Mazie Hirono

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh about Dr. Ford's account of an attack on her by Judge Kavanaugh and a friend when they were all teenagers. Dr. Ford acquitted herself with grace and courage in her recounting of the terrifying experience that has had a lasting effect on her life. In his own testimony, Judge Kavanaugh dropped the polite veneer he presented at his confirmation hearing when he complimented all of the Senators he had met with and had told the committee ``the Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution.'' That was then. Last Thursday, he launched into a partisan political screed that contradicted everything he had ever professed to believe about the way judges should behave. He said: ``This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, a fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.'' It reads like a fever dream, a paranoid fantasy. It is simply not true. It arguably violated the Code of Conduct for United States Judges that binds him as a sitting judge on the Federal appeals court for the DC Circuit. Dr. Ford's own words undercut Judge Kavanaugh's assertion that a vast leftwing conspiracy is out to get him. In her deeply moving testimony, Dr. Ford said: ``I thought it was my civic duty to relay the information I had about Mr. Kavanaugh's conduct so that those considering his nomination would know about this assault.'' She went on: ``My hope was that providing the information confidentially would be sufficient to allow the Senate to consider Mr. Kavanaugh's serious misconduct without having to make myself, my family, or anyone's family vulnerable to the personal attacks and invasions of privacy we have faced since my name became public.'' Dr. Ford was trying to do her civic duty. She was not motivated by revenge on anyone's behalf. She had no part in any organized opposition. She was not fueled by pent-up anger or resentment. In deciding to come forward, Dr. Ford was just a person who thought that if she could only let the President know what Brett Kavanaugh did to her, he would choose someone else. Yet Kavanaugh attacked and tried to turn Dr. Ford's honest effort into some sort of a dark, ugly ambush. At least he didn't accuse Dr. Ford of being part of the alleged conspiracy that sought to derail his nomination. In fact, when Senator Booker asked Judge Kavanaugh if he blamed Dr. Ford for a coordinated effort against him, Judge Kavanaugh said he bore Dr. Ford no ill will and that people in the hearing room, not Dr. Ford, were against him. We all saw something about Judge Kavanaugh's temperament and character that day that should disqualify him from serving on the Supreme Court of the United States. He was angry. He was belligerent. He was partisan. He went on the attack against the Senators who were questioning him. These are not qualities we look for in a Supreme Court Justice or in a judge for that matter. But don't take it from me; listen to Judge Kavanaugh himself. In 2016, in the Catholic University Law Review, he wrote about the importance of judges steering clear of politics. He told his readers that ``a good judge, like a good umpire, cannot act as a partisan.'' He said that while it is good for some judges to come with a background in politics or policy, ``federal judges have to check any prior political allegiances at the door. You have to shed them.'' Based on Judge Kavanaugh's testimony last week, it certainly doesn't sound like he has shed his partisan convictions and connections. In the same law review article, Judge Kavanaugh wrote: To be a good judge and a good umpire, it's critical to have the proper demeanor. It's important to . . . keep our emotions in check and be calm amidst the storm. He is not wrong. Indeed, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges backs him up. Canon 2 of the code reads: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities. . . . A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. It further explains in commentary: An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds . . . would conclude that the judge's honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. Canon 3 explains that ``a judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law and should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.'' We need to consider the rules and norms that argue against the kind of intemperate behavior we saw from Judge Kavanaugh because of the allegations brought against him by several sources, all of which deserve a full and fair investigation by the FBI. I was heartened to see Senators Flake and Coons both in agreement to hold off on a floor vote for at least a week while the supplemental background investigation can be completed to look into these allegations. Since the agreement, questions have arisen about the exact nature of that investigation. Is it limited? If so, how? Will all leads be followed, or will the FBI be hamstrung in some way by instructions from the White House? In the ensuing firestorm, there has been a lot of debate about whether the FBI investigation will be credible and professional and not a perfunctory effort. There are some indications now that the FBI will be allowed to do its job. I hope that will be the case. I expect the FBI to exhaust all possible avenues of investigation that are relevant as to whether Judge Kavanaugh had a pattern of drinking that resulted in aggression and belligerence toward women. Some have said that Judge Kavanaugh deserves the benefit of the doubt and that unless Dr. Ford's account can be proven, he should be confirmed, but that confuses the issue. No one is entitled to be on the Supreme Court. The burden should be on Judge Kavanaugh to show he is fit for the job. Now the Republicans' hired gun prosecutor, whom they hid behind while Dr. Ford was questioned, has published a memo in which she concludes that she could not bring a case based on the evidence heard at the second hearing. Frankly, this conclusion is meaningless. I am sure that in her previous job as a specialist in sex crimes, she would never have proceeded to a trial before an investigation, and she would not have excluded key witnesses. There was no investigation. Key witnesses were not called. I hope this is not the way she would prepare a case. I have said many times that Democrats didn't need to manufacture reasons to oppose Judge Kavanaugh's elevation to the Supreme Court. Based on his record, his opinions and dissents, his academic writings, and his speeches, I have concluded that he will not be a fair and objective Justice of the Supreme Court. His views on reproductive rights, Native rights, on legal protections for workers, consumers, and the environment, not to mention his very broad views of Presidential protections, are all of deep concern to me. Now that we have heard Dr. Ford's account and have seen Judge Kavanaugh's angry and combative reaction, it is evident that he should not serve and should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court. We can do better, and the American people deserve better. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, these are the remarks I would have given at this morning's Judiciary Committee markup after the perfunctory and dismissive way the chairman treated the minority members of the Judiciary Committee. I walked out in protest. Here are the remarks I would have given at the committee markup. I am in disbelief that we are here today voting on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. Outrageous does not begin to describe the present circumstances. Yesterday we heard from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who spoke with genuine and raw emotional power about being sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. Even though it was more than 30 years ago, her memory of the assault was clear and vivid. This kind of recall is typical of sexual assault survivors. She was sincere and authentic. She was 100 percent credible, and I believe her. By contrast, Brett Kavanaugh came to this committee and refused to give us straight answers. He would not call for an FBI investigation. He repeatedly stated that the other people who were at the gathering where Dr. Ford was attacked had ``rebutted her testimony.'' That is not true. His alleged accomplice in the attack, Mark Judge, claimed he didn't remember--a far cry from rebutting her statement. He claimed he didn't remember, refused to testify, and then went into hiding. Patrick Smyth and Leland Keyser said they simply don't remember--again, hardly a rebuttal. Dr. Ford said yesterday: I don't expect that P.J. and Leland would remember this evening. It was a very unremarkable party. It was not one of their more notorious parties, because nothing remarkable happened to them that evening. In fact, even though she doesn't remember, Leland Keyser said she believes Dr. Ford's account. In addition to making misleading statements--which is a pattern with Judge Kavanaugh--he accused Democratic Senators of coordinating a plot to sabotage his nomination. Clearly, he was speaking to an audience of one: President Trump. A nominee for the Supreme Court so rattled that he would buy into a vast conspiracy theory is astounding and dangerous. Let's not forget his exact words. Judge Kavanaugh said: This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. With that nakedly political screed, Brett Kavanaugh showed us who he really is: a partisan political operative with an agenda--the very worry that kept him from confirmation to the DC Circuit for 3 years. His own words reinforced a concern that I and many of us here have that he cannot be a fair and impartial judge. Setting aside the unvarnished political view--from a potential Supreme Court Justice, no less--the crux of the matter before us today is whether Dr. Ford was credible when she said that she is 100 percent sure that Brett Kavanaugh is the person who sexually assaulted her. On that issue, Brett Kavanaugh admitted, even without watching her testimony, that Dr. Ford did not play a part and was not part of any imagined partisan plot. So what we are left with is his own recognition that Dr. Ford has no political motive and no reason to lie. I challenge anyone who watched her testimony to claim that she did not tell us the truth. Dr. Ford wasn't the only woman to come forward with an account of sexual misconduct against the nominee. Two other women have provided credible accounts that deserve real investigation. But whether it is one woman or three women, my Republican colleagues are letting nothing stop them from plowing through to get Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court as soon as possible. Even before the committee had a chance to hear from Dr. Ford, Chairman Grassley had already scheduled today's vote. By voting to support this nominee, Republican colleagues are sending a message loud and clear: Sexual assault survivors should not come forward because we are not going to listen to you. They will not be believed, and their lives will be up-ended in the process. That is exactly what happened to Dr. Ford. As far as I am concerned, there was never a serious effort by the committee to get to the truth. Today's vote signals to the men and boys in America that you can demean and assault women--especially if you are in a position of power and influence. There will be no consequences. It won't even prevent you from becoming a Supreme Court Justice. Yesterday, accusations flew from the other side of the aisle about deliberate efforts to make up accusations and undermine Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, but Democrats didn't need to manufacture additional reasons to oppose Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. As I have maintained before, his record demonstrates a pattern of misstating the facts. He wasn't candid yesterday. He wasn't candid in his testimony to the committee when he testified at his 2004 and 2006 confirmation hearings or when he testified at his confirmation hearing for this nomination in 2018. I also found his candor lacking in the judicial opinions and legal arguments he authored. For example, as my colleagues have talked about in the past, Judge Kavanaugh was not honest with the committee in 2004 and 2006 when asked about matters that he worked on, and his emails from the White House show that he was not honest about his awareness of receiving stolen documents from Manny Miranda. In a case I am familiar with--Rice v. Cayetano--he demonstrated what could only be called a deliberate misstatement of the facts that he presented to the U.S. Supreme Court. He had to have known that what he wrote about the politics and culture of Native Hawaiians was not true. He filed an amicus brief in that case, and at his hearing a few weeks ago, Judge Kavanaugh misstated the holdings of Rice and refused to correct his misstatement when I gave him a chance to clarify. I will say that I am one of the few people in the Senate who attended the oral argument in Rice. I know what the Supreme Court based its decision on, and he totally misstated the Supreme Court's decision. Advocates for our Native communities are stepping up and taking notice. The Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement and the Alaska Federation of Natives issued statements that strongly urge the Senate to reject the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. They and other groups representing indigenous peoples have come forward to explain how Judge Kavanaugh's views of the rights of indigenous peoples are deeply flawed. These are the kinds of attitudes that he expressed in his amicus brief in Rice v. Cayetano. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following statements in opposition of Judge Kavanaugh's nomination or that criticize his views of indigenous people be printed in the Record. They are from the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and the Alaska Federation of Natives.

