Mazie Hirono

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, so, once again, I repeat that this has nothing to do with stopping these respirators for this particular crisis to be included as necessary equipment under the current statute. I do think we ought to be able to come together to come up with a reasonable approach that can be supported in a bipartisan way.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. In response, I certainly am not arguing that there is not a need for respirators, but let me be very clear that this provides immunity for respirator manufacturers from this point onward. Again, I need to reiterate. This has nothing to do with recognizing the need for respirators. What I am arguing is there should be a timeframe for this because this protection is supposed to be during a public health crisis, and I am saying that the way the House is approaching this is, they would like to provide this protection for respirator manufacturers for a period of 4 years. We can certainly evaluate it at that point. So, clearly, my objection does not mean the death knell for this amendment. It means that we should work it out so we can provide an appropriate timeframe. So I, once again, reiterate my objection to the current form of this amendment.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I also want to thank Senators Udall and Merkley for their extraordinary work on the For the People Act. We are confronting a crisis in our democracy. We have a President who repeatedly invites foreign intervention in our elections, engages in widespread corruption, attacks the news media as part of a broader assault on the truth, and uses false claims of voter fraud to legitimize voter suppression across the country. These challenges to our democracy are not limited to the Trump administration, but this President has undoubtedly made things much, much worse. It is why I joined an overwhelming number of my Democratic colleagues of both Chambers of Congress in cosponsoring H.R. 1, the For the People Act. This crucial piece of legislation is the most expansive and serious attempt to strengthen American democracy in decades. Among its many provisions, this bill would root out corruption by attacking the dark money in our politics. The door was opened in the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court. This bill would also secure our elections from foreign interference and restore voter protections that Republicans have spent decades attacking for their own partisan political benefit. Like many of my colleagues, I am particularly focused on combating the Republican Party's efforts to disenfranchise millions of minority voters. I could spend hours detailing the efforts throughout American history to make it as difficult as possible--or even impossible--for people of color to vote. But today I want to focus on the impact of the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County. In this 5-to-4 decision, Chief Justice Roberts and the Court's conservative Justices effectively gutted the core protections of the Voting Rights Act. They decided that States with long histories of discrimination no longer had to obtain Federal approval for voting changes under the Voting Rights Act. As author Carol Anderson explained, Chief Justice Roberts has ``[l]ong [been] an opponent of the Voting Rights Act,'' and in Shelby County he used arguments that had been ``carefully crafted'' over ``several decades'' to eviscerate the Voting Rights Act. Without the constraints of the Voting Rights Act, States with long histories of discrimination ramped up voter suppression, from racist voter ID laws to eliminating early voting, to purging voter rolls and closing polling places. In the 6 years following the Shelby County decision, for example, States previously subjected to preclearance under the Voting Rights Act closed at least 1,688 polling sites. Texas alone closed 750 polling places. The closures had their intended effect. A study at Harvard University found that minority voters are six times more likely than White voters to wait longer than an hour to vote. Longer waits impose greater costs for voting on minorities and deter them from voting in future elections. We saw the impact of these policies just last week on Super Tuesday, which saw inordinately long lines in minority precincts in Texas. Mr. Hervis Rogers waited more than 6 hours to vote, but he was determined to make his voice heard. So when he got to his polling place at Texas Southern University, a historically Black college in Houston, he patiently waited in line until he could cast his vote at 1:30 in the morning. Mr. Rogers's experience last week speaks to one part of a broader problem. The Republican Party is so invested in voter suppression because they view it as an effective tool to win elections, and these efforts had devastating consequences for our country in the 2016 Presidential election--the first Presidential election held in 50 years that did not have the protections of the Voting Rights Act. We saw plummeting minority turnout across the country, including in the key swing States of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Carol Anderson observed that in 2016, 50,000 fewer people voted in 1--just 1--overwhelmingly African-American county in Wisconsin. Donald Trump, by comparison, won Wisconsin by only 27,000 votes. Efforts to further suppress the minority vote in swing States continue to date. Last year, for example, a conservative interest group sued Wisconsin's State Elections Commission to force a purge of 209,000 infrequent voters from the voter rolls. Although a lower State court granted the conservative group's request, a Wisconsin appeals court put the voter purge on hold while the fight in court continues. These ongoing voter suppression efforts serve as stark reminders of why we need to pass the For the People Act. This bill not only blocks common strategies Republicans have used to make it harder for minorities to vote, but it also includes critical democracy reforms to make their votes count. This legislation would also set strong national standards to protect voting access that reflect and improve upon steps that have already been taken by States like Hawaii. Last year, for example, Hawaii became the fourth State in the country to provide mail-in ballots to all voters. Our State also has same-day voter registration, preregistration for residents under the age of 18, and a 10-day early voting period. While some States are stepping up to protect voting rights, Congress needs to take strong and decisive action to restore voting rights and end voter suppression across the country. We also need to take an equally strong stand against Donald Trump's efforts to pack our Federal courts with judges who have dedicated their careers to undermining the voting rights of minorities. At the Supreme Court, where Donald Trump has appointed two Justices, there have been a number of cases attacking the voting rights of minority communities, and there are real concerns that the Roberts Court will continue to uphold these voter suppression efforts. In the lower courts, Trump judges include Andrew Brasher, now an Eleventh Circuit judge, who argued in support of gutting the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County case; and Kyle Duncan, now a Fifth Circuit judge, who defended North Carolina's discriminatory voting law that the Fourth Circuit found--and I quote the Fourth Circuit-- ``target[ed] African Americans with almost surgical precision.'' These are overt acts to suppress voting. President Trump's hostility to voting rights is so extreme. He is appointing anti-voting rights advocates even to courts that do not handle voting issues, such as Stephen Schwartz for the Court of Federal Claims and Stephen Vaden for the Court of International Trade. Both have no experience with these courts, but both have defended North Carolina's discriminatory voting law. The right to vote is one of our most sacred rights, and we must do all that we can to protect it for all Americans. That is why I will continue to fight back against Donald Trump's court packing and fight for the passage of critical legislation like the For the People Act. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, the Constitution vests Congress with the power to declare war and ultimately to authorize the use of military force in order to provide a critical check on a President's decision to deploy troops overseas. Congress has for too long abdicated this responsibility in deference to Presidents from both parties. Presidents have used a broad interpretation of the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force to justify American military interventions in far-flung theaters such as Yemen and North Africa. I have supported bipartisan efforts to revisit these authorizations because nearly 20 years later, they are still being used to justify action unforeseen by the Congress that initially approved them. This effort has become more urgent as this President's reckless, impulsive actions are bringing us precipitously close to war with Iran. Contrary to whatever he says, Donald Trump's Iran policy has not made us safer. In fact, his Iran policy has undermined America's national security, isolated the United States from our allies, put the safety of American troops at risk, and, yes, brought us closer to war. To understand how we arrived at this moment and why Congress needs to act, we should begin by evaluating the consequences of the President's misguided and dangerous decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal. By all accounts, the administration inherited a deal that was working, one painstakingly negotiated over many months with the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, and Iran. It bears repeating. The deal explicitly stated in its first paragraph that ``Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons,'' and it put a comprehensive, intrusive, and verifiable enforcement mechanism in place to achieve this objective. It blocks pathways Iran would need to produce the highly enriched uranium or plutonium it would take to produce a nuclear weapon. Under the verification regime created by the deal, international inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, were afforded extensive access within Iran to ensure their compliance. The Iran nuclear deal was reached through tough, principled diplomacy. These negotiations culminated in an agreement that world leaders could credibly declare would prevent Iran from ever obtaining nuclear weapons. In May 2018, President Trump recklessly undermined our