak that preceded it offer a grim reminder that constant vigilance is necessary in the fight against COVID-19. It is a reminder that even States like Hawaii, which for months was lauded as a coronavirus success story, can become home to one of the fastest growing outbreaks in the country. At the end of July, Hawaii had barely over 2,000 cases of COVID-19. Yesterday, Hawaii crossed the grim milestone of 10,000 cases. Like in many other States, our outbreak has hit certain communities and populations the hardest. Our thriving, dynamic, and vital Pacific Islander community represents a mere 4 percent of our population but nearly one-third of our total cases. More than a dozen long-term care homes across our State are experiencing significant outbreaks that put our kupuna--our seniors--at heightened risk. The Oahu Community Correctional Center has seen the 299 inmates and 76 staff members infected with COVID-19. The rising caseload on Oahu is putting pressure on Hawaii's already understaffed medical system, where existing provider shortages are straining the capacity of our hospitals. Although Hawaii's outbreak is centered on Oahu, we are seeing troubling signs on the Neighbor Islands, as well, with serious outbreaks at the Yuko Okutsu State Veterans Home in Hilo and the Maui Memorial Medical Center in Kahului. As we analyze and assess what is happening in Hawaii, the most important thing our State can do is learn from our experience and not to repeat the same mistakes. We have to explain things clearly and plainly, and we have to be accountable and transparent in our decision making. Our States certainly should have done a better job conducting outreach to at-risk communities, expanding our testing capacity, developing an effective contact tracing system, and establishing a clearer chain of command. But we don't have the luxury of simply pointing fingers, assigning blame, and moving on. In other words, we cannot be like the President. Instead, we need to work together to get our outbreak under control and support the hundreds of thousands of Hawaii residents who have suffered from this unprecedented public health and economic crisis. The Senate must do its part by passing a real comprehensive COVID relief bill that would help States like Hawaii confront their outbreaks and help the millions of Americans who are suffering right now. While the majority leader struggles to unite his caucus even around an emaciated, weak bill, like the one we voted on today, Democrats are united behind passing the Heroes Act because that bill's scope matches the urgency and severity of this moment. I certainly understand and appreciate the need to negotiate and compromise to get something done, but we cannot lose sight of whom we are fighting for. Unlike the majority leader and Senate Republicans, who are fighting tooth and nail for corporate interests in the next COVID bill, I am fighting for the workers, families, and small businesses that are getting screwed. I am fighting for Hawaii's small business owners, like Laura Andersland, who runs Salty Wahine on Kauai. Laura is one of the favorites on the Hill, where many of my colleagues, including those on the other side of the aisle, line up to sample Salty Wahine's Hawaiian salts. Laura's products are incredible, and her success over the years reflects the hard work she has put into building and growing her business. But Laura and Salty Wahine have been devastated by the pandemic. Although she was able to take advantage of past relief programs that we passed, Laura is struggling. She needs more help right now to pay the rent and rehire her employees. Alongside congressional Democrats, I am fighting for hundreds of billions in new assistance for small businesses like Laura's. I am fighting for the homeowners and renters who have lost their jobs and are terrified to think of what might happen to them if the Federal protections that have prevented their foreclosure or evictions expire. I am grateful that organizations like the Legal Aid Society of Hawaii are stepping in to help people worried that they will lose their homes. Legal Aid's executive director Nalani Fujimori Kaina told me that doing this work during a pandemic is like playing 3D chess on a Tilt-A-Whirl. In other words, it is mighty hard. The Senate needs to step up and provide the $100 billion-plus in housing and rental assistance needed to make a dent in this crisis. I am fighting for parents, teachers, and students who are struggling to adapt to the new normal of hybrid and distance learning: grandmothers, like a retired educator I spoke with last week--she is concerned about learning loss and her 5-year-old grandson struggling to sit and learn, sitting behind a computer screen for hours a day; women like the restaurant owner of Kauai I spoke with--she is worried about how to balance running her struggling business with tutoring her high school- age children; and the many students I have spoken with over the past few months--they are struggling with learning loss, finding a quiet place to study from home, hunting down reliable internet at Starbucks, or having trouble concentrating--all because Republican Senators can't get their acts together. We need to increase our support for public schools so they can create safer environments for students once they are back in school. We can do this by investing billions of dollars to help States get their outbreaks under control through testing and contact tracing so we can get our kids back to school safely. The operative word is ``safely.'' We all want our kids to go back to school. They need to go back in a safe environment. The bill our Republican colleagues offered today was anemic and weak, at best. It does more to help their corporate benefactors than to address the pain so many Americans