Mazie Hirono

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.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for votes on June 18, 2019. Had I been present, I would have voted no on both cloture and confirmation of the nomination of Sean Cairncross to be Chief Executive Officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation. I would have also voted no on cloture on the nominations of Matthew J. Kacsmaryk to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, Allen Cothrel Winsor to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, James David Cain, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, and Greg Gerard Guidry to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, this month, many of us are celebrating Pride Month and reaffirming the rights and freedoms of the LGBTQ community. We also celebrated the fight for equal rights for women with the 100th anniversary of the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote. But instead of celebrating these rights and freedoms, here is what Senate Republicans have in store for us. This week, they will confirm a Federal judge to a lifetime appointment who has devoted his career to advocating against the rights of LGBTQ people and women under the guise of religious liberty. Through his actions as a lawyer and private citizen, Matthew Kacsmaryk, the nominee for the Northern District of Texas, has made his hostility towards LGBTQ individuals, marriage equality, and reproductive rights clear. As deputy general counsel for the First Liberty Institute, Kacsmaryk urged the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges to rule that there is no nationwide right to same-sex marriage. After the Supreme Court disagreed with him, Kacsmaryk wrote an article criticizing not only Obergefell, but also the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. He argued that the fight for marriage equality and reproductive rights were `` `radical' . . . demands'' of the ``Sexual Revolution.'' In his view, this Sexual Revolution ``sought public affirmation of the lie that the human person is an autonomous blob of Silly Putty unconstrained by nature or biology, and that marriage, sexuality, gender identity, and even the unborn child must yield to the erotic desires of liberated adults.'' As a lawyer, Kacsmaryk advocated for employers who objected to providing contraceptive coverage as part of the healthcare required under the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds. Outside of the courtroom, he continued his advocacy against reproductive rights. In a 2016 interview, he complained about ``imposition of a secular judgment on an essentially sacred question'' in the contraceptive mandate cases. He pointed to the First Amendment concerns of religious actors while failing to mention that the use of contraception is constitutionally protected. Kacsmaryk also urged the Supreme Court to allow a Virginia school board to require students to use the restroom corresponding to their ``biological gender'' and a State labor and industry board in Oregon to let a bakery refuse to make same-sex wedding cakes. It is no wonder that more than 200 groups oppose his nomination, including Lambda Legal and 74 other LGBT and allied groups, the National Women's Law Center, and AFL-CIO. Earlier this year, I entered a letter into the record from about 300 parents of transgender children who opposed Kacsmaryk's nomination ``because of his demeaning attacks on transgender children and adults.'' In their letter, these parents pointed to Mr. Kacsmaryk's efforts to ``repeatedly promote [ ] fringe, junk science about transgender people, claiming that gender identity doesn't exist and that being transgender is a `delusion.' '' They explain why his actions are so concerning and why his nomination makes them fear for their children. They wrote: ``Kacsmaryk's words are deeply offensive and harmful. . . . Our children are not a delusion, and neither is our love and support for them. We believe our children are miracles, like every child.'' Despite Kacsmaryk's offensive statements and extensive record against the LGBT community, he is being rushed to confirmation during Pride Month because Majority Leader McConnell and Donald Trump are intent on packing the courts with deeply partisan judges with extreme ideological agendas. While our friends in the House have been busy passing bill after bill to protect women from violence, reduce senseless gun violence, and ensure that all Americans have access to affordable healthcare, Senate Republicans have ignored these bipartisan bills and maintained their single-minded focus on confirming extreme judges. That is because Senate Republicans are trying to accomplish extreme, conservative outcomes through the courts that they been unable to achieve through legislation. As Majority Leader McConnell previously explained, legislation can be repealed, but ``[w]hat can't be undone is a lifetime appointment.'' In the past, this lifetime appointment was viewed as an important protection to ensure courts remained independent and fair minded. Now, it is being weaponized as a tool to enforce extreme, conservative policies through the confirmation of deeply partisan and ideologically driven judicial nominees. In the past 2-and-a-half years, we have seen why it is so critical to have fair and independent courts. As Senate Republicans race to pack the courts with more and more partisan judges with extreme ideologies, the integrity and independence of the Federal judiciary is at stake. Americans must be able to trust that courts act fairly and impartially to protect the rights of all Americans. That is why I will vote against Matthew Kacsmaryk's nomination today.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today, during Asian Pacific American Heritage month, in remembrance of Representative Patsy Takemoto Mink. Representative Mink was elected 55 years ago to represent Hawaii's second congressional district. In 2006, I had the privilege of filling the seat that my friend, Representative Mink, honorably held for 24 years. Patsy Mink was a trailblazer, whose career embodied a series of firsts. She was the first woman of color, and first Asian American woman elected to Congress in 1964. She became the first Asian American woman to practice law in Hawaii and the first Asian American woman elected to the Hawaii territorial legislature. No matter how many times she was excluded from traditionally male spheres, Representative Mink persevered and took risks. She overcame gender and racial discrimination and pursued a career during which she fought the injustice that she had endured. She devoted nearly 50 years of her life to be a champion for those who had no one to stand up and speak for them. Representative Mink maintained a national focus on issues facing the Asian Pacific American community. Twenty-five years ago, she helped found the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. She also worked with members of Hawaii's congressional delegation to educate Americans about the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Representative Mink fought throughout her life for the principles of equity, fairness, and integrity. She was a leader on women's rights, social and economic justice, health care, child care, and education. She introduced the first childcare bill in the House. Patsy's name is forever linked with the passage of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which she coauthored and fought for relentlessly. This act is now named the Patsy T. Mink and Louise M. Slaughter Gender Equity in Education Act. Title IX provides women and girls equal access to higher education and protection from sexual harassment, and prohibits gender discrimination in all educational activities, notably in athletics. Representative Mink often said, ``It is easy enough to vote right and be consistently with the majority. But it is more often more important to be ahead of the majority.'' I know our country can remain forward-thinking by ensuring that young women and minorities are given equal opportunity. Representative Mink was one of only eleven women to serve in the House of Representatives in 1964, and she became one of the longest- serving women in Congress. She shattered the glass ceiling during a time when women were not seen as leaders, especially not in Congress. Representative Mink continues to be an inspiration to many, and her legacy lives on in schools, universities, and here, in Congress. Last year, a record number of women ran for public office and were elected. With 102 women elected to serve in the House of Representatives and 25 women in the Senate, the 116th Congress is the most diverse yet. Patsy would have been delighted. In 2007, upon my election to the U.S. House, I was proud to cast my first vote in support of Nancy Pelosi for speaker and did so in memory of Patsy Mink. Earlier, Speaker Pelosi told me that Representative Mink was the first person to tell her that ``one day, you're going to be speaker.'' Patsy would have loved to have been there to see her words come true for her friend, Nancy. The last time I saw Patsy was when both of us were in the Kailua 4th of July parade in 2002. She asked me to have lunch with her. I have a picture of us from that day and it is a poignant reminder of my friend Patsy and her attitude of never giving up and persevering because our work is not done. She is a continuing inspiration to me. