Mazie Hirono

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. I rise today in support of Dr. Gita Rao Gupta's nomination to serve as Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues, and I am glad to be here with my friend from New Hampshire to argue for her confirmation. As head of the State Department's Office of Global Women's Issues, the Ambassador at Large leads our diplomatic efforts to promote the rights and empowerment of women and girls around the world. Who can argue with that kind of a mission? From supporting women's economic participation to combating domestic and gender-based violence, this work is critically important, and Dr. Gupta is well-suited to take on this important task. Dr. Gupta has spent her life working to empower women across the globe. She has led several nonprofit organizations focused on advancing gender equity and has served as cochair of the World Bank's Gender-Based Violence Task Force. But for months now, Republicans have blocked consideration of her nomination. Why? Not because she is unqualified. Dr. Gupta's record is impeccable, and her qualifications are clear. No, Republicans are blocking her nomination simply because she supports the fundamental right of all women to make decisions about their bodies and their futures, including the decision to get an abortion. Apparently, it is no longer enough for my Republican colleagues to push their extreme anti-abortion agenda. Now that they have overturned Roe v. Wade, they are opposing anyone who expresses support for abortion access even if it is their personal view and not one they are going to be pushing forward in the position that we are being asked to confirm them for. Last year, the Republicans did the same thing to President Biden's nominee to be Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration, SBA, opposing his nomination because of their opposition to SBA's totally lawful PPP loans to Planned Parenthood clinics providing critical healthcare to communities across the country. The Republicans, I have to say, have been on a tear about ``How dare SBA provide these lawful PPP loans to Planned Parenthood?'' Apparently, it escapes their notice that these are lawful loans. So Republicans' opposition to Dr. Gupta's confirmation is a dangerous position and one that threatens the health, safety, and prosperity of women here in the United States and around the world. For example, my Republican colleagues raised concerns about the state of women and girls in Afghanistan, and yet in another example of their hypocrisy, they are opposing a nominee who would be in a position to actually help support these women. As Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues, Dr. Gupta will bring decades of experience to empower women, improve their economic security, and end violence against women and girls. There is no legitimate reason for anyone to not support her nomination to this important role. The chaos and fear across the country generated by the Supreme Court's Roe decision is spilling over to block this nomination. I thank Senator Shaheen for her focus on Dr. Gupta's nomination and her dedication to women and girls at home and abroad, and I urge my Republican colleagues to do the right thing for a change and end their bad faith obstruction of Dr. Gupta's nomination. I yield back to my colleague from New Hampshire.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to complete my remarks.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the confirmation of Dr. Lester Martinez-Lopez to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, or ASDHA. The Defense Department is responsible for the health and welfare of over 1.3 million Americans who are entrusted with protecting our Nation. In order to ensure they get the care they need and deserve, the DOD must have an Assistant Secretary of Defense in place to lead their health affairs. This position is the principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense for all health and force health protection policies, programs, activities, and the Integrated Disability Evaluation System. The ASDHA is responsible for the execution of the DOD medical mission, to provide and maintain physical and mental health readiness for medical services and support to members of the military services, their families, and those held in the control of the military services. Dr. Martinez-Lopez is eminently qualified for the position and has an impressive history of public service. Dr. Martinez-Lopez graduated from medical school in 1978. He retired from the U.S. Army as a major general and was the first Latino to head the Army Medical Research and Materiel Command at Fort Detrick, MD. He is the former director of the Army's worldwide medical research, acquisition, and logistics program, overseeing a vast research portfolio that included cancer, trauma, infectious diseases, aviation medicine, and telemedicine research. Dr. Martinez-Lopez also directed the premier national biological and chemical defense laboratories and research program and led the development of the National Biodefense Campus at Fort Detrick. He served as the commanding general of the Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, where he directed a worldwide public health organization and was responsible for preventive medicine, health promotion and wellness, global medical surveillance, occupational and environmental health, and health risk communication. Dr. Martinez-Lopez has an extensive military and medical background that makes him eminently qualified to fill this critically important role. But Republican obstruction has left us without a confirmed Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs for nearly a year, endangering the health of our servicemembers and the safety of our Nation. Unfortunately, Dr. Lopez is not the only critically important civilian DOD nominee Senate Republicans are blocking. Just