Ms. HIRONO. It is deeply troubling to have a Supreme Court nominee for a lifetime position who isn't candid with us about the facts or straight with us about the law. In Garza v. Hargan, he did it again. In that 2017 case, he wrote a dissent in which he misapplied the law and treated the case as if it were about parental consent. It was not. The case, which was about whether a 17-year-old undocumented young woman could be released from immigration custody to have an abortion, did not involve the question of parental consent. But he sat there at his nomination hearing, and when I asked him about it, he said that was a case involving parental consent--a total misstatement of the issue in the case. In that case, this young woman had already received a proper judicial bypass from a Texas judge that allowed her to make her own decisions. So that had nothing to do with having to require parental consent; she had already overcome that. But that wasn't good enough for Judge Kavanaugh. He inserted his own views about legal issues not even present in the case. This is just one example of his outcome-driven approach to important cases before him. At the hearing, I also asked him about the pattern that was revealed in his numerous dissents. In several of those cases, his own colleagues called him out for misrepresenting the facts and the law. Just last year, in United States v. Anthem, the majority said that Judge Kavanaugh ``applies the law as he wishes it were, not as it currently is.'' In a 2008 case, Agri Processor v. NLRB, the majority wrote that Judge Kavanaugh's dissent ``creates its own rule.'' Instead of following Supreme Court rules, they said that Judge Kavanaugh's dissent abandons the text of the applicable law altogether. It is pretty telling when your own colleagues on the court feel so strongly about your dissent that they will actually call you out on it. When this nomination first came to the Senate, I was skeptical. I said that if the President's nominee to the Supreme Court is anything like the nominees he has been sending to the lower Federal courts, I expect we will see a nominee handpicked by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation intent on carrying out their rightwing ideology supported by the President. It turned out to be much worse than I imagined. Not only was the nominee someone who fit that description; it became clear that he was someone who lacked candor, credibility, and character. This has been displayed at every turn. After hearing from Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh yesterday, the editors of America Magazine--a well-respected Jesuit weekly--withdrew. They originally endorsed Judge Kavanaugh. This group withdrew their endorsement of Judge Kavanaugh. They said: While we previously endorsed the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh on the basis of his legal credentials and his reputation as a committed textualist, it is now clear that the nomination should be withdrawn. If Senate Republicans proceed with his nomination, they will be prioritizing policy aims over a woman's report of an assault. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a portion of a copy of this article be printed in the Record.

Ms. HIRONO. In addition, Robert Carlson, president of the American Bar Association, the ABA, issued a letter urging the Judiciary Committee of the Senate to not vote on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination until there is an FBI investigation into Dr. Ford's account of sexual assault. The ABA explained that ``deciding to proceed without conducting an additional investigation would not only have a lasting impact on the Senate's reputation, but it will also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people to have in the Supreme Court.'' I agree. Brett Kavanaugh does not have the credibility, candor, character, or, I would say, as we saw yesterday, the temperament to be on the Supreme Court. His presence on the Court under this kind of cloud will weaken the Court. I cannot support this nomination. I would like to end the remarks I would have given at the markup but am giving on the floor now. I would like to say that my colleague Senator Jeff Flake has said that he would not be able to vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh without an FBI investigation into the current allegations. I support that. I have no idea whether the Republican leadership is going to allow a timeout for that kind of investigation to occur--an investigation that I and other Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee have been calling for, for what seems like months. Of course, I would want an FBI investigation to be thorough. I do not want some kind of a peripheral investigation to give cover to Senators who are wavering. I would want an investigation by the FBI to be thorough, to be real, to provide us with the kind of information that we need to make a determination as to the credibility, candor, and character of Judge Kavanaugh. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