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for votes on May 13, May 14, and May 15 so I could return to Hawaii to tend to a family matter. On May 13, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the cloture motion, motion to invoke cloture: Michael J. Truncale to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas. On May 14, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the nomination, Confirmation of Michael J. Truncale to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas and nay on the cloture motion, motion to invoke cloture: Kenneth Kiyul Lee to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit. On May 15, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the nomination, Confirmation of Kenneth Kiyul Lee to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, nay on the cloture motion, motion to invoke cloture: Wendy Vitter to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, nay on the cloture motion, Motion to invoke cloture: Brian J. Bulatao to be an Under Secretary of State for Management, and nay on the cloture motion (motion to invoke cloture: Jeffrey A. Rosen to be Deputy Attorney General. (At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I thank Senator Murray for organizing all of us to come to the floor in honor of Mother's Day. I will take time to talk about the ongoing attacks on women's health in this country. I feel a sense of urgency about the increasingly hostile, escalating, and unrelenting attacks on women's health by Donald Trump and Republicans. From continuous efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, to the taking away of title X funds, to trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act--all programs that support healthcare for millions of women in this country--I have to ask, why? What is the motivation to take away healthcare services for millions of women in this country? It is not clear why they are doing this. What is clear is the harm they are causing women. Repealing the Affordable Care Act would mean that insurance plans would no longer be required to cover maternity care and birth control. Insurance companies would be able to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. Astoundingly, for women, this would include pregnancy. Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are proposing trillion- dollar cuts to Medicaid. If implemented, this could endanger tens of millions of women in this country who rely on Medicaid for coverage during pregnancies and births. Do they even care that these cuts to Medicaid are particularly cruel in the face of an infant and maternal mortality crisis in our country, particularly for Black women? By establishing a gag rule, Donald Trump is forcing healthcare providers to choose between providing full and accurate information on all available healthcare options for women, including for abortion, and hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal title X funding. States like Hawaii are refusing to succumb to this unjustified coercion by refusing title X funds and are replacing them with hard-earned State funds so that providers in our State, for example, can give the necessary healthcare to women. By trying to pass onerous, new abortion restrictions in States across the country, conservative forces are working hard to undermine a woman's constitutional right to have an abortion. One institution that can stand up to this assault on women's rights and women's health is our Federal judiciary. Last month, for example, a Federal judge in Washington State blocked the implementation of the Trump administration's title X gag rule. In March, a Federal judge in Kentucky prevented a new law from going into effect that would have restricted abortion after 6 weeks of pregnancy. These two recent examples demonstrate the importance of our courts in upholding the Constitution and the law and in constraining radical rightwing assaults on women's health and rights. To counter what independent judges are doing, Donald Trump, Leader McConnell, and Senate Republicans are packing our courts with ideologically driven conservative judges who will be on their ideological page. Over the past 2\1/2\ years, they have confirmed more than 100 new Federal judges, an overwhelming majority of whom was selected by two ultraconservative organizations--the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. Their efforts to pack the courts continue this week in an upcoming vote on a nominee for the Second Circuit in New York, Michael Park, who fought to restrict access to reproductive healthcare for women. In one recent example, Mr. Park defended Kansas's attempt to defund Planned Parenthood by terminating its Medicaid contracts. This would have ended the vital services Planned Parenthood provides to low-income patients, services such as cancer screenings and access to contraception. Fortunately, the judges who heard that case rejected Mr. Park's arguments. Yet, now, with his confirmation to the Second Circuit all but assured, Mr. Park is set to become the judge in these types of cases. It is no wonder that both of his home State Senators oppose his nomination. In their not being satisfied with packing our courts with judges who have ideologically rightwing agendas, Donald Trump and Republican leaders are resorting to incendiary, reprehensible, and false rhetoric to inflame their base. We have seen this most recently in the debate around the so-called Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and the vilification of women who seek abortions later in pregnancy. Infanticide is already a crime, but you would never know it if you listened to Republican politicians and their mouthpieces on FOX News and the conservative media. In a FOX News op-ed, my colleague from Nebraska, for example, accused the Democrats of ``blurring the line between abortion and outright infanticide.'' During the debate on the bill, ultraconservative FOX News host Laura Ingraham compared Planned Parenthood--the Nation's largest maternal health provider that has saved thousands of lives--to Adolf Hitler. She said: ``Hitler, just like Planned Parenthood, practiced and defended mass extermination.'' Immediately after the Senate defeated this unnecessary bill, Donald Trump tweeted: Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don't mind executing babies AFTER birth. The President's incendiary and completely false rhetoric on this issue has become a rallying cry at his bizarre political rallies across the country. Last month, in Green Bay, WI, for example, he said: The baby is born, the mother meets with the doctor, they take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully, and then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby. This kind of rhetoric is simply outrageous. It is not harmless electioneering. It is dangerous. It is incitement. It is also provoking a dramatic uptick in threats to abortion providers and supporters of abortion rights across the country. This sustained rightwing attack is taking a heavy emotional toll on women who seek to have abortions later in their pregnancies and the doctors who provide this essential care. Kate Carson, a woman from Boston who sought an abortion after Laurel, her daughter, was diagnosed with catastrophic brain malformations in 2012, wrote a powerful op-ed about her painful decision. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Kate Carson's op-ed, dated February 19, 2019.

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, here is some of what Kate wrote: I help run a support group for families who have ended pregnancy after poor prenatal or maternal diagnoses. If you're wondering, ``Who are these women who get abortions in the third trimester?'' We are. I am. Parents who love our babies with our entire hearts. Desperate acts like an abortion in the 36th week of pregnancy are brought about only by the most desperate circumstances and are only available to those who can come up with a lot of money quickly. I know. I've been there. My daughter, Laurel, was diagnosed in May 2012 with catastrophic brain malformations . . . that were overlooked until my 35th week of pregnancy. I did not know much about brain disorders at that point. I imagined developmental delay, special education classes, financial pressure, an overhaul of expectations for Laurel's life and my motherhood. Here were the doctors' real expectations for Laurel: a brief life of seizures, full-body muscle cramps, and aspirating her own bodily fluids. It is devastating to lose a child. But, unlike most bereaved parents, women like me will live out the rest of our lives as scapegoats, fuel for an agenda that seeks to strip women and families of our reproductive freedoms. Madam President, it is outrageous and offensive that Donald Trump and his allies in Congress would seek to turn women like Kate into scapegoats for their political agendas. I have been an advocate of abortion rights for decades, and I fear that one day soon, women in this country will wake up and realize they no longer have control over their own bodies. What could be more intrusive than the government's telling women what they can do with their own bodies? In the face of these ongoing attacks on women's health and women's rights, we will continue to raise our voices. We will continue to fight back. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my support for the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act, which I was proud to reintroduce earlier this afternoon with Senators Smith, Gillibrand and Merkley, and Congressman Deutch--who introduced the bill in the House. Social Security serves as a critical lifeline for millions of individuals and families in Hawaii and throughout the United States. For seniors, the program is fundamental to retirement security, and for families, it provides economic security. Countless individuals rely on Social Security as a key source of income, so we must continue fighting to protect the program and make sure beneficiaries receive the hard- earned benefits they deserve. The Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act does two things. First, the bill restores fairness in Social Security payroll taxes by eliminating the contribution cap on taxable income--gradually, over seven years. What does this mean? Currently, most Americans contribute 6.2 percent of their incomes toward Social Security payroll taxes. However, because of the contribution cap on taxable income, higher income earners will stop contributing to Social Security after their first $132,900 of income for 2019. This means that many working and middle class families will contribute more of their income toward Social Security, while wealthy families will contribute less. In fact, for the highest income earners, those in the ``top 1 percent'', this week marks the point in the year when they will stop contributing to the program altogether for 2019. That does not seem fair, so our bill makes sure that everyone contributes their fair share to Social Security for the entire year, and that the wealthiest individuals and families in our country do not receive a tax break at the expense of working and middle class families. Second, the bill provides an updated measure of inflation to reflect what seniors and other beneficiaries actually pay for things like medical care, prescription drugs, and energy costs, and increases their benefits based on this measure. The Social Security Administration has indicated that these changes, taken together, would increase Social Security benefits and extend the life of the combined Social Security trust fund by another 19 years--from 2034 to 2053. These are modest but important steps that we can take to improve the program for current and future beneficiaries. Locally in Hawaii, we recognize that whatever hurts the most vulnerable in our communities, hurts all of us. We each have a role to play in supporting our communities. That is why my colleagues and I have reintroduced this legislation to strengthen Social Security. We will continue fighting for working and middle class families who rely on Social Security and similar programs, and we will continue to oppose cuts to Social Security--which would be devastating for millions of Americans. We will continue fighting to make sure everyone contributes their fair share so that Social Security can deliver on its promise to the American people. I thank my colleagues for joining me in reintroducing this important legislation as we continue our work to strengthen Social Security. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my support for the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act, which I was proud to reintroduce earlier this afternoon with Senators Smith, Gillibrand and Merkley, and Congressman Deutch--who introduced the bill in the House. Social Security serves as a critical lifeline for millions of individuals and families in Hawaii and throughout the United States. For seniors, the program is fundamental to retirement security, and for families, it provides economic security. Countless individuals rely on Social Security as a key source of income, so we must continue fighting to protect the program and make sure beneficiaries receive the hard- earned benefits they deserve. The Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act does two things. First, the bill restores fairness in Social Security payroll taxes by eliminating the contribution cap on taxable income--gradually, over seven years. What does this mean? Currently, most Americans contribute 6.2 percent of their incomes toward Social Security payroll taxes. However, because of the contribution cap on taxable income, higher income earners will stop contributing to Social Security after their first $132,900 of income for 2019. This means that many working and middle class families will contribute more of their income toward Social Security, while wealthy families will contribute less. In fact, for the highest income earners, those in the ``top 1 percent'', this week marks the point in the year when they will stop contributing to the program altogether for 2019. That does not seem fair, so our bill makes sure that everyone contributes their fair share to Social Security for the entire year, and that the wealthiest individuals and families in our country do not receive a tax break at the expense of working and middle class families. Second, the bill provides an updated measure of inflation to reflect what seniors and other beneficiaries actually pay for things like medical care, prescription drugs, and energy costs, and increases their benefits based on this measure. The Social Security Administration has indicated that these changes, taken together, would increase Social Security benefits and extend the life of the combined Social Security trust fund by another 19 years--from 2034 to 2053. These are modest but important steps that we can take to improve the program for current and future beneficiaries. Locally in Hawaii, we recognize that whatever hurts the most vulnerable in our communities, hurts all of us. We each have a role to play in supporting our communities. That is why my colleagues and I have reintroduced this legislation to strengthen Social Security. We will continue fighting for working and middle class families who rely on Social Security and similar programs, and we will continue to oppose cuts to Social Security--which would be devastating for millions of Americans. We will continue fighting to make sure everyone contributes their fair share so that Social Security can deliver on its promise to the American people. I thank my colleagues for joining me in reintroducing this important legislation as we continue our work to strengthen Social Security. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, time and again over the past 2 years, we have seen a clear pattern in the types of people Donald Trump nominates to serve in his Cabinet. They have extensive conflicts of interest. If confirmed, they work to advance the interest of former clients and special interests, and in doing so, they are often hostile to the very mission of the very Department they have been nominated to lead. We have seen this time and again with the same disastrous results-- from Scott Pruitt at the Environmental Protection Agency and Ryan Zinke at the Department of Interior to Andy Puzder at the Department of Labor and Tom Price at Health and Human Services. Today, the majority leader and Senate Republicans are forcing through the nomination of David Bernhardt to serve as Secretary of the Interior--another person who fits Trump's pattern for conflicted, unethical Cabinet nominees. Bernhardt brings so many conflicts of interest to the job that he has to carry a list around in his pocket to remind himself of what they are. I am putting up this graphic poster that shows a card he carries around in his pocket to remind himself of the people he is not supposed to be interacting with or helping. In normal times, a President would not nominate someone with David Bernhardt's background as a superlobbyist who represented interests before the Department he was nominated to lead. In normal times, the majority party would push back against a nominee who brings so many obvious conflicts of interest to the job. But these are not normal times, and the Senate is moving in an all-fired rush to confirm someone who shouldn't have been nominated in the first place. During his tenure as Deputy Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Bernhardt was well-placed to deliver results for the special interests who paid his firm millions of dollars to lobby on their behalf over the past decade. Mr. Bernhardt, for example, spent years lobbying on behalf of an organization with a misleading name--the Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy & Reliability, or CESAR. Far from being a nonpartisan group, CESAR is an industry front group dedicated to, among other things, attacking and weakening the Endangered Species Act, the ESA. As a lobbyist at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Bernhardt spearheaded CESAR's efforts to gut the ESA through a disingenuous shell campaign to list the American eel as a threatened or endangered species. Here is what they did. First, CESAR petitioned the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to designate the American eel--a species whose habitat spans the entire east coast of the United States--as a threatened or endangered species. These Agencies are required to complete their review of such a position within 90 days. Both Agencies were unable to complete their review on such a short timeline, and CESAR filed a lawsuit in DC District Court. CESAR did not undertake this campaign with the objective of protecting a threatened or endangered species. Instead, as an E&E News report made clear, CESAR tried to undermine the law by making it nearly impossible to enforce. Why was this the case? Because the American eel has habitat all along the eastern seaboard and to make a listing and to conduct critical habitat designations would be a paralyzing undertaking that might force Congress to undergo a rewrite of the ESA. Mr. Bernhardt did not just represent CESAR, but he has also served on their board for many years. It was reasonable to conclude, therefore, that his sustained personal advocacy on behalf of his client to undermine the ESA would carry over to his work at the Department of the Interior, and, indeed, it has. Last summer, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed some of the most drastic changes to the ESA in 30 years. These changes include allowing economic estimates during the listing process, changing the definition of ``foreseeable future'' to not allow for the consideration of climate change when determining whether to list a species and removing a blanket rule that protects threatened species. It certainly doesn't seem like a coincidence that the Department is considering such radical changes to the ESA under the leadership of Mr. Bernhardt--someone who was paid by his clients to challenge it. Over the past few weeks, we have also learned from reporting in the New York Times about Mr. Bernhardt's efforts to suppress a Fish and Wildlife Service report on the impacts of certain pesticides on endangered species. This report was due to be released more than 1\1/2\ years ago, and despite documents indicating that the Department had completed the report on time, it has yet to be released. Last week, I, along with several of my colleagues, sent a letter to the Department's deputy inspector general, requesting that she open an investigation into these allegations. Based on Mr. Bernhardt's industry priorities and past attempts to weaken the ESA, I think it is prudent that we get to the bottom of what is going on at the Department before confirming him. If the Department of the Interior's mission is to ``provide scientific and other information about natural resources,'' then isn't it Mr. Bernhardt's job to ensure that scientific reports on the impacts of chemicals on endangered species are released in a timely manner, especially knowing that these species are threatened or endangered? Yet this report has been kept back for over 1 year. Unfortunately, I don't think he considers that a priority of his job. Instead, he seems to prioritize moving the levers within the Department that he was unsuccessful in moving while representing his clients as a lobbyist. This pattern of activity also extends to his former clients in the oil and gas industry. During the government shutdown, for example, Mr. Bernhardt recalled furloughed DOI employees in order to have them process and approve 267 offshore oil drilling permits and 16 leases for drilling on public land. His decisive action on behalf of oil and gas interests came as thousands of employees went without pay and critical Federal services were shuttered for over 1 month. Is it really any wonder that executives from the Independent Petroleum Association of America were caught on tape bragging about the unprecedented access they have to Mr. Bernhardt at the Department? The American people deserve an Interior Secretary devoted to the mission of the Department, not the narrow special interests of his former lobbyist clients. I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination and await the IG report before voting on this nomination. One would hope that with all of these conflicts he has to carry around in his pocket, surely we can come up with someone to lead this Department who actually has the mission of the Department as his calling. That is not the case with Mr. Bernhardt. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