yesterday, Chairman Reed came to the floor to ask for unanimous consent on the nominees to serve as inspector general of DOD, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. This unprecedented obstruction must end, and we must fill these important positions, including Dr. Martinez-Lopez, as quickly as possible. I urge my colleagues to confirm this nominee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 779, Lester Martinez-Lopez, of Florida, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, very briefly, the fact that my colleague is objecting to the consequences of not adhering to the requirement for vaccination is not within the purview of Dr. Lester Martinez-Lopez. So, therefore, their objection as to this particular nominee is misplaced and, in my view, irrelevant. I again call on my colleagues to enable this nominee to come forward under unanimous consent.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, as we focus on contraception rights this afternoon, listen to some of the comments made by my Republican male colleagues: They are not going to change the law on contraception. There is zero threat of contraception being taken away. Pure hysteria. I have no reason to believe these precedents are going to fall. These are some of the statements made by my Republican colleagues-- all of them male, by the way--have made regarding contraception. ``Pure hysteria,'' they say. This is not pure hysteria to the millions of women across the country who woke up one morning in June and no longer had a constitutional right. When it comes to this far-right, agenda-driven Supreme Court, nothing is off the table and nothing is ``pure hysteria.'' Last month, the far-right majority of the Supreme Court overturned nearly 50 years of precedent and took away the constitutional right to get an abortion. This decision was the result of a decades-long effort by far-right Republicans and rightwing groups to pack the courts with politicians in Roe. And they are just getting started. For this MAGA majority, controlling women's bodies doesn't stop at forcing women to give birth. They actually want to ban contraception. We know this because, in this concurring opinion to overturn Roe, Justice Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court should reconsider--reconsider--the rulings that protect same-sex relationships, marriage equality, and, yes, contraception. This kind of signaling by a Justice of a Supreme Court should be taken seriously. So my Republican colleagues saying they have no reason to believe precedent will be overturned is resorting to magical thinking that no one should believe. After all, the Supreme Court just overturned a nearly 50-year precedent that women in this country relied on for nearly half a century--half a century. That is two generations. In fact, radical MAGA Republicans in State legislatures across the country are gearing up in Ohio. House Republicans introduced a bill that would effectively ban all abortions from the moment of conception and, potentially, other forms of birth control, like IUDs. Other Republicans have refused to rule out banning certain forms of contraception. We are living in a post-Roe world where our rights are on the chopping block. So, no, this is not ``pure hysteria.'' The American public knows this. Democrats know this. So I say to my Republican colleagues, if any of you object to this bill, come down to the Senate floor and tell the American people the truth. Just be honest that you do not support guaranteeing the right to contraception because, in this post-Roe world, any suggestion that this Court won't overturn precedent is no longer something to hide behind. But if my Republican colleagues do support the right to contraception, then they should have no problem with supporting our bill, which would create a statutory right for individuals to access contraception, protect the right to healthcare providers to provide contraception to their patients, and empower individuals by extending a private right of action against any State or government official that hinders these rights. Today, my Republican colleagues have a choice. Do they support the right to contraception and an individual's right to make decisions about our bodies and our healthcare? Or will they allow the government to tell millions and millions of women what to do? I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Expanding Access to Family Planning Act, which will help ensure millions of Americans can continue receiving family planning services through the title X program. For more than 40 years, title X has helped ensure hundreds of thousands of women--regardless of income, background, insurance status, or hometown--have access to basic reproductive healthcare, including wellness exams, cancer screenings, birth control, and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. While this program, which was created with bipartisan support, has been around for decades, we have seen what happens when MAGA Republicans are in control. President Trump slashed funding for title X and imposed a dangerous domestic gag rule that banned doctors from telling people how they could access abortion services. The gag rule wreaked havoc across the country. It forced providers to decide whether they wanted to receive title X funding--knowing that healthcare providers wouldn't be able to provide women with accurate and comprehensive information--or say no to this critical family planning funding that supports women across the country through clinics like Planned Parenthood and other nonprofits. In my home State of Hawaii, the entire network of title X clinics said no to this dangerous rule and rejected the funding, forcing our State to foot the bill. On the other hand, the State of Hawaii, the clinics in Hawaii, because they rejected this funding, could provide the full range of care for their clients, but