credibility and isolated the United States from our allies by unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal. It is important to emphasize that Iran was in compliance with the agreement when the President tore it up. Our unilateral withdrawal from the agreement and the administration's subsequent so-called maximum pressure campaign has exposed the United States to enormous risk. We have seen the consequences almost every day for the past 2 years as Donald Trump has engaged in an escalating and increasingly violent tit-for-tat with Iran. The President's chaotic escalation culminated with his impulsive and incredibly risky decision to target and kill high-level Iranian and Iraqi military officials, including Iranian General Soleimani, on Iraqi soil. The question before us is not whether General Soleimani deserved this fate. He was a loathsome figure who was responsible for killing many U.S. servicemembers and for orchestrating terrorism throughout the Middle East. The question before us is whether carrying out this risky and provocative act made the United States and the Middle East safer or more secure. It has not. Over the past month, the consequences of the President's impulsive actions have become clearer. We now know President Trump directed the attack without notifying leaders in Congress or our Iraqi partners or even our allies who have troops positioned in Iraq. He ordered the attack without preparing for what came next, exposing the United States to further hostilities without a plan for how to deescalate tensions. After Iran retaliated with a coordinated missile strike on American military infrastructure in Iraq, the President was quick to reassure the public that no American soldiers were harmed in the counterattack. We now know this was a lie. After weeks of denials--or even comments from the President that some troops were suffering from ``headaches''-- the Pentagon on Monday finally acknowledged that 109 servicemembers suffered traumatic brain injuries in the Iranian attack. For the President of the United States to make light of these serious injuries--injuries that, in many cases, may impact these soldiers for the rest of their lives--is unconscionable and dishonors the service and sacrifices made every day by our men and women in uniform. In a sign that tensions continue to escalate, the President has deployed more than 14,000 additional servicemembers to the Middle East in the wake of the strike on General Soleimani, exposing even more Americans to potential retaliation from Iran or its regional proxies. These developments further reinforce our conclusion that President Trump did not give much thought to the consequences of his actions. The administration has provided ever-evolving and very troubling after-the-fact explanations that fail to assuage our concerns about this impulsive decision. Only a few weeks ago, the President tweeted in all caps that ``Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.'' Given that the President tore up the Iran nuclear deal which would have prevented Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon, one cannot help but question where this bellicose rhetoric is coming from and what it portends. The American people have made it explicitly clear that they do not want to go to war with Iran, especially if war is the result of the President's reckless and impulsive actions. It is therefore imperative that Congress exercise its exclusive--exclusive--war powers under article I of the Constitution to prevent this President from launching a disastrous war with Iran. In normal times, we could have confidence during a crisis like this that the President of the United States would mobilize a whole-of- government response to this crisis, and in normal times, the President would lead our allies and the international community in seeking a diplomatic outcome to our escalating tensions with Iran, but these are not normal times. Congress must reassert its constitutional authority by demanding the President seek explicit authorization prior to any military action against Iran. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Senator Tim Kaine's War Powers Resolution tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, when the Framers debated whether to include the power of impeachment in the Constitution, they envisioned a moment very much like the one we face now. They were fearful of a corrupt President who would abuse the Presidency for his or her personal gain, particularly one who would allow any foreign country to interfere in the affairs of our United States. With this fear in mind, the Framers directed the Senate to determine whether to ultimately remove that President from office. In normal times, the Senate--conscious of its awesome responsibility--would meet this moment with the appropriate sobriety and responsibility to conduct a full and fair trial. That includes calling appropriate witnesses and subpoenaing relevant documents, none of which happened here. In normal times, the Senate would have weighed the evidence presented by both sides and rendered impartial justice. And in normal times, having been presented with overwhelming evidence of impeachable acts, the Senate would have embraced its constitutional responsibility to convict the President and remove him or her from office. But as we have learned too often over the past 3 years, these are not normal times. Instead of fulfilling its duty later today, the U.S. Senate will fail its test at a crucial moment of our country by voting to acquit Donald J. Trump of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate cannot blame its constitutional failure on the House managers. They proved their case with overwhelming and compelling evidence. Manager Jerry Nadler laid out a meticulous case demonstrating how and why the President's actions rose to the constitutional standard for impeachment and removal. Manager Hakeem Jeffries explained how Donald Trump ``directly pressured the Ukrainian leader to commence phony political investigations as a part of his effort to cheat and solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election.'' Manager Val Demings walked us through the evidence of how Donald Trump used $391 million of taxpayer money to pressure Ukraine to announce politically motivated investigations. She concluded: ``This is enough to prove extortion in court.'' Manager Sylvia Garcia showed us how Donald Trump's demand for investigations was purely for his personal, political benefit. She debunked the conspiracy theories the President's counsel raised against former Vice President Joe Biden--Donald Trump's political rival and the true target of his corrupt scheme. Manager Jason Crow described vividly the human costs of withholding aid from Ukrainian troops fighting a hot war against Russia. Manager Adam Schiff tied together the evidence of Donald Trump's abuse of power--the most serious of impeachable offenses and one that includes extortion and bribery. And manager Zoe Lofgren used her extensive experience to provide perspective on Donald Trump's unprecedented, unilateral, and complete obstruction of Congress to cover up his corrupt scheme. She is the only Member of Congress to be involved in three Presidential impeachments. The President's lawyers could not refute the House's case. Instead, they ultimately resorted to the argument that, even accepting the facts as presented by the House managers, Donald Trump's conduct is not impeachable. It is what I have called the ``He did it; so what?'' argument. Many of my Republican colleagues are using the ``So what?'' argument to justify their votes to let the President off the hook. Yet the senior Senator from Tennessee said: ``I think he shouldn't have done it. I think it was wrong.'' He said it was ``inappropriate'' and ``improper, crossing a line.'' But he refused to hold the President accountable, arguing that the voters should decide. The junior Senator from Iowa said: ``The President has a lot of latitude to do what he wants to do'' but he ``did it maybe in the wrong manner.'' She also said that ``whether you like what the President did or not,'' the charges didn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense. The junior Senator from Ohio called the President's actions ``wrong and inappropriate'' but said they did not ``rise to the level of removing a duly-elected president from office and taking him off the ballot in the middle of an election.'' And the senior Senator from Florida went so far as to say: ``Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a president from office.'' By refusing to hold this President accountable, my Republican colleagues are reinforcing the President's misguided belief that he can do whatever he wants under article II of the U.S. Constitution. Donald Trump was already a danger to this country. We have seen it in his policy decisions--from taking away healthcare from millions of Americans to threatening painful cuts to Social Security and Medicare, to engaging in an all-out assault on immigrants in this country. But today, we are called on to confront a completely different type of danger--one that goes well beyond the significant policy differences I have with this President. If we let Donald Trump get away with extorting the President of another country for his own personal, political benefit, the Senate will be complicit--complicit--in his next corrupt scheme. Which country will he bully or invite to interfere in our elections next? Which pot of taxpayer money will he use as a bribe to further his political schemes? Later today, I will vote to convict and remove President Donald Trump for abusing his power and obstructing Congress. I am under no illusion that my Republican colleagues will do the same. They have argued it is up to the American people to decide, as though impeachment were not a totally separate, constitutional remedy for a lawless President. As I considered my vote, I listened closely to Manager Schiff's closing statement about why the Senate needs to convict this President. He said: I do not ask you to convict him because truth or right or decency matters nothing to him-- He is referring to the President-- but because we have proven our case, and it matters to you. Truth matters to you. Right matters to you. You are decent. He is not who you are. It is time for the Senate to uphold its constitutional responsibility by convicting this President and holding him accountable. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. ``Aloha.'' I send a question to the desk for the House managers.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chief Justice.