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

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, most Americans don't wake up every day thinking about the arcane rules of the Senate. They might think the debate we are having today is just another example of a legislative body they see as out of touch on the issues they care about most, issues on which a large majority of Americans agree action should be taken. For example, the Republican Senate hasn't done anything about the epidemic of gun violence. The Republican Senate hasn't taken action to expand access to affordable, quality, universal healthcare. Instead, Republicans have tried to take healthcare away from millions of people. The Republican Senate hasn't passed comprehensive immigration reform, let alone offered the blameless Dreamers a path to citizenship and a life in the only country they know. The Republican Senate hasn't taken decisive action to combat climate change. The Republican Senate hasn't taken steps to empower our middle class. Instead, it passed a huge tax cut for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. We should be having a real debate about all the issues I just mentioned. Instead, Republican leadership is proposing a resolution to, among other things, change Senate rules to reduce the number of hours of postcloture debate time from 30 hours to 2 hours for district court nominees. Let me just mention, by the way, that there is a world of difference in requiring 51 votes to put people on the district and circuit courts versus what the Senate majority leader did in changing the vote requirements for people on the U.S. Supreme Court, changing that to a bare majority--a huge difference in putting in a 9-member Supreme Court with a bare majority of votes versus some 800 circuit and district court judges. If we can't see that difference, I have no words for that. We should see that difference. Getting back to what is before us today, the significant rule change will help Donald Trump and his Republican enablers in the Senate to more swiftly pack our district courts with ideologically driven judges--judges who will make biased rulings in line with their personal ideological beliefs and not based on the law or the Constitution. Our district court judges, appointed by Democratic and Republican Presidents alike, have been at the frontline of resisting Donald Trump's abuses of power. They have, for example, ordered the government to reunite parents with the children ripped from their arms at the border. They have rejected attempts to deny Federal funds to cities refusing to be drawn into the Trump administration's war on immigrants. They stopped Executive orders aimed at kneecapping public sector unions. They blocked the implementation of an ugly ban on transgender Americans serving in our military. They stopped the Commerce Department from putting a citizenship question in the census. They ruled that public officials cannot block citizens from their Twitter feeds. They stopped the government from banning Muslims from entering the United States. They stopped a decision that would have allowed States to require Medicaid recipients to work in order to receive benefits. These exercises of judicial independence by our district judges are precisely why Donald Trump and his congressional enablers want to make it easier to pack our courts with nominees handpicked by the far-right Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation. These organizations have spent decades and millions of dollars opposing universal healthcare, strengthening corporate interests, and undermining voting. They have also spent decades and millions putting their kinds of judges on the courts, with their lifetime positions. If we aren't able to take as much time to examine their records and publicize their lack of fitness, Trump's nominees will soon occupy more and more of the lifetime appointments on the bench. Once they do, they will not only be more inclined to side with his extreme view of Executive power, they will also start ruling in cases consistent with the ideologies they bring to their jobs--for example, that abortion should be illegal; that Americans don't have a right to healthcare; that voter suppression is OK; that families with same-sex parents should be discriminated against; that transgender teenagers should be forced to be someone they are not; that Presidents can ban people from our country based on their faith; that one person's religious beliefs can trample the civil rights of everyone else. Trump's nominees have extensive records of their positions on these kinds of issues. It used to be that appointees to the Federal district courts generally did not generate a lot of controversy. They were typically experienced trial lawyers or prosecutors with solid reputations in their hometowns, but they weren't typically activists or ideologues. There was a time when they were mostly White and mostly male, but starting in the Carter administration and building steam through the Clinton and Obama administrations, district court nominees presented to the Senate were increasingly diverse, with an emphasis on qualifications, not ideology. But Donald Trump's judicial nominees are, once again, mostly White and mostly male. They are now much more ideological and agenda-driven. He has also nominated a disproportionate number of lawyers who do what is called impact litigation, where they pursue cases to make political points and undo legislative decisions. Some examples of Trump's dangerous circuit court nominees include Patrick Wyrick, who was solicitor general of Oklahoma and who, together with his close ally, then-Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, tried to dismantle Obama-era protections of clean air, clean water, and public land. He was counsel of record on an amicus brief in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, challenging the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage requirement. He also submitted a brief in Humble v. Planned Parenthood of Arizona, challenging medication-induced abortion procedures commonly used by Planned Parenthood. As deputy general counsel for the First Liberty Institute, Matthew Kacsmaryk filed briefs opposing same-sex marriage, supported a Virginia school board's anti-transgender bathroom policy, and opposed the right of all women to have their healthcare coverage include contraceptives. Michael Truncale, another example, was a former congressional candidate and an ideological activist against voting rights, abortion, and immigration, who gave public speeches using the widely debunked myth of in-person voter fraud to justify Texas's draconian voter ID laws. Another example is Wendy Vitter, who promoted fraudulent claims about abortion, birth control, and women's health at an appearance she initially failed to disclose to the committee. These fraudulent claims included the position that there is a connection between using birth control and getting cancer. She has been a public advocate for extreme restrictions on reproductive rights. As deputy solicitor general in the Office of the Texas Attorney General, J. Campbell Barker represented Texas and Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, urging the Supreme Court to uphold Texas's restrictive anti-abortion statute. The Supreme Court declined to do that, thankfully. He also supported Donald Trump's Muslim ban, advocated for the invalidation of DACA and DAPA, supported restrictive voter ID laws, opposed the right of all women to have their healthcare coverage include contraceptives, and I could go on and on. These nominees have deeply held personal, ideological views who want to be judges for life to make these views into law. During their confirmation hearings, these nominees told us, to a person, he or she would ``follow the law'' and ``follow precedent,'' but do they really expect us to believe they can set aside their careers of ideological activism? I don't think so. They were nominated precisely because they are advocates for an ideologically conservative agenda--just the kind of nominees who would get the stamp of approval from the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation. That is why my Republican colleagues support them, and that is why they want to pass this resolution--to pack the courts with these types of judges even faster. Many Americans are awakening to the fact that court-packing is a clear and present danger to a woman's right to choose, voting rights, healthcare access, environmental protections, civil rights, and individual rights. Not content with the court-packing damage they have already done, Republicans are using this resolution for court-packing to happen even faster. I cannot support this resolution. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to denounce the majority leader's sham debate on the Green New Deal. Let's be clear. The majority leader did not call up this resolution for a vote because he thinks climate change is an urgent threat to our country. In fact, he has opposed nearly every congressional effort to combat the climate crisis. The Republican Party's political and financial ties to the fossil fuel industry are well known. This latest effort to attack Senators demanding action on climate change with cries of socialism is reminiscent of the Red Scare, in my view. Give me a break. The Green New Deal is an aspirational plan to combat climate change, create high-paying jobs, and develop a more sustainable economy that allows communities, families, and individuals to thrive. This isn't radical. This isn't socialism. This is basic common sense. The truly radical position is the majority leader's insistence that we stick our heads in the sand, follow the lead of corporate-backed interests funding Republican campaigns, and do nothing to tackle climate change. The status quo might benefit the majority leader, the Republican Party, and their allies in the fossil fuel industry, but it is deeply dangerous for our country. Climate change is already impacting our lives and damaging our economy. Annual weather-related natural disasters have more than tripled worldwide since the 1960s, when scientists at the Mauna Loa Observatory on the big island of Hawaii first confirmed that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were steadily rising due to the burning of fossil fuels. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the United States has sustained 139 weather and climate disasters--beginning with Hurricane Katrina in 2005--where damages exceeded $1 billion. The total cost of these 139 disasters? Nearly $1.1 trillion. Last year, in 2018, the United States experienced the fourth highest number of weather disasters in our history at the tremendous costs of 247 lives lost and $91 billion in damages. In Hawaii last year, we registered recordbreaking flooding on Kauai and Oahu that resulted in more than $125 million in damages. That storm generated the largest 24- hour rainfall accumulation in American history at nearly 50 inches on Kauai's North Shore in a very short period of rainfall time. Residents of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands also felt the devastating impact of Typhoon Yutu--the worst storm to hit any part of the United States since 1935. It certainly isn't a coincidence that 2018 was also the fourth hottest year on record, surpassed only by 2016, 2015, and 2017. We have already seen the devastating cost of climate-driven disasters in the first 3 months of 2019. Eleven days ago, Tropical Cyclone Idai devastated Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Malawi, killing hundreds of people. It is already being called one of the worst weather-related disasters ever in the southern hemisphere. Closer to home, the Missouri River has already set record levels of flooding in Nebraska, Iowa, and South Dakota. Under current estimates, this historic flooding in the Midwest will cost at least $3 billion in damages to roads, farms, homes, and businesses. According to Texas A&M University climate scientist Andrew Dessler, climate change is exacerbating the flooding. He said: ``You can think of climate change as steroids for these rain events.'' More is on the way. According to the spring weather outlook NOAA released last Thursday, more than 200 million Americans are at risk for some kind of flooding, with 13 million of them at risk of major inundation. Given the increasing intensity and frequency of severe weather events, many more States and communities will need disaster relief, something we are about to vote on later this week. Disaster relief is something we cannot, and should not, play politics with. Every community impacted by natural disasters should receive assistance in the upcoming supplemental appropriations bill, including Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and other territories. While these extreme weather events will continue to impact local communities and the American economy, climate change also threatens our national security. Like a large majority of the American people, senior national security and Department of Defense officials understand we can't just follow the majority leader's example and stick our heads in the sand to avoid the painful truth of climate change. In 2017, for example, then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee: ``Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating.'' He also stated that ``climate change is a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of-government response.'' In February, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats issued a new worldwide threat assessment that concluded that climate hazards like extreme weather, wildfires, droughts, and acidifying oceans are ``threatening infrastructure, health, and water and food security'' around the world. This means there will be more threats to our national security in an increasingly unstable world environment. Faced with a global problem that threatens our national security, President Trump, with the support of Republicans in Congress, announced he would withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord. He has, in effect, abdicated America's global leadership role in the climate crisis, alienated our allies, and created new opportunities for near-peer competitors like China. At the same time as the United States embraced climate denial on the international stage under Donald Trump, China has stepped up to fill the diplomatic void. After the latest round of international climate talks in November, Canada's Minister of Environment, Catherine McKenna said: When the U.S. stepped back, China decided to step up. The role China plays around the negotiating table can't be underestimated. In addition to its diplomatic efforts, China has made significant policy changes to reduce its coal use from its 2013 peak and to scale up low carbon alternatives. China is now the world's leading producer, exporter, and installer of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and electric vehicles. China isn't the only country on the global stage acknowledging the reality of climate change and taking steps to combat it. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for example, has said: ``Climate action is a matter of both ecological necessity and economic rationality.'' Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said: The effects of climate change are everywhere, and they are a constant reminder of the need to act now. While climate change is the biggest challenge of this generation, it also provides the opportunity to do better while growing the economy. Under the previous 2 years of their unified control of the White House and Congress, Republicans have repeatedly blocked any efforts to combat climate change. With Democrats now in control in the House, I am looking forward to working with like-minded colleagues to demonstrate there are those of us ready and willing to act. Today, I am joining Representative Barbara Lee of California to introduce the Women and Climate Change Act of 2019. This bill recognizes that while the negative impacts of climate change often impact women the most, they too often don't have a seat at the table when it comes to developing policy. Our bill creates a Federal interagency working group that will collect data and develop policies and strategies to address the effects of climate change on women both at home and abroad. We need to empower women to tackle climate change. They need seats at the table. So long as Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress obstruct meaningful debate and action, States and local communities are taking their own decisive steps to combat climate change. Almost every State in the country has begun to experience the impact of climate change. But as an island State, Hawaii is poised to experience some of the harshest consequences of climate change. Rising sea levels, combined with increased storm runoff, will increase coastal flooding and erosion, damaging sensitive ecosystems, infrastructure, and agriculture. According to research from the University of Hawaii Sea Grant Program, 70 percent of beaches in Hawaii are eroding and 13 miles of public beaches that once were present no longer exist. Waikiki Beach alone generates $2.2 billion of Hawaii's economy every year and could be completely submerged by the end of the century. A warming ocean will increase bleaching and disease outbreaks on coral reefs, which currently support $360 million in economic activity each year. For Hawaii, a sea level rise of 3.2 feet--which could happen as early as 2060--will result in $20 billion in damage, the chronic flooding of 38 miles of major roads, 25,000 acres of land, 6,500 structures rendered unusable or lost, and 20,000 residents displaced. The prospect of such widespread climate change-driven devastation has spurred the State of Hawaii to action. We have made a commitment to become carbon-neutral and generate 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy sources by 2045, and we became the first State to separately ratify the Paris climate agreement. Eighteen States and Puerto Rico have since followed suit. In addition to efforts at the State level, local communities, families, and landowners are taking their own steps to cope with the threat of climate change and adapt as necessary. Last week, I met with National Park Service officials, members of the Ala Kahakai Trail Association, local government representatives, nongovernment organizations, and community partners, including Native Hawaiian lineal descendants, to learn what they are doing to lead community-based approaches to trail management and how the issue of climate change is threatening national treasures on our coasts in Hawaii. During my visit, members of the Kailapa Community Association created a plan to cope with decreased rainfall, coastal erosion, and other impacts on the ahupua'a--or division of land--that they have lived on for more than 12 generations. Families and communities in Hawaii who understand the threat of climate change are demanding that we take divisive action to combat it. Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress should muster the political courage to do the same, but that is not happening anytime soon--quite the contrary. Instead, as with so many ideas they oppose, Republicans have resorted to mocking and distorting what the Green New Deal does. They are doing it by their tried-and-true method--by scaring people. Donald Trump and the majority leader have invested a lot of time in attempting to justify their claim that the Green New Deal is going to ban air travel. What?