ultimately the gag rule resulted in a loss of services to thousands of women. Across the country, Trump's rule slashed title X's patient capacity in half, jeopardizing family planning and contraceptive care for 1.6 million patients nationwide. While President Biden reversed this rule, we can't take anything for granted. As the rightwing Supreme Court and MAGA Republicans work to eliminate reproductive freedom, it is critical we protect and strengthen title X. That is exactly what the Expanding Access to Family Planning Act will do. This bill will nearly double funding for title X family planning services by providing $500 million in mandatory funding for title X for each of the next 10 years. It will also ban title X providers from discriminating against patients and require pregnancy consulting services receiving title X funds to provide patients with all of the information about all their reproductive care options, including abortion. Republicans have made clear they will do anything to get rid of our reproductive freedoms, so we must pass this bill to make sure this program isn't at the whim of those trying to strip us of our healthcare. While Republicans continue to attack our fundamental rights, Democrats are doing everything we can to protect them. That is why, in addition to this important bill, earlier this week, I introduced legislation to codify the right to contraception. All of this is about who gets to make decisions about our bodies--women or a bunch of rightwing politicians. I believe--and the American people overwhelmingly agree--individuals, not politicians, should be making these deeply personal decisions. Our Right to Contraception Act and the Expanding Access to Family Planning Act will help ensure they can. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, just very briefly. Senator Wyden, I am really glad to be able to sponsor the My Bodies, My Data bill with you, because, as we know, any time any of us presses the button and uses our internet, somebody is collecting data, all of this data. And can you imagine there are all of these clinics that purportedly provide information relating to contraception and whatever else relating to reproductive care--these entities are also collecting all kinds of information. And they are not there to make sure that women--mainly women but individuals who access their services--they do not know that these are not institutions that will give them all of the information they need; but, instead, they are collecting a lot of information that can be weaponized. Thank you very much. This is yet another whole area of concern in this environment, in this climate, where individuals do not have control over our own bodies.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, the Kaena Point National Heritage Area Act. This bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating certain land in Hawaii as the Kaena Point National Heritage Area. Such a designation would bring Federal resources to bear on elevating public awareness of Kaena Point through increased interpretation and enhanced management activities to protect resources, both cultural and natural, for future generations. The National Park Service currently oversees 55 National Heritage Areas across the country, none of which are in Hawaii. Kaena Point, located on the westernmost tip of Oahu, is home to some of the last remaining unimproved semiwilderness areas on Oahu and one of the last intact dune ecosystems in Hawaii. Native species such as critically endangered Hawaiian monk seals, humpback whales, spinner dolphins, and green sea turtles can be found in the waters at Kaena Point. Native shorebirds such as albatrosses and shearwaters also frequent Kaena Point to nest. In addition, the area is one of the last remaining examples of intact coastal strand vegetation on Oahu and is home to a number of endangered plant species and the endangered yellow-faced bee. Kaena Point is significant to Native Hawaiian culture, being deemed one of the most sacred places on Oahu as it is home to numerous cultural and historic sites. The area currently includes a State park and a Natural Area Reserve, both operated by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. Kaena State Park is the second most visited park on Oahu, illustrating the significance of the area. This bill directs the U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary to conduct a study in consultation with State and local historic preservation officers, State and local historical societies, State and local tourism offices, and other appropriate organizations and governmental agencies. This study would, among other things, assess the area's unique cultural, historic, and natural resources, cultural contributions to the story of the United States, ability to provide recreation and educational opportunities, resources available for interpretation by visitors, inclusion of local stakeholders supportive of and involved with the planning of the Heritage Area, existence of a local management entity willing to work with these stakeholders to develop the Heritage Area, and include a map identifying the boundaries of the Heritage Area. The Secretary of the Interior is given 3 years to conduct the study and report the results to Congress. Information from that report will then indicate if Kaena Point is a suitable location to be added as a National Heritage Area and if so, the boundaries for such a designation. This bill is supported by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, the Kaena Point National Heritage Area Act. This bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating certain land in Hawaii as the Kaena Point National Heritage Area. Such a designation would bring Federal resources to bear on elevating public awareness of Kaena Point through increased interpretation and enhanced management activities to protect resources, both cultural