are feeling right now. After today's vote, I am left wondering: How much more pain do the American people have to endure before Senate Republicans get serious and act? How many more Americans have to die? How many more Americans have to lose their jobs? How many more businesses have to close? How many more children have to go hungry during this pandemic? How many more people have to lose their health insurance? The list goes on. I say to the majority leader: What is it going to take for you to finally do your job? I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the people doing the truly essential work in our country, and it isn't the Fortune 500 CEO, hedge fund manager, or investment banker. It is the home healthcare worker providing essential care to homebound seniors or the disabled. It is the delivery truckdriver working a 12-hour shift, bringing food and medicine and other critical supplies to people who need it. It is a grocery store clerk, working a checkout line or stocking shelves to keep up with the skyrocketing demand. It is the migrant agricultural worker picking berries or standing on an assembly line at a meatpacking plant. It is the housekeeper or custodian working longer hours to clean our hotels, offices, and other public places. It is the childcare worker coming in every day to care for other children, while being unable to afford care for their own. And it is the busdriver who, despite operating on a tightly enclosed space, transports hundreds of people to work every day. These people, and others like them doing essential work, are literally risking their lives every day for the rest of us, and they are earning much deserved recognition during this pandemic. But let me be clear. These workers have always been essential, even if our economic system has not valued the jobs they do or treated them with the respect they deserve. Valuing and respecting essential workers is about more than calling them heroes when that is the popular thing to do. It is about recognizing and calling out how these workers have been treated in our economy. And it is about doing something to fix it. For too long, people doing the work now deemed essential during the pandemic have been forced to work for low wages that are either at or just above minimum wage, have jobs that offer no paid family or medical leave, have little access to affordable childcare, have jobs that offer no employer-sponsored healthcare coverage, and have been forced to work in dangerous conditions. Coping with these inequities in normal times was challenging enough for our essential workers, but the pandemic, exacerbated by Donald Trump's failure in leadership, is creating new problems, and it is making existing problems worse. The administration's failure to implement emergency safety standards is creating unsafe workplaces for essential workers. Meanwhile, it is pushing to provide businesses immunity from coronavirus-related lawsuits. If they are successful, employers would have even less incentive to provide safe workplaces for employees or to protect customers and consumers. Its failure to fully and effectively use the Defense Production Act means the most vulnerable workers continue to face shortages of personal protective equipment--putting them at greater risk for contacting the coronavirus. And its failure to implement a national testing and contact tracing program means that essential workers face testing delays and may never be notified if a coworker has tested positive for COVID-19. As Donald Trump refuses to act responsibly to keep our essential workers safe, this has fallen to States, local governments, and the private sector. In Hawaii, we are fortunate to have responsive State and county governments, strong unions, and one of the lowest uninsured rates in the country, thanks to Hawaii's Prepaid Healthcare Act. These advantages, however, have not shielded Hawaii's essential workers from the dangers of the pandemic. Let me share a few of their stories. A few weeks ago, I spoke to a group of transit workers who operate The Bus in Honolulu. A simple shower curtain separates the drivers from passengers boarding their buses. Many riders do not wear masks, putting the driver and other passengers at risk for contracting the virus. Drivers are also facing threats and physical violence when they ask riders to put on a mask. One passenger even spat upon a busdriver who asked the person to observe social distancing. Many of the busdrivers live in multigenerational families. They spoke about the fear that they will contract the virus on the job and bring it home. Three bus operators have already tested positive, including one just this week. Transit workers in other industries have also experienced challenges related to coronavirus safety. A group of Hawaii flight attendants I recently spoke with are unable to be tested regularly due to supply shortages, despite showing up to work every day. They also spoke about their daily challenges convincing passengers to wear masks. Essential workers are also providing childcare during this pandemic so that other essential workers can continue to do their job. Katie, a nanny on Oahu, whom I heard from recently, has provided childcare for essential workers and military families on Oahu during the pandemic. Katie lives with her mom, who has been battling stage IV cancer for nearly 3 years. She is rightly concerned about the possibility she might bring this virus home with her from work. In April, Katie received a scare when one of the families she worked with told her they might have been exposed. Katie is like so many essential workers in Hawaii and across the country who live with uncertainty about their jobs and families every day. More firefighters, grocery store workers, bank tellers, postal workers, community