Ms. HIRONO. Let me conclude by saying that the Green New Deal is aspirational. To say that it is going to result in forcing everyone to stop eating meat--it is like, what the heck? What these so-called facts opponents and the climate change deniers are saying about the Green New Deal is laughable, coming from the very people who deny the scientific fact of climate change. I could go on, but obviously my time is up. I will have more to say as we continue this so-called sham debate. But let's not continue to stick our heads in the sand. I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter written by an 11-year-old girl in Hawaii who spoke at a climate change rally in Hawaii. She was so articulate. She said: You know, this is like experiencing world war III for the young people.

Ms. HIRONO. They demand that the adults in the Senate to do something about it and address climate change in an appropriate way. Thank you. On Sunday, I received a letter from Mesina--an 11-year-old girl--who spoke at a March 15th climate action protest in Hawaii, and she wrote: ``I hope that all of our eyes are open now. Floods are demolishing people's homes, forest fires are killing people and singeing acres of land. Sea creatures are dying. Oceans are rising. How can we deny climate change and the science that supports its human cause?'' ``We are experiencing World War III, except in this war, we are all on the same side. We can all agree on clean air, clean water, and a clean earth. As a child that is going to inherit our Earth, I beg you please do everything in your power to protect my generation's future and the generations to follow.'' Mesina is asking us to step up. It's past time to take urgent action to combat climate change.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to denounce the majority leader's sham debate on the Green New Deal. Let's be clear. The majority leader did not call up this resolution for a vote because he thinks climate change is an urgent threat to our country. In fact, he has opposed nearly every congressional effort to combat the climate crisis. The Republican Party's political and financial ties to the fossil fuel industry are well known. This latest effort to attack Senators demanding action on climate change with cries of socialism is reminiscent of the Red Scare, in my view. Give me a break. The Green New Deal is an aspirational plan to combat climate change, create high-paying jobs, and develop a more sustainable economy that allows communities, families, and individuals to thrive. This isn't radical. This isn't socialism. This is basic common sense. The truly radical position is the majority leader's insistence that we stick our heads in the sand, follow the lead of corporate-backed interests funding Republican campaigns, and do nothing to tackle climate change. The status quo might benefit the majority leader, the Republican Party, and their allies in the fossil fuel industry, but it is deeply dangerous for our country. Climate change is already impacting our lives and damaging our economy. Annual weather-related natural disasters have more than tripled worldwide since the 1960s, when scientists at the Mauna Loa Observatory on the big island of Hawaii first confirmed that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were steadily rising due to the burning of fossil fuels. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the United States has sustained 139 weather and climate disasters--beginning with Hurricane Katrina in 2005--where damages exceeded $1 billion. The total cost of these 139 disasters? Nearly $1.1 trillion. Last year, in 2018, the United States experienced the fourth highest number of weather disasters in our history at the tremendous costs of 247 lives lost and $91 billion in damages. In Hawaii last year, we registered recordbreaking flooding on Kauai and Oahu that resulted in more than $125 million in damages. That storm generated the largest 24- hour rainfall accumulation in American history at nearly 50 inches on Kauai's North Shore in a very short period of rainfall time. Residents of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands also felt the devastating impact of Typhoon Yutu--the worst storm to hit any part of the United States since 1935. It certainly isn't a coincidence that 2018 was also the fourth hottest year on record, surpassed only by 2016, 2015, and 2017. We have already seen the devastating cost of climate-driven disasters in the first 3 months of 2019. Eleven days ago, Tropical Cyclone Idai devastated Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Malawi, killing hundreds of people. It is already being called one of the worst weather-related disasters ever in the southern hemisphere. Closer to home, the Missouri River has already set record levels of flooding in Nebraska, Iowa, and South Dakota. Under current estimates, this historic flooding in the Midwest will cost at least $3 billion in damages to roads, farms, homes, and businesses. According to Texas A&M University climate scientist Andrew Dessler, climate change is exacerbating the flooding. He said: ``You can think of climate change as steroids for these rain events.'' More is on the way. According to the spring weather outlook NOAA released last Thursday, more than 200 million Americans are at risk for some kind of flooding, with 13 million of them at risk of major inundation. Given the increasing intensity and frequency of severe weather events, many more States and communities will need disaster relief, something we are about to vote on later this week. Disaster relief is something we cannot, and should not, play politics with. Every community impacted by natural disasters should receive assistance in the upcoming supplemental appropriations bill, including Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and other territories. While these extreme weather events will continue to impact local communities and the American economy, climate change also threatens our national security. Like a large majority of the American people, senior national security and Department of Defense officials understand we can't just follow the majority leader's example and stick our heads in the sand to avoid the painful truth of climate change. In 2017, for example, then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee: ``Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating.'' He also stated that ``climate change is a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of-government response.'' In February, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats issued a new worldwide threat assessment that concluded that climate hazards like extreme weather, wildfires, droughts, and acidifying oceans are ``threatening infrastructure, health, and water and food security'' around the world. This means there will be more threats to our national security in an increasingly unstable world environment. Faced with a global problem that threatens our national security, President Trump, with the support of Republicans in Congress, announced he would withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord. He has, in effect, abdicated America's global leadership role in the climate crisis, alienated our allies, and created new opportunities for near-peer competitors like China. At the same time as the United States embraced climate denial on the international stage under Donald Trump, China has stepped up to fill the diplomatic void. After the latest round of international climate talks in November, Canada's Minister of Environment, Catherine McKenna said: When the U.S. stepped back, China decided to step up. The role China plays around the negotiating table can't be underestimated. In addition to its diplomatic efforts, China has made significant policy changes to reduce its coal use from its 2013 peak and to scale up low carbon alternatives. China is now the world's leading producer, exporter, and installer of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and electric vehicles. China isn't the only country on the global stage acknowledging the reality of climate change and taking steps to combat it. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for example, has said: ``Climate action is a matter of both ecological necessity and economic rationality.'' Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said: The effects of climate change are everywhere, and they are a constant reminder of the need to act now. While climate change is the biggest challenge of this generation, it also provides the opportunity to do better while growing the economy. Under the previous 2 years of their unified control of the White House and Congress, Republicans have repeatedly blocked any efforts to combat climate change. With Democrats now in control in the House, I am looking forward to working with like-minded colleagues to demonstrate there are those of us ready and willing to act. Today, I am joining Representative Barbara Lee of California to introduce the Women and Climate Change Act of 2019. This bill recognizes that while the negative impacts of climate change often impact women the most, they too often don't have a seat at the table when it comes to developing policy. Our bill creates a Federal interagency working group that will collect data and develop policies and strategies to address the effects of climate change on women both at home and abroad. We need to empower women to tackle climate change. They need seats at the table. So long as Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress obstruct meaningful debate and action, States and local communities are taking their own decisive steps to combat climate change. Almost every State in the country has begun to experience the impact of climate change. But as an island State, Hawaii is poised to experience some of the harshest consequences of climate change. Rising sea levels, combined with increased storm runoff, will increase coastal flooding and erosion, damaging sensitive ecosystems, infrastructure, and agriculture. According to research from the University of Hawaii Sea Grant Program, 70 percent of beaches in Hawaii are eroding and 13 miles of public beaches that once were present no longer exist. Waikiki Beach alone generates $2.2 billion of Hawaii's economy every year and could be completely submerged by the end of the century. A warming ocean will increase bleaching and disease outbreaks on coral reefs, which currently support $360 million in economic activity each year. For Hawaii, a sea level rise of 3.2 feet--which could happen as early as 2060--will result in $20 billion in damage, the chronic flooding of 38 miles of major roads, 25,000 acres of land, 6,500 structures rendered unusable or lost, and 20,000 residents displaced. The prospect of such widespread climate change-driven devastation has spurred the State of Hawaii to action. We have made a commitment to become carbon-neutral and generate 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy sources by 2045, and we became the first State to separately ratify the Paris climate agreement. Eighteen States and Puerto Rico have since followed suit. In addition to efforts at the State level, local communities, families, and landowners are taking their own steps to cope with the threat of climate change and adapt as necessary. Last week, I met with National Park Service officials, members of the Ala Kahakai Trail Association, local government representatives, nongovernment organizations, and community partners, including Native Hawaiian lineal descendants, to learn what they are doing to lead community-based approaches to trail management and how the issue of climate change is threatening national treasures on our coasts in Hawaii. During my visit, members of the Kailapa Community Association created a plan to cope with decreased rainfall, coastal erosion, and other impacts on the ahupua'a--or division of land--that they have lived on for more than 12 generations. Families and communities in Hawaii who understand the threat of climate change are demanding that we take divisive action to combat it. Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress should muster the political courage to do the same, but that is not happening anytime soon--quite the contrary. Instead, as with so many ideas they oppose, Republicans have resorted to mocking and distorting what the Green New Deal does. They are doing it by their tried-and-true method--by scaring people. Donald Trump and the majority leader have invested a lot of time in attempting to justify their claim that the Green New Deal is going to ban air travel. What?