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

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for votes on August 23 and August 27 so I could return to Hawaii to lend my support to the State and Federal preparations for and response to the severe weather conditions caused by Hurricane Lane. I rise today in order to outline how I would have voted on the rollcall votes that occurred on those dates. For vote No. 190 on August 23, 2018, on the motion to invoke cloture on Senate amendment 3695 to H.R. 6157, Department of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019, had I been present, I would have voted yea. For vote No. 191 on August 23, 2018, on adoption of Senate amendment 3967 to H.R. 6157, Department of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019, had I been present, I would have voted nay. For vote No. 192 on August 23, 2018, on the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to Amendment No. 3695 to H.R. 6157, Department of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019, had I been present, I would have voted yea. For vote No. 193 on August 23, 2018, on final passage of H.R. 6157, Department of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019, as amended, had I been present, I would have voted yea. Finally, for vote No. 194 on August 27, 2018, on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Lynn A. Johnson to be Assistant Secretary for Family Support, Department of Health and Human Services, had I been present, I would have voted yea.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise to commemorate the life and public service of Laura Efurd who passed away on July 2, 2018. Losing someone as hard-working, level-headed, and good humored as Laura is not easy. I was proud that Laura was willing to return to public service as my State administrative manager. She provided a steady, experienced hand, and balanced it with her kindness and genial nature. Her regular, day-to-day presence helped me and my staff a great deal. We miss her. Laura had a life well-lived. She was born in Kona, HI and raised in Mililani. Laura left Hawaii for college at Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia, and earned a master's degree from American University in Washington, DC. She established herself professionally on Capitol Hill working first for Congressman Robinson from Arkansas, then as legislative director for almost 9 years to my friend, Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink of Hawaii. Patsy was well known for standing up for underserved communities, including women and minorities, and a tireless fighter for social justice and expanding access to quality health care and education. While Patsy was a force of nature, we all know what an important role that staff plays in a congressional office to support and execute the work of their Members. As legislative director, Laura was instrumental in working with Patsy. She helped spearhead the establishment of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, CAPAC, founded by Representative Mink and Norm Mineta, D-CA, in 1994. Laura served as the caucus's primary staffer during Representative Mink's term as chair. CAPAC's creation helped to initiate and provide a much needed voice for the AAPI community in Congress. At its start, CAPAC was made up of two Senators and five AAPI House Members representing Hawaii, California, American Samoa, and Guam. Since then, the caucus has grown to 22 members, with 3 Senators and 19 House Members representing 10 States and territories. Laura was also a founding member of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Staff Association, CAPASA, and helped to support the internships that CAPASA sponsors through the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies. Through her commitment to public service--particularly in the Asian American and Pacific Islanders, AAPI, community--a greater number of individuals have had the opportunity to realize their dream of service to our Nation. After nearly a decade serving on the Hill, Laura moved to the executive branch, where she served in the U.S. Department of Labor before working in the Clinton White House. There, as Deputy Director of the Office of Public Liaison, she worked to build bridges for the AAPI community across the country into the highest levels of our Nation's government. She helped to identify and confirm key AAPI appointments and was instrumental in the creation of the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, another institution to expand opportunity to the AAPI community that is still in existence today. After her service in the White House, Laura headed to San Francisco and worked for ZeroDivide, a nonprofit focused on helping underserved communities understand and unlock technology as a means of expanding economic opportunity, civic engagement, and healthy outcomes. In recognition of her work building enduring institutions that expand opportunity within the AAPI community, Laura was awarded this year's Jose M. Montano, Jr. Award from the Congressional Asian Pacific American Staff Association. This award recognizes a Capitol Hill alum who has gone above and beyond to sustain a pipeline of AAPI staffers and leaders on the Hill. Over the years, she has found other ways to serve and promote opportunity. She served as a member of the Federal Communications Commission Consumer Advisory Committee, with the Center for Women's Policy Studies, and as, chair of the Governor of California's Task Force on Broadband, Community Development, and Public/Private Partnerships. In these roles, Laura's work was always about giving a voice to people who had all too often been overlooked or forgotten. All along, Laura touched many people with her care and compassion, generosity of spirit, and gracious tenacity. She poured all of her energy into whatever she was working on. In one instance, I recall that for our staff retreat, she worked at great length to create games that brought staff with diverse backgrounds together for a common purpose, to share the uniqueness of Hawaii, and to reinforce the reason why those of us in public service do what we do. It is difficult when we lose someone who was so full of life and still had much potential. We remember Laura as a giving individual who shared so much with so many. Laura made a positive impact during her life, one that extends from coast to coast, and took her from Hawaii to the highest levels of our government. As her brother Steve wrote on the day she passed: Her impact on people was never more evident than during the outpouring of support she had during the past year and especially during the past few weeks. The impact she had will be felt way beyond the end of her time on earth. Her time here with us is pau. But Laura will live on in our hearts, our memories, our actions, our stories, as well as in programs she helped guide, in legislation she helped to craft, and in her crafts, and in the example she set. Our celebration of her life here with us is going to be a special one.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I would like to start by thanking Senator Wyden for his leadership in the fight to protect Medicare and Medicaid and for organizing this time for us to speak on this important subject. I grew up in a three-generation household. My 93-year-old great- grandmother lived with us for over 20 years, and my grandmother lived with us until she was 98. So I, of all people, of course know the importance of Medicare to our seniors. On May 7, 2015--a full 3 months before he descended a golden escalator to launch his campaign--Donald Trump bragged on Twitter about how he was ``the first and only'' Republican candidate to run for President to state that ``there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.'' He made, and repeated, that promise for a reason. All across the country, we know Americans across party lines care deeply about healthcare and expect their Members of Congress to protect their healthcare. Millions of Americans receive their healthcare through Medicaid and Medicare. These two programs have helped tens of millions of Americans since their creation 53 years ago. Medicare provides quality health insurance for millions of seniors, and Medicaid helps them afford nursing home care and other services when they need it. Medicaid has served working families and the poor who otherwise couldn't afford healthcare coverage, helping to bring our uninsured rate to a historic low, and Medicaid is currently helping tens of thousands of Americans receive drug treatment amidst the ongoing opioid epidemic. Again, it isn't surprising that Donald Trump pledged to protect these programs while campaigning for President. They are wildly popular programs for a reason, but it also isn't surprising that almost immediately after his election, Donald Trump reneged on his promise to protect Medicare and Medicaid. It began when he appointed Tom Price-- the architect of plans to dismantle Medicare and Medicaid--to serve as his Secretary of Health and Human Services. It continued when the President and congressional Republicans sought to eliminate the Medicaid expansion and cut hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid funding during the push to repeal the Affordable Care Act--the ACA. It continued when the administration issued new rules that allowed States to implement arbitrary work requirements for Medicaid. Four States have already taken advantage of this new authority. If the rest of the country follows their lead, between 1 million and 4 million Americans will lose their healthcare coverage. It continued when the President proposed turning Medicare into a voucher program, converting Medicaid to a block grant, and cutting nearly $2 trillion from both programs as part of his fiscal year 2019 budget. These changes and cuts would have a devastating impact on the hundreds of thousands of Hawaii residents who depend on these programs for their healthcare and their long-term care needs. Medicaid, for example, serves around 350,000 Hawaii residents, including 38 percent of all the children in Hawaii and 15 percent of seniors, as well as people with disabilities across our State. These cuts would be particularly devastating to Hawaii residents who access healthcare through our Federally Qualified Community Health Centers, many of which depend on reimbursements through Medicaid to provide high-quality care to those in need. During the height of the debate to repeal the Affordable Care Act, I spoke with Sheila Beckham, the CEO of Waikiki Health on Oahu. Waikiki Health operates a network of health centers and shelters in Honolulu that cater to high-risk populations, including a significant number of patients living with HIV and AIDS. If the President and congressional Republicans had succeeded in cutting Medicaid, Sheila would have had to lay off between 80 to 100 workers and close all but two of the clinics she operates. Medicaid cuts would have also had a significant impact on women's health outcomes throughout Hawaii. Last year, I shared a story about a young woman named Anne, who walked into the Kokua Kalihi Valley Clinic 3 years ago. She had no health insurance, and she was pregnant at the age of 15. The doctors at the clinic helped Anne apply for Medicaid, which helped her afford prenatal care and gave her support to stay healthy and