health center employees, and paramedics tested positive for COVID-19 this week. They certainly will not be the last. Something as simple as showing up to work every day shouldn't be an act of bravery, but that is exactly what we are expecting from our essential workers every day. If they can show up and do their job, Congress can certainly step up and do its job. It is why Senate Democrats have been fighting so hard to pass the Heroes Act--to bring this to the floor, to debate the Heroes Act. The Heroes Act includes a number of strong provisions that will support essential workers during this pandemic. It establishes a $200 billion fund to provide up to $10,000 of hazard pay to each essential worker. It requires the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue an emergency temporary standard within 7 days of enactment. It prevents employers from retaliating against workers who report workplace safety issues. It adds another $75 billion for COVID-19 testing, contact tracing, and isolation measures. It also provides every American access to free treatment for COVID-19. It provides access to free and affordable childcare options for essential workers who are expected to show up to their jobs regardless of whether they have someone to look after their children, and it provides permanent paid sick and family leave so that people don't have to choose between their jobs and the health of their families The Heroes Act is a bold, worker- and family-centric bill. We should have passed it months ago. Instead, the bill has been sitting on the majority leader's desk for almost 3 months now. He called it ``taking a pause.'' The people suffering in our country didn't have the luxury of taking a pause 3 months ago, and they certainly don't have the luxury to take a pause now. As Senators, we are able to telework. We can attend hearings remotely. We can stay socially distant. Maybe this is one reason some Republican Senators don't have sufficient empathy or the sense of urgency to pass the next COVID relief bill that would actually help the busdriver who can't drive a bus from home, the UPS driver who can't deliver packages from home, the healthcare aide who can't administer medications to seniors from home, the agriculture worker who can't pick coffee beans from home, and the postal worker who can't deliver the mail from home. Millions of people are suffering in our country today. They should be able to count on the Senate to step up and take action to help them. At this very moment, negotiators are deciding whom we will help and who will be left behind. Democrats are fighting to protect essential workers and help the unemployed. Republicans are fighting to protect businesses from their own negligence and allow corporate executives--corporate executives--to write off their business lunches. These very different priorities reflect very different values and point out what is at stake in these negotiations. Protecting and assisting essential workers is a value. It isn't enough to simply tell them ``thank you very much'' and call them heroes. Actions speak louder than words. It is time for us to act. It is long past time for us to act. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I would say that the views expressed by the good Senator from Missouri are not views widely shared by people in this country. And to compare the decisions in Plessy v. Ferguson and the Dred Scott decisions with the Roe decision dishonors the memory of Congressman John Lewis, who only today was buried, put to rest in Georgia. Coronavirus Mr. President, the COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the systemic racial inequities, inequalities in our healthcare system. While the virus has touched Americans of every race and nationality, it disproportionately impacts people of color. We all know that. People of color make up just 40 percent of our country's population but account for over 60 percent of all coronavirus cases and 50 percent of deaths from coronavirus. These inequities manifest themselves differently in each of our States. In Hawaii, for example, we are seeing pronounced disparities among our Pacific Islander community and particularly among citizens of the Freely Associated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. I am focusing my remarks on this vibrant community today because our country has rarely done right by them. Let me give you some background. After liberating their territory in World War II, the United States administered the Trust Territory of the Pacific--which includes what are now the Freely Associated States--for nearly 40 years. Even in the most generous characterization, the United States failed to live up to its trust obligations to promote the political, social, and economic development of the region. In addition to chronically underfunding social programs like healthcare and education, the United States used the Marshall Islands as a base for dozens of nuclear tests over a 12-year period, from 1946 to 1958, including the 15-megaton Castle Bravo--the largest thermonuclear device ever detonated by the United States. Decades later, the citizens of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands continued to suffer generational health consequences with substantially increased rates of cancer, birth defects, and miscarriages. In 1986, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands achieved independence and formally entered into Compacts of Free Association, COFA, with the United States. Palau followed in 1994. Under the terms of these compacts, these three countries provide the U.S. military with exclusive access to their strategically situated lands in exchange for security guarantees, economic and financial assistance, and the right of their citizens to travel, work, and live in the United States without having visas. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the compacts to our strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific region. In a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last year, U.S. INDOPACOM Commander ADM Philip Davidson succinctly noted how the compact nations ``contribute way out of proportion to their population in our defense.'' This is particularly true with respect to China, wherein our compacts with these island nations enable us to literally hold the line against aggressive Chinese economic and military expansion throughout Oceania. If we are to ensure a free and open Indo-Pacific, we must treat the compact nations with the respect they deserve. First and foremost, this means keeping the promises we have made to these partners, especially on healthcare. Our initial compact agreements stipulated that COFA citizens were eligible for a range of Federal programs as ``permanently residing under color of law,'' including Medicaid coverage. The so- called welfare reform law of 1996, however, resulted in COFA citizens' suddenly becoming ineligible for Medicaid and other Federal programs even as they may live in the United States legally and indefinitely. I have done some research as to what happened in the welfare reform law, and there is absolutely nothing in the legislative history of that law to indicate why, suddenly, COFA citizens were not eligible for Medicaid coverage. According to a report from the University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization, the exclusion of COFA citizens from Medicaid increased the mortality rate of COFA citizens by 20 percent and contributed to significant public health issues in my home State of Hawaii. I have led the fight to pass bipartisan legislation to restore Medicaid eligibility for COFA citizens throughout my time in the Senate, and we have come close to righting this wrong on several occasions, including in the bipartisan comprehensive immigration bill that the Senate passed in 2013. The COVID-19 pandemic injects a new urgency into this effort. All across the country, COFA citizens work in essential industries like meat processing, food service, and custodial services. These jobs put COFA citizens at an increased risk, and they are suffering disproportionately from COVID-19 as a result. In Hawaii, Pacific Islanders make up about 4 percent of our population but account for nearly a quarter of our COVID-19 cases. In northwest Arkansas, the Marshallese make up no more than 3 percent of the population but have suffered half the deaths. In Dubuque, IA, the Marshallese community accounts for more than a third of the city's COVID-19 deaths despite their making up only about 1 percent of the city's population. A number of factors drives these disparities, but reduced access to healthcare certainly isn't helping. In fact, it is hurting a lot. The Government Accountability Office estimates that 14 percent of COFA citizens in Hawaii lack health insurance--nearly three times the State's average. Nationwide, 22 percent of COFA citizens are uninsured. In the absence of restored Medicaid eligibility, which would certainly lower the number of uninsured COFA citizens, our community health centers are, once again, stepping up. My conversations earlier this month with representatives from Kokua Kalihi Valley Comprehensive Family Services and West Hawaii Community Health Center reinforced the crucial role these community health centers play in building reciprocal trust with the communities they serve. Both community health centers have been working closely with COFA citizens to combat stigma and fear by reaching out directly to the community to encourage them to seek care. This includes providing testing and outreach services in multiple languages. They have also been coordinating food deliveries to families, including to COFA citizens who are quarantining at home, and assisting some families with alternate housing arrangements so they can isolate away from healthy family members. Our health centers are doing exceptional work with COFA citizens, and I strongly support providing them robust funding in the next COVID-19 relief bill. Most importantly, we need to uphold our commitment to the compact nations and restore Medicaid eligibility for COFA citizens who are legally in our country. We can do that by including my Covering our FAS Allies Act to restore Medicaid eligibility for COFA citizens in the next COVID relief bill. In the Heroes Act, the House has already restored eligibility to this population, and it is time for the Senate to join them in righting an historic wrong. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, as we finally begin negotiations on the next COVID bill, I note that Democrats were ready to come to the table with a sense of urgency at least 2 months ago, when the House passed the Heroes Act. Before I begin my remarks on education today, I want to pay tribute to the life and work of an extraordinary public servant, my friend Congressman John Lewis. John was a remarkable man, whose deep convictions and concerted actions made an indelible mark on American history, and we could certainly spend hours chronicling his contributions to public life, from his speech at the March on Washington and the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge on Bloody Sunday to his leadership on gun safety, civil rights, and voting rights during his time in Congress. John meant so much to our country, but he also meant a lot to each of us who had the privilege to call him a friend and colleague. Almost everyone who served with John in his three-plus decades in the House has a story or two to tell. I certainly do. I fondly remember traveling with John to Ireland as part of a peace and reconciliation