and natural, for future generations. The National Park Service currently oversees 55 National Heritage Areas across the country, none of which are in Hawaii. Kaena Point, located on the westernmost tip of Oahu, is home to some of the last remaining unimproved semiwilderness areas on Oahu and one of the last intact dune ecosystems in Hawaii. Native species such as critically endangered Hawaiian monk seals, humpback whales, spinner dolphins, and green sea turtles can be found in the waters at Kaena Point. Native shorebirds such as albatrosses and shearwaters also frequent Kaena Point to nest. In addition, the area is one of the last remaining examples of intact coastal strand vegetation on Oahu and is home to a number of endangered plant species and the endangered yellow-faced bee. Kaena Point is significant to Native Hawaiian culture, being deemed one of the most sacred places on Oahu as it is home to numerous cultural and historic sites. The area currently includes a State park and a Natural Area Reserve, both operated by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. Kaena State Park is the second most visited park on Oahu, illustrating the significance of the area. This bill directs the U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary to conduct a study in consultation with State and local historic preservation officers, State and local historical societies, State and local tourism offices, and other appropriate organizations and governmental agencies. This study would, among other things, assess the area's unique cultural, historic, and natural resources, cultural contributions to the story of the United States, ability to provide recreation and educational opportunities, resources available for interpretation by visitors, inclusion of local stakeholders supportive of and involved with the planning of the Heritage Area, existence of a local management entity willing to work with these stakeholders to develop the Heritage Area, and include a map identifying the boundaries of the Heritage Area. The Secretary of the Interior is given 3 years to conduct the study and report the results to Congress. Information from that report will then indicate if Kaena Point is a suitable location to be added as a National Heritage Area and if so, the boundaries for such a designation. This bill is supported by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I rise today in opposition to S. 251, legislation that would ban transgender women and girls from participating in sports consistent with their gender. My Republican colleagues falsely claim that allowing transgender women and girls to play sports is harmful to cisgender women and girls. They continue to hurl insulting lies about transgender girls dominating sports, but what is true is that these bans are deeply harmful to transgender girls, particularly transgender girls of color, girls who are gender-nonconforming or born with intersex traits, as well as cisgender girls. These sex tests invade every girl's privacy and open the door to harass anyone who is perceived as different. If my Republican colleagues were actually worried about women and girls in athletics, they would join in our efforts to address unequal athletic opportunities in school, unequal pay, sexual abuse and harassment, and more. But this isn't about supporting women and girls; this is about discrimination. Earlier today, I stood in Statuary Hall as we unveiled the portrait of the late Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink on today's 50th anniversary of title IX becoming law. Title IX, which was renamed the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, says: No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefit of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Thirty-seven words that are just as relevant today as they were 50 years ago. Patsy fought for equal opportunities for all, and this bill stands in direct opposition to her work. And to listen to my colleague talking about title IX as being that act that is going to support his bill, I can tell you, as someone who knew and was friends with Patsy T. Mink, she would be standing right next to me to say that title IX in no way or shape supports what my colleague is attempting to do. Republicans have the wrong priorities. We shouldn't be banning anyone from playing sports; we should be fighting the discrimination that all women and girls continue to face in athletics, in the classroom, and in workplaces. I am proud to stand up and oppose this harmful legislation and continue to advance Patsy Mink's legacy of equal opportunities for all. Mr. President, for these reasons, I object.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. I note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, I want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his remarks just now. I, too, sit on the Judiciary Committee, and I listened to Garnell Whitfield talk about his 86-year-old mother, who was murdered, and his charge to us to do something, because basically he said: If you are not going to do something in the face of all this gun carnage in our country, what are you doing here? I think that is a question that each of us should ask: What the heck are we doing here if not to protect America's citizens? One of the questions that I asked of the panel, which consisted of two invitees from the Republican side and three panel members of Democratic invitees--I asked them: Is the easy access to guns in our country a major part of the gun violence and the massacres and the killings in our country? And they each said yes. They acknowledged that the easy access to guns, regardless of ideology, is what makes our country the outlier country among all developed nations. What that says to me is that we need to be very, very committed and very serious about the need to enact sensible gun safety legislation. As I listened to one of my other colleagues a little bit earlier talking about inflation, yes, inflation is a problem, but certainly it is not the answer to just blame the Democrats. I would like my Republican colleagues to make a commitment to do what we need to do and at least get a start in ending the gun violence in our country. As I said at yesterday's hearing, Hawaii has among the strongest gun safety legislation in the country. We have the lowest gun violence in the country. There is a cause and effect here. As Mr. Whitfield charged us with yesterday, do something. That is our responsibility.