Ms. HIRONO. I send a question to the desk for the House managers.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago today, the State of Hawaii was in shock as an active shooter took the lives of two workers at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and wounded a third worker. Located on Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, the shipyard is a pillar of our community. It employs over 6,400 workers who labor every day to keep our Pacific Fleet ``Fit to Fight.'' Hawaii is a small place where we have deep connections to one another. Almost everyone in Hawaii either is related to or knows someone who works on base or in the shipyard. In my State office in Honolulu, a member of my staff has a son who is an apprentice at the shipyard and who was there that day. These connections are part of the reason why the shooting has impacted our State so deeply. Too many families were waiting that day for news of their loved ones in harm's way. The investigation into what happened is ongoing, and there is no easy explanation for what happened and why. It is clear that no community in our country is immune from the tragedy of gun violence. Today, I rise to honor the lives of those we lost--Roldan A. Agustin and Vincent J. Kapoi, Jr. Mr. Kapoi and Mr. Agustin were both dedicated Department of Defense-- DOD--civilian shipyard workers and members of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 121. Roldan Agustin was 49 years old and lived in Ewa Beach. He was adored by his family, who describe him as a ``true American patriot'' who dedicated his career to his country. After serving honorably in the U.S. Navy, Mr. Agustin also served in the Army National Guard, retiring as a staff sergeant, having deployed to Afghanistan and Kuwait. At Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, he served as a DOD civilian employee, working as a shop planner in nondestructive testing and a metals inspector. In paying tribute to their lost loved one, Mr. Agustin's family said in a statement: He was a loving son, brother, uncle, and friend to many. Having grown up in Waipahu, Roldan enjoyed working on cars with his friends and spending time with his family and adored his nieces. We will forever remember Roldan to be humble and honest, and a generous and patient man. Vincent Kapoi was 30 years old and lived in Honolulu. He grew up in Waianae and graduated from Kamehameha schools. His father, brother, sister, and sister-in-law are also civilian employees at the shipyard, where he served as a metals inspector apprentice. He was dearly loved by his family, which includes his wife, parents, siblings, aunties, uncles, grandmother, cousins, and friends. His wife offered these loving words: I have been through a lot of tragedy in my life, but nothing compares to losing the love of your life. I will miss you truly, and I will always love you Vincent J. Kapoi Jr. His sister Theona said in a family statement: He will always be that easy going, fun loving, ``let's do this'' man that will remain in our hearts. There are so many unanswered questions. We all have to be honest, it changes nothing because we can't bring him back. What we must do is honor his memory, keep him alive in our hearts. I also want to honor Roger Nakamine, who was wounded in the attack. Mr. Nakamine was working as a civilian apprentice at the shipyard when he was wounded. Upon leaving the hospital about a week after the attack, Mr. Nakamine said: My family and I would like to express our gratitude to the first responders and the expert medical staff at Queen's, as well as to all the friends and extended `ohana who have been reaching out to offer their support physically, emotionally and spiritually. Our deepest condolences go out to the friends and family of Vincent Kapoi Jr. and Roldan Agustin. Roldan and Vincent, like thousands of their fellow workers, dedicated themselves to the shipyard's critically important mission of repairing, maintaining, and modernizing the U.S. Pacific Fleet in defense of our country. In recognition of their service and in keeping with the words of their families, I ask all my colleagues to join me in honoring the lives of those we lost: Roldan Agustin and Vincent Kapoi, Jr. This is a photograph that depicts the memorial, which was set up the day after this tragedy, where friends and family brought lei to honor their fallen heroes, their loved ones. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, last week, my colleague Senator Blumenthal stood on the floor of this Chamber to talk about the epidemic of gun violence in our country. Gun violence is an issue that hits close to home for my friend from Connecticut. Seven years ago, his home State was the site of one of the most horrific acts of gun violence anyone can imagine. A young man armed with an assault rifle opened fire in Sandy Hook Elementary School, murdering 20 first graders and 6 adults. While he spoke on the floor of this Senate, Senator Blumenthal was handed a note informing him that, at that very moment, an active shooter was on the loose at another school--this one in Santa Clarita, CA. This marked the 243rd instance of gun violence at a school in this country since the massacre at Columbine High School in 1999. Sadly, today, school shootings have become almost routine and commonplace. It has gotten to the point that students are fearful but, sadly, not surprised when a shooting occurs at their school. Following an attack last year at Santa Fe High School in Texas that killed eight students and two teachers, 17-year-old student Paige Curry was asked whether there was a part of her that couldn't believe this happened at her school. Her response was heartbreaking. She said: There wasn't. She said: It's been happening everywhere. I've always felt it would eventually happen here too. This is the country we now live in: a country where we have more guns than we have people; a country where a mass shooting--that is a shooting involving the death or injury of four or more victims--occurs, on average, more than once every day; a country where school shootings occur frequently enough that students feel it will eventually happen at their own school. This is not the country any of us should want to live in. Yet the U.S. Senate--one of the few institutions that can actually do something to help prevent gun violence--does nothing. Gun violence kills 100 people in our country every day--every day. That is 3,000 people a month and 36,000 people a year. This is a crisis, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not treating it like one. Perhaps looking at the numbers--100 people dying every day--is just way too abstract. How would the majority leader react if the entire population of Sparta, KY--all 231 residents--disappeared in less than 3 days? How would the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee react if all 128 residents of Livingston, SC, disappeared in a little over a day? How would my colleagues from Texas react if Bartlett's 2,600 residents were killed in just under a month? This is the scale of what is happening in our country every single day, week, and year. This is a crisis, and it is past time Senate Republicans start treating it like one. Here is what we can do right now. We can join the House in passing H.R. 8, a bill that would close loopholes in the background check system. More than 90 percent of the American public supports this bill. Although it passed the House 266 days ago--almost a year ago--the majority leader refuses to even bring the bill to the Senate floor for a vote. We can also pass S. 66, which would reinstitute the Federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. I have joined Senator Feinstein and 34 of my colleagues in cosponsoring this commonsense measure, but the Republican majority refuses to hold a hearing or otherwise consider it. We can finally pass an extreme risk protection order bill that would allow police or family members to petition a court to remove firearms from people who may be a danger to themselves or to others, and despite repeated promises after each mass shooting that we will get a vote, the vote never comes. We all know none of these bills alone will end gun violence in our country, but they will help keep guns out of the hands of those who are a danger to themselves and others. They will make those guns that remain available for sale far less lethal. In other words, the bills will make us safer. Republicans refuse to take any of these commonsense steps. Instead, they cower before the NRA, an organization that curries favor with gun manufacturers and gun rights extremists by opposing seemingly every piece of gun safety legislation that is introduced; this, in spite of the fact that a strong majority of the NRA's claimed 5 million members actually support stronger gun safety protections. We all remember the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, where it seemed for a brief moment Congress might pass a gun safety bill for the first time in a generation. Senators Manchin and Toomey introduced a modest background check proposal that actually came to the Senate floor for a vote, but what happened? The NRA came out against the bill, and nearly every Republican Member of the Senate fell in line to defeat it. The vote came in the aftermath of a shooting that took the lives of 20 innocent elementary school children, and my Republican colleagues chose to side with the NRA and its $50-plus million in campaign donations. Today those first graders who were killed would be in the eighth grade, and yet we still haven't passed a background check law. We have seen the NRA block commonsense gun safety bills time and again. Most recently, President Trump voiced support for strengthening background checks in the wake of mass shootings in El Paso, Dayton, and Gilroy. He tweeted that ``Republicans and Democrats must come together and get strong background checks.'' Days later, he spoke on the phone with the NRA executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre and quickly changed his tune. Suddenly, our loophole-ridden background system became ``very, very strong,'' to quote the President. He no longer saw a need for additional legislation. The President of the United States is often called the most powerful man in the world. Yet, in the face of opposition from the NRA, Donald Trump proved himself anything but. Like so many people across the country, I am angry and frustrated that Republicans in Congress seem to care more about