Ms. HIRONO. Let me conclude by saying that the Green New Deal is aspirational. To say that it is going to result in forcing everyone to stop eating meat--it is like, what the heck? What these so-called facts opponents and the climate change deniers are saying about the Green New Deal is laughable, coming from the very people who deny the scientific fact of climate change. I could go on, but obviously my time is up. I will have more to say as we continue this so-called sham debate. But let's not continue to stick our heads in the sand. I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter written by an 11-year-old girl in Hawaii who spoke at a climate change rally in Hawaii. She was so articulate. She said: You know, this is like experiencing world war III for the young people.

Ms. HIRONO. They demand that the adults in the Senate to do something about it and address climate change in an appropriate way. Thank you. On Sunday, I received a letter from Mesina--an 11-year-old girl--who spoke at a March 15th climate action protest in Hawaii, and she wrote: ``I hope that all of our eyes are open now. Floods are demolishing people's homes, forest fires are killing people and singeing acres of land. Sea creatures are dying. Oceans are rising. How can we deny climate change and the science that supports its human cause?'' ``We are experiencing World War III, except in this war, we are all on the same side. We can all agree on clean air, clean water, and a clean earth. As a child that is going to inherit our Earth, I beg you please do everything in your power to protect my generation's future and the generations to follow.'' Mesina is asking us to step up. It's past time to take urgent action to combat climate change.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, two weeks ago, the Senate broke a century of precedent and confirmed a judge, Eric Miller, to the Ninth Circuit over the objection of both home State Senators. Last week, the majority leader filed cloture on two circuit court nominees, Paul Matey for the Third Circuit and Neomi Rao to replace Brett Kavanaugh in the DC Circuit. Yesterday, Paul Matey became the second person in Senate history, after Eric Miller, to be confirmed without blue slips from both home State Senators. By eliminating the blue slip--a century-old policy that requires meaningful consultation between the President and home State Senators on judicial nominations--Senate Republicans have been able to speed through confirming partisan judges with strong ideological perspectives and agendas. Donald Trump appointed 30 circuit court judges in his first 2 years in office. That is 17 percent of the Federal appellate bench. By contrast, President Obama appointed only 16 circuit court judges in his first 2 years in office, and President George Bush appointed 17. Donald Trump and the majority leader, with the help of the chair of the Judiciary Committee, are breaking nearly every rule that stands in their way to stack, at breakneck speed, the Federal courts with deeply partisan and ideological judges. And why are they doing this? They are packing the courts to achieve, through the courts, what they haven't been able to accomplish through legislation or executive action--undermining Roe v. Wade, dismantling the Affordable Care Act, eliminating protections for workers, women, minorities, LGBTQ individuals, immigrants, and the environment. The courts, with non-Trump judges, have been the constitutional guardrails stopping the Trump administration's deeply questionable policies and decisions, such as separating immigrant children from their parents, summarily ending DACA protections, and asking whether census respondents are U.S. citizens. All of these administration decisions have been stopped, for now, by Federal judges. Trump's judicial nominees have extensive records of advocating for rightwing, ideologically-driven causes. In fact, these records are the reasons they are being nominated in the first place. The nominees tell us to ignore their records and trust them when they say they will follow precedent and rule impartially, but after they are confirmed as judges, they can ignore promises made under oath during their confirmation hearing because they can. Short of impeaching these judges, there is nothing we can do about it--great for them, not great for Americans. By the way, the average Trump judge tends to be younger, less diverse, and less experienced. They will be making rules that affect our lives for decades. This week we are considering yet another Trump nominee, Neomi Rao, who should make us seriously ask how far the majority leader is willing to go to let Donald Trump pack the courts with extreme nominees and undermine the independence and impartiality of the Federal judiciary. Neomi Rao is a nominee who has not only expressed offensive and controversial views in her twenties, but she has also continued to make concerning statements as a law professor. Her recent actions as Donald Trump's Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA, have shown that her controversial statements in her twenties cannot be ignored as merely youthful indiscretions. At the hearing, I asked her why, as a law professor, she defended dwarf-tossing by arguing that a ban on dwarf-tossing ``coerces individuals'' to accept a societal view of dignity that negates the dignity of an individual's choice to be tossed. Does she seriously believe that dwarfs who are tossed do not share a societal view of dignity that being tossed is an affront to human dignity? Ms. Rao asserted that she was only talking about a particular case and not taking a position one way or another on these issues. It is hard to understand what distinction she is making, but describing a ban on dwarf-tossing as not coercion is bizarre, especially coming from someone who purports to worry about the dignitary harm caused by affirmative action or diversity in education programs. When I asked her about the strong ideological perspectives reflected in her writings and public statements, she claimed that she ``come[s] here to this committee with no agenda and no ideology and [she] would strive, if [she] were confirmed, to follow the law in every case.'' Ms. Rao would have us ignore all of her controversial statements and positions and simply trust her blanket assertion that she has no agenda or ideology. In this, she is like the other Trump judicial nominees. As a college student, Ms. Rao criticized environmental student groups for focusing on ``three major environmental boogymen, the greenhouse effect, the depleting ozone layer, and the dangers of acid rain . . . though all three theories have come under serious scientific attack.'' More than two decades later, Ms. Rao demonstrated the same disregard for environmental concerns as the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OIRA. In this position she has consistently used her power and influence to strip away critical protections for clean air and clean water. For example, Ms. Rao supported efforts to replace the Clean Power Plan, which would have reduced greenhouse gas emissions with a rule that would actually increase air pollution and could lead to up to 1,400 additional premature deaths. Her claim that she would simply follow precedent is also contradicted by her statements and positions relating to racial injustice. In her twenties, while discussing the Yale Women's Center and what she called ``cultural awareness groups,'' she argued that ``[m]yths of sexual and racial oppression propogate [sic] themselves, create hysteria and finally lead to the formation of some whining new group.'' I just wonder, what are these whining new groups that she refers to? Could it be women who want to support programs that support women? In 2015, as a law professor, she disparagingly described the Supreme Court case that reaffirmed the Fair Housing Act's protections against disparate impact discrimination as a ``rul[ing] by talking points,'' not law. In Texas Department of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project, the Supreme Court recognized that the disparate impact doctrine is an important way ``to counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised animus'' based on a policy's discriminatory effects. Despite the Supreme Court precedent, when Ms. Rao became the OIRA Administrator, she began working to weaken rules protecting against disparate impact discrimination--upheld by the Supreme Court, by the way--particularly in the area of housing. Her writings and actions related to sexual assault and rape are another reason we should be hesitant to believe her claim that she will merely follow the law free of her strongly held ideological views. In her twenties, Ms. Rao repeatedly wrote offensive statements about date rape and sexual assault that disparaged survivors. In writing about date rape, she argued that if a woman ``drinks to the point where she can no longer choose, well, getting to that point was part of her choice.'' In criticizing the feminist movement, she asserted she was ``not arguing that date rape victims ask for it'' but