in school. Medicaid helped Anne and her husband Dan, age 17, welcome a healthy baby boy named Joseph. Today, Anne is a graduate of Farrington High School, she works part-time and has plans to become a pediatric nurse practitioner. Her family now has health insurance through Dan's employer. Medicaid also plays a crucial role in providing long-term nursing care for seniors who otherwise would not be able to afford it. I know how important this is for our seniors in Hawaii because we have in Hawaii the fastest growing aging population in the entire country. Across our State, Medicaid provides coverage for three in five nursing home residents. At Hale Makua on Maui, that number is closer to 80 percent, and without Medicaid, many of the residents would not be able to afford to stay there. One story that has stuck with me came from Keith Moniz. After working as a custodian for more than 40 years at St. Anthony's School, Keith's brother Lester lost his job and his health insurance. Only a few short months later, Keith's brother Lester had a debilitating stroke that left him permanently disabled. Fortunately, Lester was able to obtain Medicaid coverage and is now a long-term resident at Hale Makua. Keith was very clear about what would have happened to his brother if the President had succeeded in making large cuts to Medicaid. Keith said: It would be devastating. We had a difficult time taking care of him when he was at home, and he's gotten the care that he needs at Hale Makua. It would be a big loss. . . . I don't know what we could do, where we would be able to move him to. Our seniors--in Hawaii we call them kupuna--would also be significantly harmed by the President's plan to voucherize and make huge cuts to Medicare. More than 230,000 kupuna--our seniors in Hawaii--or 17 percent of our State's population are covered by Medicare. Through its payments to providers and purchases of medical equipment, Medicare generates $2.5 billion for Hawaii's economy. Our kupuna are already struggling with the rising cost of living and nearly 9 percent of them live in poverty. Many more are living on fixed incomes and would be especially vulnerable to rising costs under the President's plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program. Last year, I shared the story of Lanny and Anne Bruner from Kauai. Lanny is 80 years old, but he is still working three jobs to make ends meet after losing the family home during the 2008 mortgage crisis. His wife Anne has glaucoma and pays what she calls a ``ridiculous amount'' for eye drops. Lanny had a heart attack and two knee replacements. Like many of our kupuna living on a fixed income, they simply could not afford to pay the extra money they would be forced to pay if Republicans succeed in their effort to privatize Medicare. These stories underscore the importance of and the need for Congress to pass specific legislation to protect Medicare and Medicaid from partisan attacks from Donald Trump and congressional Republicans. This week, I will be introducing new legislation that would prohibit Congress from making devastating cuts to Medicare and Medicaid through the budget reconciliation process. It accomplishes this objective by requiring any legislation that seeks to make certain changes to Medicare or Medicaid to receive 60 votes in the Senate before such changes can be implemented. Of course, these changes include increasing the Medicare eligibility age, privatizing or turning Medicare into a voucher program, block granting or imposing per capita caps on Medicaid, and rolling back the ACA's Medicaid expansion. My legislation builds on the success of an amendment I introduced with my colleague from Indiana, Senator Donnelly, during last January's budget debate to protect these programs. Although our amendment did not pass--it came pretty close--two Republicans joined us in supporting it. It is nice to know some of my Republican colleagues are concerned about seniors, children, and working families who rely on Medicare and Medicaid every single day. I think it is just astonishing that as we are talking about cutting Medicare and Medicaid for millions of seniors throughout our country, and hundreds of thousands in Hawaii, these kinds of changes are being proposed by the very President and the people in Congress who gave the richest 1 percent of the people in our country and corporations a huge--a huge--tax break. By the way, the President is talking about giving the rich people in our country even more of a tax cut. It is just astounding to me that while all of that is happening on the one hand, on the other hand, they propose changes to two huge programs that millions of people in our country rely on. Where are our priorities? They are definitely misplaced if we go along with these schemes. I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in this fight to protect these critical social safety net programs. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, last year, around this time, millions of Americans were mobilizing, marching, calling, and writing with a simple, straightforward demand. They demanded the U.S. Senate stand up to Donald Trump and protect the nearly 30 million Americans who were at risk because the Republican Party was hell-bent on destroying the Affordable Care Act, the ACA. With a vote on repealing the Affordable Care Act looming late in the evening, I came to the Senate floor that night intending to stand with the thousands of Hawaii residents who wrote or called my office with a sense of urgency to save their healthcare. I wasn't scheduled to speak that evening. I had already spoken many times previously about the importance of healthcare. As the debate wore on, much of it focused on healthcare in the abstract. I felt compelled to talk about the immediacy of healthcare because of what I was experiencing. Two months earlier, I had been diagnosed with kidney cancer during a routine examination. It is a moment everyone dreads, but it is also a moment nearly every family in this country has experienced at some point. Even as I reckoned with what came next--two surgeries and now ongoing immunotherapy--I knew I was fortunate. I had health insurance that allowed me to focus on my treatment rather than worrying about whether I could afford the care that would save my life. Every American deserves the same peace of mind because healthcare is a right, not a privilege just for those who can afford it. During my treatment, I was heartened by the kind words of support by my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. Many share stories about how cancer touched their lives. For some, it was a personal battle. For others, it was a child, a parent, or a spouse. I was touched by their compassion. It meant a lot to me to know so many people were pulling for me. I was dismayed that evening on the Senate floor because the empathy my colleagues showed me did not extend to the millions of people who would lose their healthcare if the ACA was repealed that night. I rose that night and implored my Republican colleagues to show the same compassion to the American people that they showed me by voting against the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. In a dramatic late-night vote, we joined together across party lines to save healthcare for millions of Americans, but the fight was not over. There was the hope that we could come together to improve our Nation's healthcare system. We got off to a good start, with Senators Murray and Alexander's good-faith negotiations on a plan that would have helped stabilize insurance markets and provide a path forward to strengthening our country's healthcare system. Instead of embracing this bipartisan effort and proposal, Donald Trump and Republican leaders doubled down on their efforts to destroy and dismantle the ACA, no matter the consequences. Last October, Donald Trump announced he would halt all cost-sharing reduction payments that helped keep plans more affordable. In December, congressional Republicans eliminated the ACA's individual coverage requirement as part of a massive tax giveaway to the wealthiest 1 percent of the people and corporations in our country--a tax break, by the way, they didn't even ask for. With that, 10 million Americans stand to lose their coverage, and millions more will see their premiums rise as a result. Earlier this year, the Trump administration made it easier for insurance companies to offer minimal--minimal--insurance plans to consumers. These plans are called junk plans for a good reason because they don't require insurers to cover some pretty basic essential health service benefits-- things as basic as annual physicals, trips to the emergency room, or prescription drug coverage. In other words, your junk plan will not provide coverage if you really get sick. Two weeks ago, the President announced a draconian cut to the ACA's navigator program--a program that helps people sign up for healthcare coverage. In Hawaii, funding for ACA navigators is a particularly critical tool for outreach to the COFA community, and these are citizens of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau living and working in the United States as part of our Compacts of Free Association with these countries. COFA citizens live, work, and pay taxes in the United States but face significant health challenges and difficulty accessing healthcare. Under current Federal law, COFA citizens are ineligible for Medicaid. They are, however, eligible for subsidized healthcare coverage under the ACA. This is where the navigator program comes in. This program helps our COFA citizens navigate the enrollment process in their own language and helps to ensure they have access to the healthcare they need. Without access to the navigator program, the already underserved COFA citizen community will face new challenges accessing the care they need. Last month, the Trump administration joined Texas and 19 other States suing to invalidate the ACA's core protections for Americans with preexisting conditions--illnesses like diabetes, asthma, or cancer. If the President and Texas prevail in this lawsuit--which will end up before the Supreme Court--nearly one in four Americans with preexisting conditions will be at risk of either losing their healthcare coverage altogether or find it unaffordable. Healthcare is one reason I have deep reservations about the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh was nominated by a President who has openly bragged about all the things he has done to gut the Affordable Care Act and who expects his judicial nominees to share his views. In our democracy, every elected leader faces a reckoning with their voters. This year, the American people are sending us a clear message to protect their healthcare. They are standing up and speaking out because healthcare is not just some abstract concern for them. It is deeply personal for all of us. It is why healthcare is a top concern for our constituents all across the country--whether they are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, pro-Trump, or anti-Trump. Health insurance impacts every single one of us. This is not a game. Lives are at stake. Our constituents are watching and demanding we listen and act to safeguard their healthcare, and they will hold us accountable if we do not. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Yes.