satisfying the NRA than taking commonsense steps to keep our communities safe. Every day that Republicans in Congress refuse to act costs lives. In the 6 days following the November 14 shooting in which two people were killed and three others wounded at Saugus High School, there have been at least four more mass shootings. On November 16, five were killed and one wounded in a murder-suicide in Paradise Hills, CA. On November 17, four were killed and an additional six were wounded when gunmen opened fire at a backyard party at Fresno, CA. That same day, four were injured when a gunman fired shots into a home outside Cleveland, OH. On November 18, one was killed and four injured in a shooting in Newark, NJ. These shootings happen quickly--16 seconds in the case of the Saugus High School shooting in Santa Clarita. This is hardly enough time to expect the proverbial ``good guy with a gun'' to protect innocent men, women, and children caught in the line of fire. Failing to take decisive action to confront the crisis of gun violence in our country makes the Senate complicit in its continuation. Instead of making more excuses for the Senate's inaction, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should stop hiding behind the NRA and join us in passing commonsense gun safety legislation that will save lives. As our country endures mass shooting after mass shooting, I have to ask, at what point do we say, ``Enough''? When will my Republican colleagues turn their backs on the NRA's leadership, listen to the 90 percent of the American people and the rank-and-file NRA members who join them, and pass gun safety laws? The cost of continued inaction is far too high. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Wake up. What is it going to take? What is it going to take? I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, reserving my right to object. My colleague's bill was just dropped literally on my lap just now. I certainly have not had a chance to read through the bill, but the last paragraph of this bill--which by the way I think it is called the Whistleblower Protection Act--anyway, the last section of his bill caught my eye, and I will read it to you. ``Section 5. Ensuring Sixth Amendment protections. Congress reaffirms that in the case of criminal proceedings, prosecutions, and impeachment arising from the disclosures of whistleblowers, that the accused has a right to confront his or her accuser in such proceedings and that right is not superseded by the Whistleblower Protection Act.'' So suddenly the Sixth Amendment right for a defendant to confront the accuser is being applied to the impeachment proceeding. It has never been done before. By doing this, the Senator from Kentucky, in my view, is truly undermining the Whistleblower Protection Act. So to call his bill the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2019 is, in my view, laughable. By the way, in this particular instance we don't need the whistleblower's testimony. The whistleblower's complaint, the substance of her complaint, has been corroborated numerous times. So all this is to send the message out there that all you people who work for the Federal Government, if you see some kind of wrongdoing misdeed going on, don't come forward because expect retribution, expect the President to come after you, expect the President's minions to come after you. What is the point of having a whistleblower statute which--you know, which is a duty, it imposes a duty on Federal employees to come forward--and at the same time as we impose this duty, we have the good Senator's resolution saying: Yes, come forward, but we are going to out you, subject you to threats, intimidation, retaliation. This whistleblower's own attorney has said that her safety is in question, so using the Sixth Amendment and sort of tie it to impeachment proceedings is--I am just flabbergasted. Mr. President, I object.

Ms. HIRONO. I think the Senator from Kentucky should listen because I certainly did not find the Sixth Amendment laughable. I found his resolution, calling it the Whistleblower Protection Act, which in fact undermines whistleblower protections, appalling and laughable. With that, I, once again, object to his request.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, if you work for the Federal Government, you work for the people. You have a duty by law to come forward to report misconduct, fraud, misdemeanors, and other crimes going on in government. This duty has been on the books since 1778. Why? Because people working in government are in a pretty good position to see when something is not right in their workplace. We want a government that is doing right by us. It is not easy for whistleblowers to come forward to report wrongdoing in government. That is why we have laws that protect a whistleblower from intimidation, discrimination, and retaliation, and laws that protect their identity. On August 12, a whistleblower--and we don't know whether this was a man or a woman, so for ease of reference, I will refer to the whistleblower as ``she''--came forward, as the law required, to file a complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. The complaint alleged that the President was ``using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.'' The inspector general, also as required, determined that the complaint was credible and involved an urgent concern. The House, on learning of the whistleblower's complaint, began to ask questions. What did the House investigation uncover? That the whistleblower's complaint was right. Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine; Tim Morrison, the top Russia and Eastern Europe expert on the National Security Council; and others have corroborated the whistleblower's complaint about the President. Just yesterday, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, confirmed that security assistance for Ukraine was dependent on the Ukranian Government's launching an investigation into the President's political opponents. Let's face it. What Donald Trump did was wrong. It is wrong for the President of the United States to shake down the Ukrainian President to get dirt on his political rivals in return for almost $400 million in U.S. military aid to help Ukraine fight Russia. Faced with growing evidence of Donald Trump's wrongdoing, what happens? What happens is a President and his minions attack the whistleblower, suggesting that she was spying and guilty of treason. Donald Trump has threatened the whistleblower with ``Big Consequences''--capital B, capital C--and put her safety at risk with comments such as: ``I do not know why a person that defrauds the American public should be protected.'' Guess what, he wasn't talking about himself. Donald Trump's devoted rightwing allies have been quick to echo and amplify the President's attacks. The whistleblower's own attorney warned Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire that the President's threats are compromising her personal safety. Just last Sunday, Donald Trump said: ``There have been stories written about a certain individual, a male, and they say he's the whistleblower . . . if it's him, you guys ought to release the information.'' House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy also insisted that the whistleblower ``should come before the committee . . . he needs to answer the questions.'' While speaking at a Trump campaign rally, my colleague from Kentucky who has joined me on the floor today, demanded that the media print the name of the whistleblower. Representative Jim Jordan, one of Donald Trump's fiercest allies, dismissed the whistleblower as biased and called for her identity to be made public. With his attacks on the whistleblower, Donald Trump has made clear that he will use the full power of his office to bully, intimidate, and threaten anyone who dares to stand up to him or to speak out against him. Can you imagine what a young career foreign service officer at the State Department might do after seeing the President tell the world that whistleblowers are spies who defraud our government? Do you think that person would risk destroying their career and suffer the wrath of Donald Trump and his fiercest allies and supporters in reporting the President's misconduct? How about a career employee at the Department of Defense who sees that military aid is being held up to pressure a foreign government to help the President of the United States win reelection? Do you think that Defense Department employee would risk being accused of betraying our country and acting as a spy? Let's be clear here: The real purpose of these attacks is to scare anyone else who may be thinking of coming forward to stay silent. We see the President, time and time again, through tweets, in interviews, at his rallies, openly attacking anyone who questions or disagrees with him. The chilling effect of what the President is doing cannot be overstated. It totally undercuts our whistleblower laws. These are not normal times. In normal times, we would be protecting whistleblowers. That is what this resolution does. The resolution I am presenting affirms that if anyone expects public servants to report misconduct, we have a corresponding duty to protect their identity and safeguard them from retaliation, from threats. The whistleblower has done her duty. Now, we need to do ours. Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 408 introduced earlier today; that the resolution be agreed to; the preamble be agreed to; and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, studies show that women and underrepresented minorities face substantial barriers to completing educational opportunities and pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Congress and the Federal government should be doing more to help women and underrepresented minorities succeed in these areas, which will strengthen our economy and communities in the long-term. For these reasons, I come to the floor today to reintroduce the STEM Opportunities Act of 2019 and the Women and Minorities in STEM Booster Act of 2019, two important bills that would help to broaden participation in STEM and strengthen our nation's STEM pipeline for women and minorities. Recent trends indicate that we are not keeping pace with training the scientists and engineers we will need for the 21st century careers of the future. Unfortunately, women and minorities too often ``leak'' out of the STEM pipeline before completing degrees in these critical fields. In order for the United States to remain competitive in our increasingly global economy, we need to make sure opportunities are available for everyone because only when everyone succeeds can we all succeed. As members of Congress, we have a responsibility to ensure that our country remains competitive and provides opportunities for all Americans. We have an important role to play in breaking down barriers for women and minorities in STEM and must work to ensure that Federal government agencies, Federal laboratories, institutions of higher education, State and local governments, industry, and nonprofit stakeholders are working collaboratively to support these efforts. The STEM Opportunities Act represents a comprehensive approach to improving the severe shortage and lack of diversity in our Nation's STEM pipeline by addressing factors that limit the progression of women and minorities in research environments and implementing research-based practices to improve the recruitment and retention of faculty and students. Specifically, the bill would provide for guidance, data collection, and grants for women and minorities in STEM at institutions of higher education and at federal science agencies to improve access and reduce cultural and institutional barriers that limit diversity in STEM research and careers. The Women and Minorities in STEM Booster Act represents a more targeted approach to strengthening the STEM pipeline, by providing for training, outreach, mentoring, and other resources for women and minorities in STEM. Specifically, the bill would require the National Science Foundation to award competitive grants to promote activities such as online workshops, mentoring programs, internship opportunities, outreach efforts, and other designed to increase recruitment and retention of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM. It is through these purposeful efforts that we, as a nation, can foster a stronger, more expansive, and diverse STEM workforce that will help us remain a competitive force around the world. As we work to build and maintain our STEM workforce, it is important for us to promote opportunities for women and minorities that encourage participation so that we engage our entire talent pool and ensure that our nation's future economic and national security are secure. We have made important strides to provide opportunities for women and minorities in our country, but more work remains and we should continue our efforts by considering and passing these bills. I thank my colleagues for joining me in reintroducing the bills, and encourage others to join us as we work to strengthen the STEM pipeline for everyone in the United States.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, over the past 2\1/2\ years, we have seen a remarkable pattern emerge in the types of people Donald Trump nominates to serve in his administration. His nominees have extensive conflicts of interest. They work to advance the interest of foreign clients, financial patrons, or other special interests. In doing so, they are actively hostile to the very departments in which they have been nominated to serve. Daniel Jorjani--the President's nominee to serve as Solicitor of the Department of the Interior--is a classic example of this pattern. The DOI Solicitor is a critically important position in the Department. In addition to being the chief legal adviser to the Secretary, the Solicitor is intimately involved in developing the legal justifications for Department policies, defending DOI positions in court, and overseeing compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA. Given the influence the Department's Solicitor has on issues, such as the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, stewardship of public lands, and holding companies accountable for their impacts on the environment, it is essential that whoever occupies this job can execute his or her duties in a manner that upholds the public trust. With the nomination of Daniel Jorjani, Donald Trump has once again shown that he prioritizes exploiting our environment for the benefit of fossil fuel companies over the very real interests of the American people and protecting our environment. Prior to joining the Trump administration, Mr. Jorjani spent 7 years working in organizations throughout the Koch brothers' sprawling empire. In positions such as the general counsel of Freedom Partners, Mr. Jorjani assisted the Koch brothers in pursuing a relentlessly pro- fossil fuel agenda. He fought against the Obama administration's actions to combat climate change and protect the environment. It was with precisely this experience in mind that Donald Trump appointed Mr. Jorjani as the Principal Deputy Solicitor and Acting Solicitor of DOI in 2017. During his tenure in these roles, which did not require Senate confirmation, Mr. Jorjani wasted little time before mounting a full frontal assault on Obama-era environmental regulations, to the delight of his former patrons. Of the eight Solicitor's legal opinions that Mr. Jorjani authored, seven roll back Obama-era environmental regulations. Let me focus on one example that certainly sticks out. In a stunning reversal of a 2017 opinion issued by then-Solicitor Hilary Tompkins, Mr. Jorjani pushed to shield companies from liability for killing birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as long as it was not the company's intended action. That is like saying BP shouldn't have to pay to clean up the Deepwater Horizon oilspill because they didn't intend to release nearly 5 million barrels--200 million gallons--of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Clearly, companies should not be shielded from their negligence. Mr. Jorjani's reversal of the opinion overturned existing Department enforcement practices that had been in place for the past 40 years. The oil and gas industry had been complaining about this rule for years precisely because it held them accountable for their actions. When I asked Mr. Jorjani directly at his confirmation hearing about which industry benefited most from this reversal decision of his, he claimed: ``I'm not aware of any particular industry that benefits from this.'' Who is he trying to kid? My reaction to Mr. Jorjani's shibai--or BS-- answer is that the oil and gas industries are the biggest beneficiaries. He knew it, and I knew it. Mr. Jorjani's actions are particularly alarming in light of a new study that found that North America has lost 3 billion birds--nearly 30 percent of our total bird population--in the past 50 years. In normal times, we expect leaders of the Interior Department to pursue policies to mitigate the harm being done to our ecosystems and environment, not to do things that will actually make big problems even worse. But these are not normal times. Instead, we have yet another Trump nominee with extensive conflicts of interest, pursuing policies that help his former employers in a manner that is fundamentally hostile to the Department in which he or she serves. Fitting the Trump administration's normal pattern of corruption should be more than enough to deny him confirmation to this critical job, but Mr. Jorjani--just like his boss, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt--is also currently under investigation by the DOI inspector general. Mr. Jorjani is under investigation for potential misconduct related to his management of the Department's compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, and its so-called supplemental review policy. Under this policy, political appointees at the Department are notified about the public release of any documents containing their names or email addresses. This policy can be problematic even in normal times. It could result in political interference in the FOIA process to delay the release of potentially damaging information, but DOI allegedly has an additional internal review policy that goes even further. It allows Mr. Jorjani and the Department's Deputy Chief of Staff 5 days before release to review requested records that involve senior staff in the Secretary's office. This review process not only opens up the possibility for inappropriate delays but also allows for willful and blatant withholding of important information the public has requested. In response to questions at his confirmation hearing and questions for the record, Mr. Jorjani asserted that he ``typically did not review records prior to their release under the FOIA.'' However, internal documents released by the DOI paint a very different picture, one in which Mr. Jorjani was regularly involved in reviewing FOIA documents. At best, Mr. Jorjani was not forthcoming or candid. In fact, it appeared that he lied under oath. With a position as important as this one, the American people deserve, at the very least, an ethical Solicitor devoted to the mission of the Department, one who is not compromised by or catering to the narrow interests of his former employers or one who doesn't tell his staff, as Mr. Jorjani told his staff, that ``at the end of the day our job is to protect the Secretary.'' Protecting the Secretary is nowhere in Mr. Jorjani's job description. He is yet another Trump nominee who should not be confirmed by the Senate. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, our country demands that we take action to confront the crisis of gun violence. One hundred people die from gun violence in our country every single day. If 100 people died every day because of any other single cause, even Republicans would call it an epidemic and demand that we do something about it. Think about it. The lives of 100 men, women, and children are cut tragically short by someone using a firearm every single day in our country. Some of them are killed sitting in church, others while shopping for school supplies, and others while sitting in their classrooms. Some are targeted because they are Latino, Jewish, Muslim, Black, gay, or transgender. Some are killed for reasons we will never know. Victims of gun violence come from all walks of life and different circumstances, but they were all struck down by someone with a firearm--firearms which in many cases were purchased legally because we have gaping loopholes in our gun safety laws; firearms which, even when purchased legally, too often end up in the hands of someone who has absolutely no business owning a gun. There are a lot of steps Congress can take--and my colleague just articulated some of them--to combat the crisis of gun violence in our country. We can ban assault weapons. We can ban high-capacity magazines. We can look at requiring gun licensing at the national level. Each of these steps would make a major difference in combating gun violence, but I acknowledge that they would be controversial and are unlikely to pass, to become law, in the current Congress. But there is one step the Senate can take right now to confront the gun violence epidemic in our country. The Senate can take up and pass H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, which passed the House nearly 7 months ago. This legislation passed with a strong bipartisan vote to close the loopholes in our background check system. It would require checks not just for firearms purchased from licensed dealers but also from unlicensed individuals at gun shows, between friends, and between most unrelated people. Some people say that will not do much and that it will just be a drop in the bucket, but when that bucket is overflowing, as it is now, with the blood of innocent people, anything we do will help curb this epidemic. At a time when our country is deeply divided on so many issues, it is noteworthy that 90 percent of Americans support universal background checks--90 percent. The American public knows a sensible gun safety bill when they see one, even if too many Members of Congress remain blind. Sensible gun safety laws work. I know that because Hawaii, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws on the books, is, according to the Centers for Disease Control, the State with the lowest rate of death by firearms in the Nation. Anyone in Hawaii wanting to buy a gun, whether from a licensed dealer or private seller, must apply for a permit in their county, and they cannot receive a permit unless they pass a background check. The permit applicant has to sign a waiver allowing the county to access their mental health records, and, of course, there is a check of the Federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. If they fail a background check, they can't purchase a gun. They are reported to law enforcement and prosecuting officials in the State in case they try again to purchase a gun. Being this careful about who can own a gun has resulted in Hawaii being the most gun-safe State in the country. In Hawaii, the CDC reported 2.5 firearm deaths per 100,000 people for 2017, the most recently available data. Compare that to Texas, with 12.4 deaths per 100,000; or Kentucky, with 16.2 deaths; or, sadly, Alabama, with 22.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Of course, there are many factors at play in these statistics, but we can't deny that being more careful about who gets to own a gun is a contributing factor. It is common sense. To be clear, Hawaii is not a State devoid of guns. We have nearly as many guns as we do people. Hunting is one of the most popular outdoor activities in Hawaii. Some hunting seasons in our State are year-round. We have a number of shooting ranges and gun clubs in our State, and both they and our hunting opportunities are important drivers of Hawaii's tourism economy. Clearly, gun safety, gun ownership, and hunting are compatible. Hawaii is showing the way. So knowing that we can balance commonsense gun safety laws with responsible gun ownership, as we do in Hawaii, we are left with a few simple questions. Why hasn't the Senate passed H.R. 8, a bill that would expand background checks for gun purchases? Why has the Senate let this House-passed bill languish for 200 days? Why is the Senate failing the American people? In normal times, we would have a majority leader who would rush to pass a law favored by 90 percent of the people of our country. In normal times, we would be anxious to restrict firearms ownership to those who can pass a background check, just as we are anxious to ban flavored e-cigarettes that target children with addictive products. But these are not normal times. In these times, we have a majority leader who is sitting around waiting for Donald Trump to tell him what to do or doing the bidding of the NRA. Instead of waiting around for the erratic, inconsistent, always- changing-his-mind Donald Trump to make up his mind--we should live so long--the majority leader should take action. It is time for the Senate to reassert its role as a separate branch of government, stand up to the NRA, and pass H.R. 8. It has been 200 days. One hundred people a day die in our country by firearms. Do the math. That is 2,000 firearm deaths since the House passed the bill. It is way past time for the Senate to do something, but as we wait for the majority leader and the President to summon the fortitude to act, we are treated to a familiar refrain from the NRA and their allies in Congress. You have heard it before. ``Guns don't kill people; people kill people.'' Well, a person with a gun killed 58 people at a music festival in Las Vegas. A person with a gun killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. A person with a gun killed 32 people at Virginia Tech. A person with a gun killed 27 people, including little children, at Sandy Hook Elementary. A person with a gun killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL. A person with a gun killed 11 people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. A person with a gun killed 26 people at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, TX. A person with a gun killed nine people at the Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC. Since the beginning of August, a total of 113 people have been killed in mass shootings across the country, including incidents where a person with a gun killed 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso, a person with a gun killed 9 people outside a bar in Dayton, OH, and a person with a gun killed 7 people in a shooting spree across Odessa-Midland, TX. Obviously, people with guns kill people. It is a sad day in our country when elementary school children have to practice drills in how to escape a masked shooter. Our country's continuing tragedy of these deaths has resulted in an entire industry of companies that come to schools and tell the schools: We can build you a safe school. We could end up with citadels for schools instead of the places of learning they should be. That is what is happening in our country. It is past time to retire the NRA's old canard that ``guns don't kill; it is people that kill.'' It is people with guns who kill people. It is time for us to act. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Inventor Diversity for Economic Advancement Act of 2019. I thank my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Tillis, for working with me on this important piece of legislation, which serves as a first step to closing the diversity gap in our patent system by collecting demographic data on patent applicants. Women and racial minorities have made some of the most significant inventions in this country's history. The $75 billion home security industry grew from an initial home security system invented by Marie Van Brittan Brown. The computer would never have become the multimedia device it is today without the microcomputer system invented by Mark Dean. The genetic revolution would still be science fiction if not for the CRISPR gene-editing tool discovered by Jennifer Doudna--raised on Hawaii's Big Island. We should celebrate these inventors and the many others like them who have contributed to innovation in this country. But we must also recognize the hard truth that women, racial minorities, and many other groups are greatly underrepresented in the U.S. patent system. The Patent and Trademark Office's recent report on women inventors shines a spotlight on one part of this problem. The PTO found that only 21 percent of U.S. patents list a woman as an inventor and that women make up only 12 percent of all inventors. This is true even though women held 43 percent of all full-time jobs in 2016 and 28 percent of STEM jobs in 2015. Other reports highlight racial and income patent gaps. For example, a report by the Institute for Women's Policy Research found that the percentage of African American and Hispanic college graduates who hold patents is approximately half that of their white counterparts. Another report found that children born into families with incomes below the median U.S. income are 90 percent less likely to receive a patent in their lifetimes than those born into wealthier families. Closing these gaps would turbocharge our economy. According to a study by Michigan State University Professor Lisa Cook, including more women and African Americans in the ``initial stage of the process of innovation'' could increase GDP by as much as $640 billion. Another study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that eliminating the patent gap for women with science and engineering degrees alone would increase GDP by over $500 billion. It's simply good policy and good business to want to fully integrate people of all types into our innovation economy. But if we have any hope of closing the various patent gaps, we must first get a firm grasp on the scope of the problem. Studies of the demographic makeup of patentees, like the ones I described, are few and far between. The reason is a simple one. A lack of data. The PTO does not collect any data on applicants beyond their first and last names and city, state, and country of residence. As a result, those wishing to study patent gaps between different demographic groups are forced to guess the gender of an applicant based on his or her name, determine the race or income status of an applicant by cross-referencing census data, or explore a number of other options that are time-consuming, unreliable, or both. The IDEA Act solves this problem. It would require the PTO to collect demographic data--including gender, race, military or veteran status, and income level, among others--from patent applicants on a voluntary basis. It would further require the PTO to issue reports on the data collected and, perhaps more importantly, make the data available to the public with appropriate protections for personally identifiable information. Outside researchers could therefore conduct their own analyses and offer insights into the various patent gaps in our society. Let me be clear. Closing the information gap facing researchers alone will not solve the patent gap facing women, racial minorities, and so many others. But it is a critical first step. I therefore encourage my colleagues to support the IDEA Act.