then argued that ``when playing the modern dating game, women have to understand and accept the consequences of their sexuality.'' At her hearing and in a subsequent letter to this Committee, Ms. Rao tried to walk away from these offensive writings, stating that she ``regret[s]'' some of them and believes ``[v]ictims should not be blamed.'' But at the hearing she continued to insist that her prior controversial statements were ``only trying to make the commonsense observation about the relationship between drinking and becoming a victim.'' That is not how her statements came across. She seems to acknowledge that by further claiming that if she were addressing campus sexual assault and rape now, she ``would have more empathy and perspective.'' That claim rings hollow, as she only recently oversaw the Trump administration's proposed title IX rule that would make it harder for college sexual assault survivors to come forward and obtain justice. Among other things, the proposed rule would require schools to conduct a live hearing where the accused's representatives can cross- examine the survivor. It would also have the school use a higher burden of proof for sexual misconduct cases than for other misconduct cases. I will close by noting that Ms. Rao previously criticized the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearings for judicial nominees. In writing about the Supreme Court confirmation process, she complained that nominees are ``coached to choose from certain stock answers,'' such as ``repeatedly alleg[ing] fidelity to the law.'' Back then she readily acknowledged that ``judges draw on a variety of tools in interpreting the law, and that these tools differ for judges based on their constitutional values.'' But now that she has been nominated to become a judge, she is the one giving the Judiciary Committee the formulaic ``stock answers'' that she criticized. Before she became a judicial nominee, she indicated that nominees should not be confirmed ``based on incantations of the right formulas without an examination of their actual beliefs.'' We should hold her to her own words. An examination of Ms. Rao's record and actual beliefs show that the controversial views she held in her twenties are not so different from her statements and actions as a legal professional. That is why I will be voting against Ms. Rao's nomination, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, the entire Senate Democratic caucus and I are introducing a resolution that simply asks the Department of Justice to do what it is supposed to do--defend the duly enacted laws of this country. This resolution shouldn't be necessary, but last year, as 19 States joined Texas in challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Attorney General Jeff Sessions refused to defend the ACA in court and, in fact, filed a brief arguing that several vital protections of the law should be ruled unconstitutional, including protections for Americans living with preexisting conditions. In making his decision not to defend a duly enacted law, Jeff Sessions himself acknowledged that he was going against a ``longstanding tradition of defending the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense.'' Guess what. There are many reasonable arguments for the ACA. Even conservative lawyers who previously argued against the ACA agree. One attorney filed an amicus brief in opposition to the Department of Justice's position calling it ``dangerous,'' ``beyond the pale,'' and ``effectively [usurping] legislative power.'' The Justice Department lawyer who authored the brief opposing the ACA, Chad Readler, was just rewarded with a confirmation to a lifetime position to the Sixth Circuit. In fact, Mr. Readler's circuit court nomination came on the exact same day that he filed the brief on behalf of the Department of Justice. Talk about yet another Trump nominee who auditioned for his position. The Justice Department's actions were blatantly political and had a specific outcome in mind: accomplishing through the courts what Republicans have tried and failed to achieve through the legislative process; that is, repealing the Affordable Care Act. Three career attorneys at the Department of Justice withdrew from the case in protest of their Department's failing to defend the ACA. In December, a Federal court in Texas sided with the Trump administration, Texas, and 19 other States in declaring the entirety of the ACA unconstitutional. Of course, this will be appealed. The Fifth Circuit--one of the most conservative appellate courts in the country--will hear the case next. The case is destined for consideration by the Supreme Court, wherein Trump-appointed Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will cast two deciding votes on whether to uphold the ACA or cast it aside. I shudder to think which way they are likely to go. The outcome of this case will have a profound impact on virtually every American, especially the 133 million people living with preexisting conditions. This is not a game. Lives are at stake. Without the ACA's protections, millions of Americans living with conditions as common as diabetes, obesity, heart disease, or cancer could be charged exorbitant premiums or denied insurance coverage altogether. The stakes in this ongoing court battle are incredibly high. Our resolution simply asks the Department of Justice to do its job, defend the ACA as a duly enacted act of Congress, and stand up to protect Americans living with preexisting conditions. Although many of my Republican colleagues profess to support protections for those with preexisting conditions, not a single one of them has signed on to support this resolution. Under new leadership, the Department of Justice can do the right thing. During his confirmation hearing, newly confirmed Attorney General Bill Barr indicated he was open to reassessing DOJ's decision to oppose the ACA in court. We shall see. With this resolution, my Democratic colleagues and I urge him to reexamine the Department's position, consider the monumental impact this case would have on millions of Americans, and stand up for the 133 million Americans living with a preexisting condition. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 94 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, 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. Madam President, I often say that I like to see when people reveal themselves. With this objection today, my colleague from Wyoming has sent a clear message to Americans living with preexisting conditions that the Republican Party doesn't care about them. I am disappointed with his objection, but I can't say that I am surprised. Today's action is very consistent with the Republican Party's hostility to the ACA and their belief that healthcare is a privilege reserved only for those who can afford it. To recap, Republicans voted dozens of times over the past 9 years to repeal the ACA in its entirety. The Senate came within one vote in July 2017 of repealing the law--one vote. The majority leader and my Republican colleagues from South Carolina and Louisiana proposed--and came close to passing--a bill that would have gutted the ACA and cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid. As part of their huge tax cut for the rich and corporations, Donald Trump and congressional Republicans eliminated the individual coverage requirement of ACA, driving up premiums across the country. So the assault on healthcare continues. The American people are paying attention, and Republicans will be held accountable. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President.

Ms. HIRONO. Reserving the right to object, this resolution is a cynical attempt to divide Democrats where no division exists. The Democratic Party is united behind the principle that healthcare should be affordable and accessible to all. As far as I am concerned, healthcare is a right, not a privilege reserved for those who can afford it. Medicare for All is one way to get to universal healthcare that is affordable for everyone, but it is not the only way. While Democrats are working to build on the success of the Affordable Care Act to cover even more Americans, Senate Republicans have tried time and again to eliminate coverage for tens of millions of Americans. This is particularly evident in the President's budget--a budget that would make over $2 trillion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, programs that provide healthcare coverage to one out of every three people in our country. I call on my Republican colleagues to join us to improve the ACA and expand coverage to more Americans rather than trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act time after time. It is unfortunate that my colleagues would rather offer this distraction than acknowledge that millions of Americans rely on Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA for healthcare. In offering this resolution, Republicans continue to do nothing except propose cuts to all three critical programs. I object.

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President.