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Expanding America's Pacific Diplomatic Presence Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that seeks to deepen our diplomatic relations with Pacific Island countries and territories. I am thankful to Senator Cotton, Senator Markey, and Senator Hagerty for joining me in introducing this legislation. The United States enjoys strong historical ties, economic relationships, and cultural links with many Pacific Island nations. During World War II, these islands became the frontlines of some of our hardest fought battles of the Pacific campaign. Now, Pacific Island nations and territories are at the frontlines of climate change. Our friendships with Pacific Island nations are deepened by generations of Pacific Islanders whose presence in the United States and contributions have enriched communities throughout our country. We also recognize the strategic importance of Pacific Island nations, as demonstrated by the Compacts of Free Association we have with the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau. Unfortunately, while our diplomatic presence in the region has waned in the last decade, the diplomatic and economic presence of the People's Republic of China, PRC, has increased as it seeks to forge closer ties with Pacific Island nations. What happens in the Pacific Islands matters to the United States and we must take steps to demonstrate the strength of our commitment to the region. Diplomatic engagement in the region is critical for understanding how we can better support our Pacific Island partners. President Biden has worked to elevate the U.S.'s diplomatic engagement by being the first U.S. President to participate in a gathering of the Pacific Island Forum leaders. The President also signaled his commitment to the Freely Associated States by appointing Special Presidential Envoy Ambassador Joseph Yun to lead negotiations over the Compacts of Free Association. Several high-ranking administration officials, including the Secretary of State Antony Blinken, have visited the region to pledge U.S. support for efforts related to COVID-19 response, climate change adaptation, maritime security, infrastructure development, trade, and economic investment. I applaud this level of meaningful diplomatic engagement in the region and would like to see this sustained in the future. Establishing new U.S. diplomatic posts would support our efforts to build lasting relationships with Pacific Island nations and territories. The United States currently has eight Embassies among Pacific Island nations, with plans to reopen an Embassy in the Solomon Islands. These Embassies play an important role in forging relations with host nations and serve as important symbols of the U.S.'s long term commitment to the region. Opening new embassies, consulate generals, or other diplomatic posts would allow U.S. diplomats to have more regular interactions with the governments of the Pacific Islands and learn more about the challenges and opportunities facing each nation. The year-round presence of more U.S. diplomats would improve our ability to compete with the PRC's growing presence in the region and would enhance our coordination with Australia, New Zealand, and Japan on economic development assistance and humanitarian aid. An expanded diplomatic presence in the region would also improve oversight of U.S. Government-funded programs in the region. The legislation I am introducing would direct the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to conduct a feasibility study on establishing new diplomatic posts in Pacific Island countries and territories that currently do not have a U.S. Embassy or other U.S. diplomatic post. This legislation recognizes and seeks to understand what potential benefits and challenges may exist for establishing new U.S. diplomatic posts in the region. I hope that the results of an independent study conducted by GAO will inform future decisions by Congress and the executive branch to establish and appropriately fund new diplomatic posts in the region. I urge my colleagues to pass the Expanding America's Pacific Diplomatic Presence Act to demonstrate our support for greater diplomatic engagement with our partners in the region and reaffirm our commitment to building a shared future with the people of the Pacific Islands.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Expanding America's Pacific Diplomatic Presence Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that seeks to deepen our diplomatic relations with Pacific Island countries and territories. I am thankful to Senator Cotton, Senator Markey, and Senator Hagerty for joining me in introducing this legislation. The United States enjoys strong historical ties, economic relationships, and cultural links with many Pacific Island nations. During World War II, these islands became the frontlines of some of our hardest fought battles of the Pacific campaign. Now, Pacific Island nations and territories are at the frontlines of climate change. Our friendships with Pacific Island nations are deepened by generations of Pacific Islanders whose presence in the United States and contributions have enriched communities throughout our country. We also recognize the strategic importance of Pacific Island nations, as demonstrated by the Compacts