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Inventor Diversity for Economic Advancement Act of 2019. I thank my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Tillis, for working with me on this important piece of legislation, which serves as a first step to closing the diversity gap in our patent system by collecting demographic data on patent applicants. Women and racial minorities have made some of the most significant inventions in this country's history. The $75 billion home security industry grew from an initial home security system invented by Marie Van Brittan Brown. The computer would never have become the multimedia device it is today without the microcomputer system invented by Mark Dean. The genetic revolution would still be science fiction if not for the CRISPR gene-editing tool discovered by Jennifer Doudna--raised on Hawaii's Big Island. We should celebrate these inventors and the many others like them who have contributed to innovation in this country. But we must also recognize the hard truth that women, racial minorities, and many other groups are greatly underrepresented in the U.S. patent system. The Patent and Trademark Office's recent report on women inventors shines a spotlight on one part of this problem. The PTO found that only 21 percent of U.S. patents list a woman as an inventor and that women make up only 12 percent of all inventors. This is true even though women held 43 percent of all full-time jobs in 2016 and 28 percent of STEM jobs in 2015. Other reports highlight racial and income patent gaps. For example, a report by the Institute for Women's Policy Research found that the percentage of African American and Hispanic college graduates who hold patents is approximately half that of their white counterparts. Another report found that children born into families with incomes below the median U.S. income are 90 percent less likely to receive a patent in their lifetimes than those born into wealthier families. Closing these gaps would turbocharge our economy. According to a study by Michigan State University Professor Lisa Cook, including more women and African Americans in the ``initial stage of the process of innovation'' could increase GDP by as much as $640 billion. Another study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that eliminating the patent gap for women with science and engineering degrees alone would increase GDP by over $500 billion. It's simply good policy and good business to want to fully integrate people of all types into our innovation economy. But if we have any hope of closing the various patent gaps, we must first get a firm grasp on the scope of the problem. Studies of the demographic makeup of patentees, like the ones I described, are few and far between. The reason is a simple one. A lack of data. The PTO does not collect any data on applicants beyond their first and last names and city, state, and country of residence. As a result, those wishing to study patent gaps between different demographic groups are forced to guess the gender of an applicant based on his or her name, determine the race or income status of an applicant by cross-referencing census data, or explore a number of other options that are time-consuming, unreliable, or both. The IDEA Act solves this problem. It would require the PTO to collect demographic data--including gender, race, military or veteran status, and income level, among others--from patent applicants on a voluntary basis. It would further require the PTO to issue reports on the data collected and, perhaps more importantly, make the data available to the public with appropriate protections for personally identifiable information. Outside researchers could therefore conduct their own analyses and offer insights into the various patent gaps in our society. Let me be clear. Closing the information gap facing researchers alone will not solve the patent gap facing women, racial minorities, and so many others. But it is a critical first step. I therefore encourage my colleagues to support the IDEA Act.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks on the floor, Senator Brown resume his remarks.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, conservative, rightwing forces in our country are engaged in an all-out assault on working people. Their target? Private and public sector workers and the unions who are fighting on their behalf. While private sector unions at least have some protections under the National Labor Relations Act, public employees have been historically forced to rely on Supreme Court precedent to protect their basic rights. That is why the Court's decision last year in Janus was so damaging. In one fell swoop, the Court overturned more than 40 years of precedent from the Abood decision and barred public sector unions from collecting fair share fees from employees who had opted out of the union but whom the union is still legally required to represent. The Supreme Court's decision in Janus was not unexpected. Its decision was the culmination of decades-long efforts by groups like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation to undermine settled precedent in Abood in order to weaken public sector unions. These groups worked methodically to achieve their goals. First, Justice Alito all but invited a challenge to Abood when he wrote his decision in Knox v. SEIU Local 100 and Harris v. Quinn. He called the justification for allowing a union to collect fair share fees ``an anomaly.'' He said ``the Abood Court's analysis is questionable on several grounds'' and laid out the grounds as he saw them for someone to bring a case to overturn Abood. This was an open invitation to conservative groups to then go looking for a plaintiff to do just that--to create an opportunity for the Supreme Court to overturn Abood. They funded Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which was fast-tracked to the Supreme Court in 2016, where ``the signaler,'' Justice Alito, awaited the case. Public employee unions received a temporary reprieve in a deadlocked 4-to-4 decision because of Justice Antonin Scalia's unexpected death. The well-funded conservative interests then saw a huge opportunity to fill the vacancy with a Justice to their liking. From applauding Senator McConnell's single-handedly blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland to spending millions to confirm Neil Gorsuch, they wanted a Justice who was on their side. They got it in Neil Gorsuch, who delivered the decisive fifth vote in Janus, torpedoing 41 years of precedent under the pretext of protecting ``fundamental free speech rights.'' Justice Elena Kagan saw right through this argument. In a strong dissent, she said: ``The majority overthrows a decision entrenched in this Nation's law . . . for over 40 years . . . and it does so by weaponizing the First Amendment, in a way that unleashes judges, now and in the future, to intervene in economic and regulatory policy.'' Undermining public employee unions and, in fact, all unions has gained momentum because of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. With this narrow majority, we are likely to see a lot more 5-to- 4 decisions on ideological, partisan lines. This is not good for the country and not good for the credibility of the Court. We need a Supreme Court that strives to achieve consensus as often as possible, not one pursuing a hard-right ideological agenda. In the face of these onslaughts from the Supreme Court and conservative interests, unions are fighting back. We have seen tens of thousands of teachers taking to the streets in cities and States across the country demanding and in many cases securing more investment in schools, smaller class sizes, and a living wage for teachers. In the year since Janus, public sector employee unions like AFSCME are adding thousands of new dues-paying members energized to fight back against the conservative assault on unions' very existence. Our public employee unions are doing their job to stay in the fight and Congress needs to do its part. That is why I joined 35 of my Senate colleagues and 27 of my House colleagues this week to introduce the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act of 2019. This legislation affirms to all 17.3 million public sector workers nationwide that we value their service to the public and that we are fighting to protect their voice in the workplace. Our bill codifies the right of public employees to organize, act concertedly, and bargain collectively in States that currently do not afford these basic rights. Under our legislation, States have wide flexibility to write and administer their own labor laws, provided they meet the standards established in this legislation, and it will not preempt laws in States that substantially meet or exceed this standard. The right to organize shouldn't depend on whether or not your State has robust worker protections, like the State of Hawaii, and workers shouldn't be held captive to the anti-union bent of the Roberts Five on the Supreme Court. The fight to protect the right to organize is not an abstract issue. Unions have lifted people into the middle class, especially women and people of color. I speak from personal experience. When I was a young child, my mother worked for years in low-wage jobs that provided no job security, no healthcare, and no stability. We lived paycheck to paycheck. That all changed when my mother and her coworkers organized and formed a union. That union happens to be the CWA. Unionization brought job and economic security to our family. Our public employee unions are fighting on behalf of millions of people across our country who are serving our communities. They are our teachers, our firefighters, social workers, EMTs, and our police officers. They are us. These are not normal times. We all need to come together to fight back against an all-out assault on working people. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss Senate amendment No. 861, offered by our colleague from Utah. The author of the amendment, Senator Romney, and others have made clear that this language does not constitute an authorization of the use of military force, or AUMF. I agree with that assessment. While this amendment appears to restate existing Presidential authority to defend the country in the event of an attack, it includes other language that could be interpreted to provide more authority to the President. That concerns me, which is why I voted against this amendment.