Ms. HIRONO. Again, correct.

Ms. HIRONO. That is correct.

Ms. HIRONO. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Ms. HIRONO. Yes, I am.

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, reserving the right to object, this bill being offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is a partisan, political stunt designed to distract the American people from the crisis created by Donald Trump's zero tolerance policy. Almost 3,000 children have been ripped from the arms of their parents and traumatized by the President's cruelty. This bill would allow the Trump administration to continue to traumatize children by forcing them, possibly indefinitely, into so-called family detention centers. By offering this proposal, our colleagues are calling for the extended incarceration of children. This bill would invalidate the Flores settlement, which has ensured the humane treatment of children for decades. It offers no specifics on what constitutes adequate detention conditions and no mechanism for monitoring them. The bill says the families will be given ``suitable living accommodations'' and ``access to drinking water and food'' and that services will be offered that are ``necessary for the adequate care of a minor child,'' but it does not say who determines what is suitable, whether adequate nutrition will be offered to the children, and who will decide what is necessary. These so-called standards are not good enough when the welfare of children is involved. This bill would also authorize the Border Patrol to separate families for the most minor offenses that have nothing to do with parenting or the safety of the children. It puts form above substance and gives DHS no discretion about when detention is most appropriate or when alternative means, such as ankle bracelets or other monitoring programs, might be better. The so-called family unit residential centers in the bill are essentially family jails. We have heard from the American Academy of Pediatrics and other experts about how these children will be traumatized for life. We should be listening to these experts and stop giving the Trump administration a free pass to harm immigrant children. I look at the policies of this administration and at bills like this one, and I wonder how my colleagues are able to stomach our government treating families in these awful ways. And we have witnessed this kind of treatment in America over the last several weeks. The President refers to families of children fleeing war, gang violence, and poverty as ``infesting'' our country. I hear echoes from the darkest parts of America's past when African-American slaves were depicted as monkeys, Chinese laborers in the 1870s were referred to as ``pouring forth'' from their ``Asiatic hive,'' and Japanese Americans penned up like animals for the crime of their heritage during World War II. This mindset of viewing these immigrant families as subhuman does not exist in a vacuum; it has a history and a context we cannot shy away from. It is because of that history that I have continued to demand not just an end to the detention of children and families but also to demand accountability from Donald Trump's government. Last week, the Judiciary Committee had a closed-door briefing with officials from the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security. We didn't get straight answers to our questions--mainly, why is this happening in our country in the first place? Why were these children separated from their parents? Why do we have ICE agents taunting these already traumatized children? Why? Why? Why? We need and indeed we should demand to hear from these officials in public and under oath. I urged Chairman Grassley to have a public oversight hearing on this issue with all of the relevant agencies. The chairman has now scheduled this long-overdue hearing for July 31 with representatives from the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Justice. It is critical that we hear from the witnesses because after separating nearly 3,000 children from their families, they are now chaotically scrambling to comply with judicial orders to reunite these families. The administration would not be reuniting these families without being forced to do so by the court. They continue on their cruel path, undermining American values, and along this path, they have traumatized thousands of children and their families, likely forever. This administration needs no further tools to continue these cruel policies. To continue to enable Donald Trump to pursue his anti- immigrant agenda makes us all complicit in his cruelty and injustice. For these reasons, I object.

Ms. HIRONO. Yes, I am.