of Free Association we have with the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau. Unfortunately, while our diplomatic presence in the region has waned in the last decade, the diplomatic and economic presence of the People's Republic of China, PRC, has increased as it seeks to forge closer ties with Pacific Island nations. What happens in the Pacific Islands matters to the United States and we must take steps to demonstrate the strength of our commitment to the region. Diplomatic engagement in the region is critical for understanding how we can better support our Pacific Island partners. President Biden has worked to elevate the U.S.'s diplomatic engagement by being the first U.S. President to participate in a gathering of the Pacific Island Forum leaders. The President also signaled his commitment to the Freely Associated States by appointing Special Presidential Envoy Ambassador Joseph Yun to lead negotiations over the Compacts of Free Association. Several high-ranking administration officials, including the Secretary of State Antony Blinken, have visited the region to pledge U.S. support for efforts related to COVID-19 response, climate change adaptation, maritime security, infrastructure development, trade, and economic investment. I applaud this level of meaningful diplomatic engagement in the region and would like to see this sustained in the future. Establishing new U.S. diplomatic posts would support our efforts to build lasting relationships with Pacific Island nations and territories. The United States currently has eight Embassies among Pacific Island nations, with plans to reopen an Embassy in the Solomon Islands. These Embassies play an important role in forging relations with host nations and serve as important symbols of the U.S.'s long term commitment to the region. Opening new embassies, consulate generals, or other diplomatic posts would allow U.S. diplomats to have more regular interactions with the governments of the Pacific Islands and learn more about the challenges and opportunities facing each nation. The year-round presence of more U.S. diplomats would improve our ability to compete with the PRC's growing presence in the region and would enhance our coordination with Australia, New Zealand, and Japan on economic development assistance and humanitarian aid. An expanded diplomatic presence in the region would also improve oversight of U.S. Government-funded programs in the region. The legislation I am introducing would direct the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to conduct a feasibility study on establishing new diplomatic posts in Pacific Island countries and territories that currently do not have a U.S. Embassy or other U.S. diplomatic post. This legislation recognizes and seeks to understand what potential benefits and challenges may exist for establishing new U.S. diplomatic posts in the region. I hope that the results of an independent study conducted by GAO will inform future decisions by Congress and the executive branch to establish and appropriately fund new diplomatic posts in the region. I urge my colleagues to pass the Expanding America's Pacific Diplomatic Presence Act to demonstrate our support for greater diplomatic engagement with our partners in the region and reaffirm our commitment to building a shared future with the people of the Pacific Islands.

Ms. HIRONO

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

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, Republicans continue to be totally shocked by the leak of a draft Supreme Court decision. But what is truly shocking is the fact that we have a radical, rightwing majority now on our Supreme Court, thanks to three Trump Justices who are poised to take away a constitutional right that women in this country have relied upon for almost 50 years. The Supreme Court has never overturned a constitutional right it has earlier conferred. And yet today, in 2022, women across the country are going to wake up and no longer have control over their own bodies once the Supreme Court stays its course to overturn both Roe and Casey. The Republican Party has sabotaged the Supreme Court, and women and girls across the country are going to pay the price. In 13 States, the minute Roe is overturned, abortion will be illegal, and dozens of other States will move to do the same. These States are prepared to outlaw abortion with only narrow exceptions, if at all. Imagine this. If a child is raped, Republicans will force her to give birth. If a woman's life is in danger, Republicans will force her to give birth, despite the fact that the United States already has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed country. If a woman cannot afford to raise a child, Republicans will force her to give birth anyway. And then, once that child is born, all of a sudden, their concern for that child pretty much goes out the window. They have done little to support women and families. They have repeatedly blocked Democratic efforts to provide healthcare, childcare, paid family leave, and more. There is nothing pro-life about that. And if a woman chooses to get an abortion for any reason, whether it be rape or medical necessity, Republicans stand ready to throw in jail women, doctors, and even those who help people access the procedure. And make no mistake, if Republicans take control over the House and Senate, they will press to pass national legislation that will outlaw abortion throughout the country. I have been an advocate for reproductive freedom for decades. When I was in college, abortion was not legal. It was the first time I wrote a political letter to the members of Hawaii's congressional delegation asking for their position on abortion. Abortion is one of the reasons I became an activist. And I fought against concerted efforts to limit abortion in Hawaii during the 14 years that I served in the Hawaii State Legislature. I