Ms. HIRONO

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

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, Donald Trump and the hawks in his administration are fueling a dangerous escalation with Iran, and instead of taking responsibility for this escalation, the President is once again blaming others for a crisis of his own making. Adding to the confusion and concern is the President's penchant for using his Twitter account or an outburst from the Oval Office to jump between calling for restraint and embracing a potential war. Instead of listening to the President's latest outbursts or dissecting his latest tweet, let's take a hard look at what he has done to bring us to this dangerous moment. In May 2018, Trump followed the lead of the hawks in his administration and unilaterally--unilaterally--pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the JCPOA, breaking the agreement and leaving its other signatories, especially our allies in Europe, holding the bag. Only a few weeks earlier, Jim Mattis, the President's own Secretary of Defense, told the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which I sit, that the agreement was working as intended and had been written with an assumption that Iran would try to cheat. He went on to note that while the deal was imperfect, it established a strong verification and inspection regime that Iran was complying with the agreement. I continue to agree with Secretary Mattis's conclusions. The purpose of the JCPOA was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon within a 2- to 3-month timeframe. That is the kind of timeframe we were looking at. The JCPOA was not intended to cover Iran's ballistic missile program or its malign activities throughout the region. What the JCPOA did accomplish, however, was lengthening Iran's nuclear breakout capacity from 3 months to 1 year. It included strong limitations on enrichment, redesigned and rebuilt the Arak heavy water reactor so it can only be used for peaceful-use research purposes and not for the enrichment of weapons-grade plutonium, and required Iran to ship all spent nuclear fuel out of the country. The agreement also included a binding commitment from Iran to never pursue a nuclear weapons program. That is in the very beginning part of the JCPOA document. This commitment necessitated a continuous inspection regime by the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA. Further, the agreement included provisions that would see the international community reimpose sanctions automatically--the snapback--if Iran was violating the deal. Instead of building upon the JCPOA to address Iran's other malign activities, Donald Trump threw out all the benefits of the deal, took on an enormous risk, and isolated the United States in the process. In early April, the President took the unprecedented step of designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, a foreign terrorist organization. He designated the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization. That was an unprecedented step, overruling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunford, in the process. General Dunford argued that this first-of-its-kind step would put American troops in the region at risk for retaliation. He was right. Later that month, Donald Trump rescinded waivers granted to key American allies, such as Japan and India, to purchase Iranian oil, effectively strangling the Iranian economy in the process. Over the past few months, the administration has sent thousands of additional troops and a carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf. These actions, taken unilaterally, have isolated the United States from our allies, encouraged Iran to stop complying with elements of the nuclear deal and to step up their aggressive actions in the region, and brought us to the dangerous precipice of war. Although the President made the eleventh-hour decision--actually, 10 minutes before a strike--to call off a military response to Iran's downing of an Air Force drone, the fact that we got so close to a military strike is chilling, given the implications of igniting an open war with Iran. We have learned to our peril over the past few years that Donald Trump does not keep his word or the word of our country. He says something one day, only to reverse himself at a moment's notice. We cannot rely on his restraint to avoid blundering into a war with Iran. That is why I am continuing to call on my colleagues to join in supporting a vote on Senator Udall's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment makes clear that only Congress can authorize the use of military force against Iran and would provide a clear check on Donald Trump, John Bolton, and other hawks in the administration. We cannot allow this administration and this President a free hand to stack the deck toward military action and away from meaningful diplomacy. Otherwise, we risk committing another generation of American soldiers to a protracted, disastrous war in the Middle East. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the Patsy T. Mink and Louise M. Slaughter Gender Equity in Education Act, which I was proud to reintroduce today with several of my Senate colleagues. I also want to thank Congresswoman Matsui, who introduced the bill in the House. Our legislation recognizes and builds on the progress started by two gender equity champions: Patsy Mink of Hawaii and Louise Slaughter of New York. Patsy Mink, the first Asian American woman and woman of color to serve in Congress, was a pioneer and a strong champion for gender equity in education as one of the principal authors of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Congresswoman Louise Slaughter's commitment to public service and fierce advocacy for women's equality and empowerment helped strengthen educational opportunities for all Americans. The Gender Equity in Education Act (GEEA) would honor their legacies by providing more resources for K-12 schools, colleges and universities, States, school districts, and others to fully implement Title IX, also known as the ``Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act,'' which has transformed the educational landscape in our country by reaffirming the fundamental principal that sex-based discrimination has no place in our nation's schools. Since its enactment, Title IX has opened countless doors for women and girls, and created important opportunities for students across the country--whether in the classroom, on the playing field, or in the boardroom. But barriers still exist, and more work remains to make sure all students have access to safe learning environments free from bias and discrimination. We need to work to make sure schools treat students equally with regard to athletic participation opportunities, athletic scholarships, and the benefits and services provided to athletic teams. We need to work to improve gender equity in career and technical education, in higher education, and in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields while strengthening the STEM pipeline. We need to address sexual harassment and assault in our nation's schools. We need to address discrimination based on pregnancy or parenting status by providing better accommodations and increased support for pregnant and parenting students, because currently only half of teenage mothers earn their high school diplomas before they turn 22 years old, and nearly one-in-three young mothers never get their diplomas or GEDs, which is unacceptable. And, at a time when nearly nine-in-ten LGBTQ students reported being harassed or assaulted based on a personal characteristic, we need to address discrimination based on stereotypes of actual or perceived sex--including sexual orientation and gender identity. GEEA provides important resources to continue this work--not only to protect the progress we have made, but also to build on that progress and create more opportunities for students. By improving and strengthening Title IX, we uphold the great work of champions like Patsy Mink and Louise Slaughter, who fought to make sure no students are denied equal access to educational opportunities or have to worry about whether they are safe on campus. We must remain vigilant in this endeavor. I thank my colleagues for joining me in reintroducing this important legislation as we continue our work to advance Title IX and to ensure equal access to educational opportunities for all. I yield the floor.