Ms. HIRONO. Exactly. It is a continuation of the cruelty and the dehumanization of children.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I thank Senator Brown for his continued leadership in the fight to protect our Federal workforce and for organizing this time for us to speak on such an important issue. Over the past year and a half, Donald Trump and his administration have launched a concerted attack on Federal workers and the unions that fight on their behalf. There appear to be no lengths to which Donald Trump and the anti-union, moneyed interests who support him will not go to attack and try to eviscerate protections for working people. Here are some examples. In one of his first acts in office, Donald Trump instituted an across-the-board Federal hiring freeze that impacted the work of critical agencies such as the Veterans Administration, the State Department, and the Department of Defense. Then the President appointed Neil Gorsuch to join the anti-worker majority on the Supreme Court. This decision paid off when Justice Gorsuch provided the decisive vote intended to gut public sector unions in Janus v. AFSCME. As a side note, Mark Janus--the public employee who served as the front man for the Koch brothers in the landmark Janus case--has left his job with the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services and now works for the Koch brothers. Is that a coincidence? I think not. The administration has demoted or reassigned dozens of senior agency leaders tasked with serving our veterans and protecting our environment. The President has left thousands of critical positions across the government unfilled. He has presented a legislative program as well. The President's fiscal year 2019 budget proposes to freeze Federal workers' wages, slash their benefits, and undermine their rights in the workplace. In late May, as mentioned, the President issued three Executive orders that weaken longstanding--longstanding--and hard-won rights and protections for our Federal workers. Each of these actions is part of a focused radical--radical--effort to shrink the Federal Government and limit its ability to help hundreds of millions of people across our country. Donald Trump and the Republican Party obviously do not recognize the service and commitment of our more than 2 million Federal workers, but in Hawaii, and, indeed, across the Nation, we see the impact of their hard work every single day. In Hawaii, Federal workers provide critical healthcare for the tens of thousands of veterans living in our State. Federal workers service and repair our naval fleet at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. Federal workers stand watch at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center. Hundreds of Federal employees across 17 agencies are even now helping our Hawaii Island community respond to and recover from the impact of the ongoing volcanic activity at Kilauea on the Big Island. In my visits to the Hawaii County Emergency Operations Center in Hilo and the Disaster Recovery Center in Keaau, and to affected communities across Puna, I have seen the impact these workers are having firsthand. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is coordinating the overall response and recovery with Federal, State, and county agencies. The U.S. Geological Survey scientific experts are monitoring seismic activities and providing realtime updates to affected residents. The affected residents are in the thousands. The Department of the Interior has provided technical assistance to protect Hawaii Island's natural and cultural resources. The Environmental Protection Agency has deployed experts to monitor air quality and provide timely alerts to county residents. The Department of Agriculture and the Small Business Administration are identifying resources and assisting affected farmers and small business owners. The U.S. Coast Guard is monitoring and patrolling areas where lava is flowing into the ocean and enforcing safe perimeters for fishing and recreational activity. These dedicated public servants have been working around the clock for months to support the Puna community. These workers deserve our respect, appreciation, and unwavering support for their service. They certainly don't deserve the contempt and animosity that Donald Trump and his administration have directed at them. The collective weight of this administration's anti-worker agenda is taking a toll on our Federal workforce, needless to say, and the Executive orders President Trump issued in May are already making things worse by undermining workers' rights to fair representation in the workplace. The President's first order directs agencies to reopen existing-- these are existing already--bargaining agreements with the intent of rushing through one-size-fits-all replacement agreements without an opportunity for labor to provide input. The President's second order severely restricts the ability of unions to protect workers from managerial retaliation, workplace discrimination, and sexual harassment. The President's third order undermines traditional civil service protections intended to shield public servants from political retribution by making firing workers easier. Collectively, these Executive orders sabotage the hard-fought gains Federal workers have achieved through decades of organizing and collective bargaining at agencies throughout the Federal Government. This sabotage has a purpose: to make life so miserable for our Federal workforce that they either quit their jobs or retire. The long-term damage that gutting our Federal workforce would cause to our Nation, economy, and communities is serious. That is because, as Teddy Roosevelt recognized when he pushed for the first major civil service reform, a quality, professional civil service is a bulwark against corruption and cronyism. Public servants uphold the law and promote the public interests. That includes holding big corporations accountable when they cheat consumers and pollute our environment. Is this why Donald Trump and his moneyed, anti-union allies have such a fear of and disdain for our Federal workers--because they would rather be left unfettered by any government or regulatory oversight? Is that what is going on? How else can we explain the President's focus and vicious attacks on Federal employees, which ignore the work they do to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people of our country every single day? These are not normal times. It is not normal for the President and his allies to go after our Federal employees in this way. It is not normal, and it is up to each of us to resist this administration's coordinated attack on our Federal workforce and the institutions that represent and protect them. I call on all of my colleagues to join me in this fight. I just do not understand what it is that motivates the President and his moneyed allies to try and tear apart the very workforce in our country that protects our health, safety, and welfare. I just don't get it. I yield the floor. Amendments Nos. 3553 and 3543 to Amendment No. 3399