knew then, as I do now, that women should be able to control our own bodies. And, sadly, the threat to women's freedom is as real today as it was when I was first advocating for this right decades ago. I am proud that Hawaii was the first State in the country to decriminalize abortion before Roe. So regardless of the Supreme Court decision, women's reproductive freedom in Hawaii will be protected. But for how long? So many women across the country do not live in States like Hawaii that protect the right to an abortion. Barriers to abortion access have always existed--barriers like finding childcare, taking time off from work and travel and transportation and more. The number of women dealing with the obstacles to get the essential healthcare they need will skyrocket if Roe is overturned. And we know who is going to be harmed the most: people who can't travel, including people with low incomes, people with disabilities. Due to systemic barriers and this country's legacy of racism and discrimination, Black, Latino, indigenous, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, and other people of color disproportionately feel the effects of abortion bans and restrictions. We know this is true because we have seen it play out in Texas. Already, women in Texas have to travel hundreds of miles to seek abortion services. Many women in Texas do not have the means or the opportunity. When you read Justice Alito's draft opinion, it is quite clear that this Justice has harbored a desire to overturn Roe for the 16 years he has been on the Supreme Court. And, now, thanks to the three Trump Justices, his radical opinion on abortion is no longer dissent but the majority opinion. This is our worst fears coming true. Meanwhile, I listened to Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, this morning, who kept calling Democrats ``extreme'' in our view--in our commitment to supporting a woman's right to abortion. He said that he would never support ``smashing'' the filibuster on this or any issue. Well, he had no problem smashing the filibuster when it came to Supreme Court Justices, and that is the very reason that three radical Trump Justices got on the Supreme Court in the first place and the reason why women are about to lose a constitutional right that we have relied upon for almost 50 years. Make no mistake, these radical Justices are just getting started. Alito's draft opinion, which denigrates any privacy basis for Roe, casts doubt on other privacy rights. Without privacy rights, the States are basically unfettered in what they do. And now that the radical rightwing Justices are on the cusp of getting what they wish regarding abortion rights, Justice Alito is already signaling what is next: revisiting Obergefell, the marriage equality decision. And we know so much more is at stake. We cannot sit back and accept this as our new normal. We cannot go back to a time when women had no autonomy over our own bodies. We cannot go back to a time when members of the LGBTQ+ community were treated as second-class citizens. And we cannot go back to a time where basic human rights were left up to the States--to the States--to decide. Since when do States get to decide whether or not a constitutional right exists? That is what we have the Supreme Court for, and that is what the Supreme Court is not making sure that we continue to protect. So here we are. Not only do we have to push to codify Roe nationally, but we have to take this fight to the ballots in November. As Justice Alito, in his draft opinion, cavalierly said, basically: All you women out there, go out and vote. So, yes, he is calling on the women of this country to use our energy and our resources to fight for a right, a constitutional right, that women in this country relied on for nearly 50 years. And, yes, that is exactly what we are going to do. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sexual Harassment Independent Investigations and Prosecution Act, also known as the SHIIP Act, which addresses longstanding systemic problems in the way that the military investigates and prosecutes sexual harassment. I thank Senators Booker, Gillibrand, and Feinstein for being original cosponsors and Representative Speier for introducing this important legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. It has been 2 years since Army SPC Vanessa Guillen was murdered after she reported being sexually harassed by another servicemember. Her tragic death was the catalyst to an investigation that led the Independent Review Commission to recommend key changes to the way the Department of Defense handles sexual assault and sexual harassment. Some of these changes, including the codification of sexual harassment as a crime, were established last year through the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act. Others, unfortunately, were left out. We must continue to build on the important work of the Independent Review Commission and the steps taken in the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act for the sake of our servicemembers. This includes codifying the requirement that any sexual harassment or assault complaint to be reviewed by a third-party investigator outside the chain of command. This change is essential to restoring the trust between soldiers and their superiors. Servicemembers would no longer have to fear their voices being stifled or dismissed altogether. That is why I am introducing the SHIIP Act to require that all complaints of sexual assault and harassment be reviewed by a specially trained investigator outside the chain of command. The provisions in this legislation will move prosecutorial decisions on sexual harassment cases to the new special trial counsel, created by the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, and require that independent sexual harassment investigators be outside the chain of command and trained to investigate sexual harassment. These changes are essential to ensure servicemembers feel safe reporting any misconduct and that their complaints are investigated properly. I urge my colleagues to pass the SHIIP Act as another step forward toward restoring faith in the military justice system.