summit organized by the Faith and Politics Institute in 2014. During our trip, I remember how young Irish activists connected with John's powerful work as a civil rights leader committed to nonviolent resistance to oppression and peaceful reconciliation. The following year, I proudly marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge with John to mark the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday. One of the most cherished pictures in my office is one of John, me, and the late Hawaii Congressman Mark Takai from that day, and we were all wearing lei flown in from Hawaii. Mark, whom we also lost too soon to pancreatic cancer 4 years ago, and I organized the delivery of hundreds of lei that day to commemorate the gift from Hawaii's Rev. Abraham Akaka to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 50 years ago for the third march in Selma. News footage from that time showed Dr. King and other leaders wearing the white carnation lei sent by Reverend Akaka, the brother of the late Senator Dan Akaka. Over the years, that photo of the three of us in our fresh lei has always brought a smile to my face. I know many of my colleagues have similar stories to share, and it has been meaningful to hear so many people on both sides of the aisle recognize John's life and work in statements and speeches. It is certainly appropriate to honor John with our words, but it would be better if we honored John through our actions, because while John was certainly a gifted orator, he was also a man of action--of ``good trouble.'' The best way for us to honor John's extraordinary life's work would be for the Senate to vote on and pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act, now renamed in John's honor. Action, not just words.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I share the strong words and position and perspective of my wonderful colleagues, colleagues who spoke before me just now--Senators Harris, Booker, and Durbin--calling for real policing reform, not the bill that is coming before the floor tomorrow.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, in 2019, 21 people died in Hawaii in three tragic air recreation accidents involving helicopters or planes. On December 26, 2019, while many of us were enjoying the holidays with our loved ones and friends, seven people lost their lives when an air tour helicopter crashed into a mountain on the Island of Kauai. All aboard the helicopter were killed, a mother and daughter from Wisconsin, a family of four from Switzerland, and the pilot. We still do not know the cause of the crash. In April 2019, an air tour helicopter crashed on a street in the residential neighborhood of Kailua on the island of Oahu, killing all aboard: two passengers and the pilot. We were fortunate that no one on the ground was injured. On June 22, 2019, 11 people died when a small plane crashed during take- off on a skydiving trip from Dillingham Airfield on Oahu. In the first accident of 2020, on March 5, six people walked away after a hard landing of an air tour helicopter on the Big Island of Hawaii. No one on the helicopter was seriously injured. Since 2015, the National Transportation Safety Board, or NTSB, has investigated 10 air tour accidents in Hawaii and more than 46 nationwide. Senator Schatz and I are introducing the Air Tour and Skydiving Safety Improvement Act of 2020. The bill takes the outstanding safety issues and recommendations identified by the NTSB to improve the safety and accountability of air sightseeing tours and parachute tours. The Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA, has not implemented the NTSB's recommendations. In most years, Hawaii welcomes nearly 10 million visitors annually to enjoy everything Hawaii has to offer, from our Aloha spirit displayed by our resident, to the scenic beauty of the State. It is critical that the helicopters and planes taking both visitors and residents sightseeing or parachuting operate as safely as possible. The NTSB has recommended multiple improvements to the standards covering air tour and parachute operations by the FAA. In the aftermath of the helicopter crash in Kailua and the crash of two chartered floatplanes in Alaska, NTSB Chairman Robert L. Sumwalt said in May 2019: ``While these tragic accidents are still under investigation, and no findings or causes have been determined, each crash underscores the urgency of improving the safety of charter flights by implementing existing NTSB safety recommendations.'' To highlight this urgency, the NTSB put improvements to air tour aircraft on its 2019-2020 Most Wanted List of transportation safety improvements. Let me describe the provisions of the legislation. First, the bill requires parachute and air tour companies to operate under the same standards as other commercial air operations, such as commuter airlines under Part 135, which has certification standards. Currently, commercial companies can operate like private civil aircraft if they operate within 25 miles of their airport, under regulations found in Part 91. The NTSB recommends that all commercial air operations meet the same standards for training, certification, operations, and crew rest under part 135. The bill requires that the FAA establish a standard for terrain awareness and warning systems and minimum standards for training pilots to avoid flying into mountains and other terrain. This may have prevented the helicopter crash on Kauai in December 2019, which crashed into the side of a mountain. Following another NTSB recommendation, the bill requires operators install crash-resistant flight data recording equipment, we can learn more from accidents and to help identify flaws in equipment and improve pilot performance. The helicopter involved in the December 2019 crash in