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, the Senate has a constitutional duty equal to the President's to provide advice and consent on all judicial nominees, including the President's Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. Our advice-and-consent role requires us to view the totality of Judge Kavanaugh's record and experiences, including the documents from his time in the executive branch. Judge Kavanaugh worked as a fellow in the first Bush administration's Office of the Solicitor General, for Ken Starr in the Office of the Independent Counsel investigating President Clinton, and in President George W. Bush's White House in the office of White House Counsel and as Staff Secretary to the President. As has been the practice for previous Supreme Court nominees, the Judiciary Committee should ask for and receive all records related to his work in these roles. Any document requested of the Bush library or the National Archives should parallel similar requests made for other Supreme Court nominees. Take the request sent by the committee for Elena Kagan's nomination. This is the letter requesting information for Elena Kagan. We simply substituted Judge Kavanaugh's name where Elena Kagan's name appeared. You probably can't see it, but the request letter is signed by then- chair of the Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, and it was signed by our current Attorney General, but ranking member at that time, Jeff Sessions. On May 18, 2010, just 8 days after her nomination to the Supreme Court by President Obama, the Judiciary Committee sent a bipartisan request to the Director of the Clinton Presidential Library asking for records from her time working at the White House and records related to her nomination to the DC Circuit. We should send a similar request for Judge Kavanaugh, just substituting Brett Kavanaugh's name for Elena Kagan's. However, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, our colleague from Iowa, is refusing to work with us to request the totality of Judge Kavanaugh's record. I have heard the objection to the request for all the records that rests on the volume of documents we might receive. The fact that there could be a lot of documents relevant to Judge Kavanaugh's time in the White House, or any relevant point in his career, is not the issue. The President knew there were a lot of documents related to Judge Kavanaugh. It was reported that the majority leader argued that Judge Kavanaugh's voluminous record could hurt his confirmation, tacitly acknowledging that the Senate would have to examine all of the documents. Senator McConnell understood that the record was relevant to the Senate's advice-and-consent responsibility in reviewing this nominee's qualifications and judicial philosophy. Even the nominee himself, Judge Kavanaugh, thinks the same. Judge Kavanaugh often refers to how his executive branch experience shapes his judicial philosophy. In 2013, he wrote in a published law review article: When people ask me which prior legal experience has been most useful for me as a judge, I tell them I certainly draw on all of them, the clerkships, private practice at Kirkland, Independent Counsel's office, even college jobs on the Hill at Ways and Means, but the five-and-a-half years in the White House, especially the three years as Staff Secretary for President Bush, are among the most interesting and most instructive. . . . In 2016, he repeated that sentiment almost word for word. Again, quoting Judge Kavanaugh: People sometimes ask what prior legal experience has been most useful for me as a judge. And I say, ``I certainly draw on all of them,'' but I also say that my five-and-a-half years at the White House and especially my three years as staff secretary for President George W. Bush were the most interesting and informative for me. Judge Kavanaugh emphasized that the most interesting and informative experiences he had were at the White House as Staff Secretary. So, of course, the Senate Judiciary Committee ought to be able to review all of the records of his time in the White House. The scope of the request that Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are proposing is so obvious and common sense that it is hard to believe it is a topic of debate. In normal times, there would not be any question about what the committee is entitled to see, and no responsible Senate would object. But these are not normal times. In these times, we have Senators trying to cover for an irresponsible, dangerous President, who, like in anything else he does, wants to bulldoze his nominee's way onto the highest Court in the land for life. In these not-normal times, the simplest of processes--getting access to the records of a Supreme Court nominee--has become politicalized, and in these not-normal times, we have to wonder why the standards have suddenly changed, and we have to ask ourselves what could possibly be hiding in those documents. When the President proposes a nominee to the Supreme Court, we owe it to ourselves and to our country to thoroughly examine that nominee's record, to diligently question them about their records and judicial philosophy, and to make a reasoned judgment about their fitness for the job. The American people rely on us in the Senate, and particularly in the Judiciary Committee, to perform our constitutional advice-and-consent duties to the best of our abilities. So I urge my Republican colleagues to join us in calling for the full release of all documents related to Judge Kavanaugh's record and experiences. This has happened in the past. It has always happened, and it should happen again. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, this resolution being offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is a partisan political stunt to distract the American people from the crisis created by Donald Trump's zero tolerance policy. Almost 3,000 children were ripped from the arms of their parents and traumatized by the President's cruelty. Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee had a closed-door briefing with officials from the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Homeland Security. The American people deserve to hear from these officials in public and under oath. All these officials provided at this briefing--not under oath--was more obstruction and obfuscation. The witness from Immigration and Customs Enforcement even claimed that they ``did not mess up here.'' Separating almost 3,000 children from their parents, not meeting judicially set deadlines for reunifying these children--the trauma continues. Is there anybody in America paying attention to this issue who actually believes there was no mess-up? We need a public hearing to hear from these officials under oath. Donald Trump is weaponizing fear to pursue his anti-immigration agenda, and we are not going to be party to that. We should be focused like laser beams on reuniting the children with their parents.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Rhode Island. In Hawaii, we understand the importance of caring for our planet. The Native Hawaiian community embraced the idea of ``malama `aina,'' a respect for and responsibility to care for the land in a way that protects our environment for future generations. That is why Hawaii has led the way in enacting measures to fight climate change and safeguard our natural resources. In the last few years alone, Hawaii has set ambitious goals to move to 100-percent renewable energy and become carbon neutral. We were the first State in the country to commit to meeting the objectives of the Paris climate agreement. In contrast, the Trump administration has spent the last year and a half disparaging the idea of protecting our land and natural resources. Donald Trump has taken action after action to prioritize the interests of his supporters in the fossil fuel industry at the expense of our environment. The President filled his administration with appointees who refuse to accept the realities of climate change. He named two Environmental Protection Agency Administrators--Scott Pruitt and Andrew Wheeler--who don't even believe in the EPA's mission of protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink. Administration officials have weakened rules that regulate pollution and protections for our natural resources. These actions have led to lawsuits by groups who embrace ``malama `aina'' and seek to protect our environment. These lawsuits will be decided by our courts. The outcomes will depend on an independent, fair, and unbiased judiciary. A number of these cases will come before the Supreme Court. In the October term, the Court will be hearing a case called Weyerhaeuser Company v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to decide whether the Federal Government can protect endangered species on private land. Cases making their way through the lower courts include California v. EPA, which challenges the Federal Government's regulations on vehicle emissions, and West Virginia v. EPA, which challenges President Obama's Clean Power Plan. These cases raise crucial questions that will determine whether the government has the power to protect our environment. The answers to those questions may very well come from the Supreme Court. The President's nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, raises serious concerns about whether he would be that fair arbiter on environmental issues, the kinds of cases that will surely come before the Supreme Court. Throughout his time on the circuit court of appeals, Judge Kavanaugh has argued for weakening environmental regulations. Basically, his decisions benefit industry over the environment. In Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, Judge Kavanaugh argued that the EPA should not regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act because the cost to business was more important than protecting the environment and public health from climate change. He said that the EPA should not include greenhouse gases in the interpretation of the statute that says EPA can regulate any air pollutant because, as far as Judge Kavanaugh was concerned, such a requirement or enabling the EPA to do that would result in higher costs for businesses. Judge Kavanaugh did not consider the cost to the environment. In Hawaii, we are already paying the price of climate change caused by greenhouse gases. Our coastlines are disappearing, corals in our oceans are dying, and catastrophic floods are becoming more frequent and more severe. The science behind the need to regulate greenhouse gases is clear. This message is lost on the President and apparently on Brett Kavanaugh, as he argued for a very limited interpretation of the EPA's authority to regulate. In another environmental case, Judge Kavanaugh sided with the fossil fuel industry in his dissent in White Stallion Energy Center v. EPA in 2014. He argued that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA should not-- should not--regulate toxic air pollutants from powerplants without factoring in what those regulations would cost polluters. The majority disagreed with Judge Kavanaugh, saying that the EPA's approach ``is clearly permissible,'' consistent with prior Supreme Court instruction, and consistent with the purpose of the legislation, which was, of course, to protect the environment and the health and safety of people. When the case went to the Supreme Court, then-Justice Scalia quoted Judge Kavanaugh in his reversal. Judge Kavanaugh's opinions even went so far as to attempt to restrict the manufacture and sale of renewable fuel. In a 2012 case, Grocery Manufacturers Association v. EPA, Judge Kavanaugh opposed the EPA's grant of E15 waivers. These waivers would permit the manufacture and sale of a type of renewable fuel that would help our Nation decrease its dependence on foreign oil. In his dissent, Judge Kavanaugh argued that the EPA's rule permitting this renewable fuel would in effect force the production of renewable fuel. There is nothing in the statute that talked about forcing anybody to do anything. Actually, the word in the statute is ``permit.'' Permitting is not the same as forcing. Of course, Judge Kavanaugh certainly knew the difference before taking a position that supported the fossil fuel industry. Judge Kavanaugh's record on these environmental issues makes it highly likely that as a Supreme Court Justice, he would favor fossil fuel interests over human health, renewable energy, and protecting our planet. Senators have a constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent on all judicial nominations, particularly those to the highest Court in the land, the Supreme Court. This responsibility requires us to take note of the fact that the Trump administration continues to fill the courts with deeply conservative, ideologically driven judges who will hold lifetime positions. The administration and their conservative allies expect that some of these judges will continue on to appellate courts and to the Supreme Court. Mr. President, this week, we will be voting on two nominees for Federal appellate courts: Andrew Oldham from Texas for the Fifth Circuit and Ryan Bounds from Oregon for the Ninth Circuit. I will be voting no on both of these nominations. Andrew Oldham has been an ideological warrior behind some of Texas Governor Greg Abbott's most extreme positions against a woman's right to choose, against LGBTQ people, and against solutions for the 800,000- plus Dreamers put at risk for deportation by Donald Trump's rescinding of DACA. In 2013, as deputy solicitor general of Texas, Mr. Oldham defended a severe anti-choice Texas law, HB2, that put restrictions on doctors delivering reproductive healthcare. The restrictive provisions were upheld by the Fifth Circuit but struck down in a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court case called Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. In 2014, Mr. Oldham served as counsel of record for Texas in its successful challenge to the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, or the DAPA Program. DAPA would have provided protections for the parents of Dreamers so families would not be cruelly separated, as we are seeing with such terrible and sad results today under Donald Trump's zero tolerance policy at the border. While Mr. Oldham was advising Governor Abbott on legislation, his boss supported or signed bills to restrict the rights of the LGBTQ community by regulating bathroom usage in public schools and allowing faith-based groups to deny adoptive and foster parents who conflict with their beliefs. In his response to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questions about these extreme positions, Mr. Oldham sought to discount them as merely advocacy positions on behalf of a client, that being the Governor of the State of Texas, while Mr. Oldham's career shows otherwise.