Kauai lacked flight data monitoring, so inspectors were uncertain of its flight path and performance. The bill requires the FAA to establish and implement a standard for remote monitoring of flight data. It also requires operators to establish a flight data monitoring program to identify changes from normal procedures and other potential safety issues. The bill includes provisions to make sure that the current and future recommendations of the NTSB are given full consideration by the FAA. It requires the FAA to indicate how their response to NTSB safety recommendations will meet or exceed safety outcomes of the NTSB 's recommendations, if the FAA declines to adopt the NTSB recommendations. The bill also directs the U.S. Department of Transportation to include NTSB recommendations on air tours and parachute operations in its annual report on aviation safety. The safety of parachute operations would be improved by the standards that I have described, but the bill also addresses the unique safety needs of parachute operations. The bill would require the FAA to develop new or revised regulations for parachute operations, including enhanced maintenance and inspection for aircraft and training and recurrent testing requirements for pilots. The bill we are introducing today would make great improvements to increase the safety of air tours. This is a first step. But this legislation does not address all the issues with air tour helicopters. The issues of noise, frequency, and safety associated with air tour operations in the State of Hawaii have been going on for decades. In September 2016, at the request of State Representative Onishi, my office requested a meeting for Big Island State legislators with the FAA Honolulu Flight Standards District Office, or FSDO, to address the issue of the helicopter noise for residents in East Hawaii. We learned at this meeting that FAA-FSDO and Hawaii Department of Transportation do not have the authority to address the noise issue raised by the community. In March 2017, FAA and the National Park Service representatives traveled to Hawaii from their DC headquarters to convene public listening sessions in Honolulu and Hilo, respectively, ``to better identify specific concerns with helicopter operations within and outside of national parks.'' Community members were looking for relief from noise issues associated with air tour overflights over residential areas. We were hopeful that these meetings were a signal of FAA's engagement so we could address community concerns with the air tour operators. Individuals from the community came prepared and raised questions about how other communities across the country have dealt with this issue including the New York North Shore Helicopter Route and the adjustments to routes over Los Angeles County. State and local governments, air tour companies, and the community were interested in engaging. Unfortunately, while the FAA initiated the meetings, they disappointed many in our community when they announced that their agency could only offer technical advice and the effort did not result in an air tour safety plan. In another example of FAA inaction, Congress required the FAA and the National Park Service to develop air tour management plans for our national parks under the Air Tour Management Act of 2000. For two decades, interagency fighting prevented any progress from being made. In 2018, the Hawaii Island Malama Pono Coalition and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, groups representing national park employees and visitors, filed a petition in Federal court to compel the agencies to regulate air tours at seven parks. On May 1, 2020, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the FAA and the National Park Service to develop air tour management plans for 23 national parks, including Haleakala National Park and Volcanoes National Park in Hawaii. The court found that the agencies' efforts were ``underwhelming,'' ``ultimately unsuccessful,'' and failed to develop the plans in a reasonable amount of time. The court expects the agencies to develop the air tour management plans for all 23 parks within 2 years, and the court will retain jurisdiction to continue oversight until the agencies have completed the plans. Volcanoes National Park was the subject of 8,333 air tour flights in 2018, over 22 flights per day, the highest number of air tour flights of any national park. Haleakala had the fourth most air tour flights in 2018, with 4,757 flights. The residents in the surrounding communities in the flight path and visitors trying to enjoy the quiet of nature are all too aware of the visual and the noise from air tour flights. With the decision by the Court, many in Hawaii now expect action in the development of air tour management plans for Hawaii's two national parks. Of course, air tours affect residents and communities in Hawaii throughout the State. On January 9 of this year, members of the Hawaii Helicopter Association, Hawaii Department of Transportation's Airports Division, appointees from the State legislature, and other stakeholders formed the Hawaii Air Noise and Safety Task Force with representatives from the FAA as technical advisers. The task force was created to ``fund public meetings, produce a study and make recommendations concerning the helicopter and fixed wing tour industry.'' It remains clear to me that the FAA needs to address its failure to oversee the air tour industry. On January 31, Senator Schatz and I joined in the Senate Commerce Committee's request for an investigation by the inspector general of the Department of Transportation into allegations that the FAA's Honolulu Flight Standards District Office ignored serious concerns about the safety of helicopter air tours in Hawaii. We requested an investigation into the oversight lapses raised by the whistleblowers. The ongoing investigation by the inspector general will show whether FAA is able to enforce its own rules in Hawaii. What remains clear is that the NTSB has recommended additional standards to the FAA to improve safety throughout the country, but the FAA has not addressed these safety issues. We have waited long enough for action. The legislation we are introducing will strengthen the rules to ensure accountability and safety for Hawaii's aviation operators and travelers.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today, in honor of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. Every year, throughout the month of May, the people of the United States join together to pay tribute to the contributions and achievements of generations of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders, AAPI, who have enriched the history, culture, and traditions of this country. Today, there are approximately 23,000,000 AAPis in the United States, representing more than 45 distinct ethnic groups and speaking over 100 language dialects. As the fastest growing minority population, the AAPI community continues to have an increasing impact on our national discourse. There are now 20 AAPI members of Congress, and a record number of AAPIs are serving in State and Territorial legislatures across the Nation. This year, as we celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month amid a pandemic, we recognize the over 2,000,000 AAPIS working on the frontlines as healthcare professionals, first responders, transit operators, and in supermarkets and other essential service industries. Every day, these heroic individuals risk their lives to protect the health and safety of Americans during the COVID-19 public health emergency. We also reflect broadly on the achievements and contributions of the AAPI community in the areas of politics and government, education and the arts, music, writing and literature, sports, business, medicine, and law. We pay tribute to the leaders before us, who overcame great adversity and paved the way forward. We honor great statesmen like Daniel Kahikina Akaka, the first person of Native Hawaiian ancestry to serve in the U.S. Senate. Throughout his nearly four decades in Congress, Senator Akaka worked to change the public's perception of the AAPI community and helped to preserve and restore Hawaiian language, culture, and traditions. Although he recently passed away, Senator Akaka's spirit as a true champion of aloha endures. We also remember influential labor organizers like Larry ltliong, Peter Velasco, and Philip Vera Cruz, who in 1965, led the Filipino- American farmworkers to strike alongside Cesar Chavez, demanding better pay, benefits, and working conditions. The Delano Grape Strike was one of the most pivotal civil rights and labor movements in American history. It opened doors for immigrants and people of color and inspired countless others to stand together and demand their rights. Around the time that the Filipino-American grape workers began their strike in 1965, Congress enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act, INA, also known as the Hart-Celler Act. This landmark legislation overturned discriminatory race- and nationality-based immigration policies that previously barred immigration from Asia. The INA established new policies based on reuniting families and attracting skilled professionals and helped refugees fleeing violence or unrest, notably those escaping war-torn Southeast Asia. By opening the United States to immigration from Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the INA's enduring legacy includes diversifying the demographic makeup of our country. This month, I introduced a resolution in honor of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. While we commemorate the contributions of the AAPI community, this pandemic has tested the strength of our nation. Anti-Asian racism and attacks are on the rise, stoked by those in the highest levels of government. This recent surge in discrimination and hate crimes against the AAPI community demonstrates how much work must still be done to achieve full equality. As a country of immigrants, we must now, more than ever, embrace the rich diversity of our communities, and stand up for the civil rights and equal treatment of all Americans.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I certainly appreciate what my colleague from Nebraska is trying to do. We are all working to do what we can to make sure our medical professionals, facilities, and the public have all the necessary equipment they need to address this pandemic. My concern with my colleague's proposal, as I understand it, is that it would provide immunity for respiratory manufacturers from this point forward. Yes, this is a public emergency and we need to respond accordingly, and we certainly need to make sure that respirators are widely available, but let's do this with safety in mind. I think we can come up with a bill that provides a more tailored approach to what my colleague is trying to do. For example, the House coronavirus package includes language which tracks the COVID-19 emergency countermeasures declaration issued by HHS which would extend countermeasure protections through 2024, rather than it be open-ended. I hope my colleague will work with me to expand access to this important equipment, but for now I must object. I certainly would like to count myself as among those who will provide bipartisan support for this measure, but, for now, because it is totally open-ended, I must object.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a bill that is at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read three times and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.