Ms. HIRONO

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

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, there was a time when Blacks and Whites couldn't get married or go to the same school. The Supreme Court changed that. There was a time when gay people could be arrested for loving one another and when it was illegal for them to get married. The Supreme Court changed that. There was a time when thousands of women died from having illegal, unsafe abortions. The Supreme Court changed that. The Justices on the Supreme Court matter to each and every one of our lives. That is why there is so much concern over President Trump's nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court--Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Rightwing groups, like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, have been working for decades to set the stage to pack our Federal courts with ideologically driven conservatives. They have invested millions of dollars and decades of time in this effort. These two organizations have played the primary role in vetting and selecting Donald Trump's nominees to the Supreme Court. By including Judge Kavanaugh on their list of potential nominees, these two organizations certainly expect that he will reflect their own ideological perspectives, which include overturning Roe v. Wade and repealing the Affordable Care Act, the ACA. They certainly expected Neil Gorsuch-- another name on their list--to do the same when he got on the Supreme Court. In the short time he has been on the Court, Justice Gorsuch has not disappointed them. Is it any wonder that millions of people across the country are raising concerns over the nomination of yet another nominee on the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation's wish list? Isn't it reasonable to conclude that Judge Kavanaugh will also reflect the ideological agendas of these organizations? This is why Judge Kavanaugh does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. He has the exceptionally high burden of proof to assure the American people he can be fair and objective. The Senate has a constitutional obligation that is equal to the President's to vet a President's nominee to the Supreme Court and fulfill its advice and consent obligation responsibilities. I take this responsibility seriously because a fight for the future of the Supreme Court will have ramifications for so many issues that we care about. Our Federal courts have been at the center of the Republican Party's strategy to dismantle, gut, and weaken the Affordable Care Act, the ACA, since it was passed over 8 years ago. The Supreme Court narrowly upheld the constitutionality of the ACA's core provisions in 2012. The ACA provides affordable, accessible health insurance to millions of people in our country who would otherwise not have such insurance. But the Republican Party's effort to sabotage this critically important law through the courts continues unabated. Right now, Texas and 19 other States have a lawsuit pending in Federal court that claims, among other things, that the Affordable Care Act's protections for Americans living with preexisting conditions-- illnesses such as diabetes, asthma, and cancer--are invalid. The Trump administration filed a brief supporting Texas in its attack on the ACA's protections for millions of people in our country with preexisting conditions. This case will likely end up before the Supreme Court. If Texas wins its lawsuit, the healthcare of millions of Americans will be at stake--meaning one in four Americans could either lose their health coverage or pay exponentially more for healthcare. The outcome of this case is personal to millions of Americans and their families, and it is certainly personal to me. A little over 1 year ago, I was diagnosed with kidney cancer. I was fortunate. I have health insurance that allows me to focus on fighting my illness rather than worrying about how I will pay for my treatment. I now join the millions of Americans living with a preexisting condition--illnesses that don't discriminate on the basis of age, gender, or political ideology. As this case makes its way to the Supreme Court, the American people should not forget that Donald Trump and this administration have been openly hostile to the ACA, a law that has helped millions of people. In fact, the President has openly bragged about all the things he has done to gut the ACA. Does the President expect his nominee, Judge Kavanaugh, to protect the ACA? I don't think so--quite the opposite. The next Supreme Court Justice will also play a determining role in the future of a woman's right to make her own reproductive health decisions. I remember vividly the stories of women dying in America, unable to access safe, legal abortions. The fight for reproductive freedom, prompted by these stories, was one of the reasons I got involved in politics. When I was in college, the first letter I ever wrote to Hawaii's congressional delegation was about abortion at a time when our State legislature was debating whether to legalize abortion. Hawaii became the first State in the country to do so. Those of us who lived in a time before Roe v. Wade, when a woman was forced to have a child against her will, are deeply concerned about the future of a woman's right to have an abortion, to have that freedom of choice. Throughout his campaign for the Presidency, Donald Trump repeatedly promised to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court who would favor overturning the core holding in Roe v. Wade. The Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society share this goal, and it is not a stretch to assume that the names they included on their Supreme Court wish list hold the same views. Judge Kavanaugh's record on this issue is deeply troubling and of significant concern. Last year, Judge Kavanaugh issued a dissent in a case that granted a 17-year-old immigrant in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, the right to get an abortion. Kavanaugh argued in his dissent that holding the young woman in custody, refusing to release her for a medical appointment for a procedure until HHS was able to find her a sponsor who would serve as a foster parent, was not an undue burden under the Supreme Court's legal test. He did not consider holding someone in government custody to be an undue burden. This is the view of someone who will not follow the law as it is currently set forth by the Supreme Court if confronted with challenges to Roe. Let us remember, it is the Supreme Court that sets precedent, and that can happen if Judge Kavanaugh is on the Court. Really, his dissent in this case is a view of someone chosen for a reason, ready to fulfill Donald Trump's campaign promise to see Roe v. Wade overturned. This fight matters. Who sits on our courts matters. How we exercise our constitutional duty to examine a nominee for the highest Court in our land matters. Just as well-financed conservative interests have spent decades setting the stage for the court packing going on today, those of us who oppose this agenda need to mobilize, resist, and stay engaged for the long haul in the fight for a fair and independent judiciary. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I have been consistently voting against cloture motions to proceed to debate on judicial nominations because the process by which we are considering these nominations has been deeply broken. I will again, today, be voting no on cloture even though the nominee we are voting on to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is Mark Bennett from Hawaii. I support Mark Bennett's nomination, and I spoke on his behalf during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. When debate time ends, I will vote for his confirmation. Mark is recognized as being one of the best qualified lawyers in the State of Hawaii. He has served as a Federal prosecutor, our State's attorney general, and in private practice. He has experience in trial and appellate work, on civil and criminal matters, at the State and Federal levels. He understands legislating and has served in the executive branch. He has received high ratings from the American Bar Association and from the Hawaii State Bar Association. He is well respected and has been honored multiple times by his colleagues. I have every confidence that Mark will put his skills and experience to good use on the bench as a fair and impartial judge who is beholden to nothing but the law and the Constitution. However, as has been my practice since the beginning of this Congress and session, I will vote no on cloture on Mark's nomination. I will vote this way to call attention to my disagreement and deep concern over how the Senate Judiciary Committee is conducting its judicial nomination hearings. The Senate has a constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent on judicial nominees, and I take this obligation very seriously. The American people depend on the Senate to fully consider and vet each judicial nominee. Throughout the course of their lifetime appointments, these judges will issue rulings and opinions that will touch each of our lives. The process of nominating, considering, and confirming judges should be a deliberate one. Its purpose should not be to confirm as many judges as quickly as possible. Senators should be able to provide input on who should sit on the Federal bench. Senators should have adequate opportunity to hear from third-party experts about the records and qualifications of each nominee, and Senators should have enough time to question and examine a nominee during the confirmation hearing. Yet, over the past year and a half, we have seen a breakdown in the way this process should work. The President has, essentially, outsourced the judicial selection process to two organizations that have strong, ideologically driven agendas--the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. These nominees have been chosen without the consent of their home State Senators, as has been the practice through what is known as the blue- slip process. By ignoring the traditional blue-slip process, the President and his allies in Congress have been rendering the Senate's constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent increasingly meaningless. The White House and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee have also undermined the independent processes through which the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary evaluates whether a nominee is qualified for the job. Ignoring this traditional process has resulted in the nominations and confirmations of a number of deeply unqualified judges. Some of these nominees have been unable to answer basic questions about judicial procedure or the law during their confirmation hearings. Others lack the kind of experiences one would want in those who will have lifetime appointments to the Federal courts. Under this administration, we have also seen the rushed considerations of many nominees for the Federal circuit courts. Judges who serve on our circuit courts are only one step away from the Supreme Court and deserve to be scrutinized closely in the Judiciary Committee. Over the last year and a half, however, the Judiciary Committee has overridden the objections of the minority to hold an unprecedented six nomination hearings with more than one circuit judge nominee being considered simultaneously on one panel. This means that members of the Judiciary Committee have only 5 minutes in total to ask questions of not just one but two circuit court nominees, including the time it takes for them to answer our questions. This is scarcely enough time to vet these nominees, many of whom are highly controversial and deserve maximum scrutiny. The American people deserve much more as we consider lifetime appointments to the Federal bench. Until we return to a normal process through which we consider lifetime appointments to the Federal bench, I will continue to oppose cloture on each judicial nomination by this President and encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort. I yield the floor.