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sexual Harassment Independent Investigations and Prosecution Act, also known as the SHIIP Act, which addresses longstanding systemic problems in the way that the military investigates and prosecutes sexual harassment. I thank Senators Booker, Gillibrand, and Feinstein for being original cosponsors and Representative Speier for introducing this important legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. It has been 2 years since Army SPC Vanessa Guillen was murdered after she reported being sexually harassed by another servicemember. Her tragic death was the catalyst to an investigation that led the Independent Review Commission to recommend key changes to the way the Department of Defense handles sexual assault and sexual harassment. Some of these changes, including the codification of sexual harassment as a crime, were established last year through the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act. Others, unfortunately, were left out. We must continue to build on the important work of the Independent Review Commission and the steps taken in the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act for the sake of our servicemembers. This includes codifying the requirement that any sexual harassment or assault complaint to be reviewed by a third-party investigator outside the chain of command. This change is essential to restoring the trust between soldiers and their superiors. Servicemembers would no longer have to fear their voices being stifled or dismissed altogether. That is why I am introducing the SHIIP Act to require that all complaints of sexual assault and harassment be reviewed by a specially trained investigator outside the chain of command. The provisions in this legislation will move prosecutorial decisions on sexual harassment cases to the new special trial counsel, created by the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, and require that independent sexual harassment investigators be outside the chain of command and trained to investigate sexual harassment. These changes are essential to ensure servicemembers feel safe reporting any misconduct and that their complaints are investigated properly. I urge my colleagues to pass the SHIIP Act as another step forward toward restoring faith in the military justice system.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, throughout 2 days of questioning in front of the Judiciary Committee on which I sit, Judge Jackson proved, without a shadow of a doubt, what we all knew to be true: She is eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court of our country. Judge Jackson has the intellect, the integrity, and the temperament befitting an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and she doesn't have an ideological axe to grind. Judge Jackson is exceptionally qualified and well regarded across the political spectrum. And yet not a single Republican voted to advance Judge Jackson's nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and only three Republicans have publicly expressed support for her. So I ask my Republican colleagues: What is it going to take? What is it going to take to put politics aside to support a nominee like Judge Jackson? Because, clearly, intelligence, extraordinary breadth of experience, and support from prominent conservatives--conservatives-- did not suffice. Clearly, a candidate who has support from organizations from across the political spectrum--from the Black and Hispanic U.S. Chambers of Commerce to the National Education Association, with thousands of teachers; to the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest police union--they would not be supporting somebody who is soft on crime--to child advocacy groups that would not be supporting her, either, if she was not being appropriate in her sentencing of child pornography defendants. So even with this breadth of support, she didn't make the cut with the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. So, clearly, a nominee who was uniformly called ``brilliant,'' ``beyond reproach,'' ``first rate,'' and ``impeccable'' by her colleagues across the Nation was not enough. So, truly, what will it take? Sadly, some of my Republican colleagues resorted to unfounded and misleading attacks in an unsuccessful attempt to smear her character. To highlight how ridiculous the attacks around the sentencing of child pornography offenses were, I asked Judge Jackson about the history of the sentencing guidelines for these crimes and the concerns that these guidelines do not reflect what is happening with child pornography offenses. And these facts bear repeating. A decade ago, the U.S. Sentencing Commission first addressed the issue of sentencing in this area. Even way back then, only 40 percent of convicted offenders were receiving sentences within the guidelines. Now, 10 years later, even fewer offenders are receiving sentences within the guidelines. In 2019, just 30 percent of non-production offenders were sentenced within the guidelines. In the DC Circuit, in which Jackson served, the average goes down to just 20 percent of offenders. This puts Judge Jackson well within the mainstream in her sentencing in this area. She is not an outsider. I named numerous other judges nominated by President Trump and supported by the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who have also sentenced offenders to sentences well below the sentencing guidelines. So these judges also expressed concern about how the sentencing guidelines do not reflect the circumstances in the child pornography cases of today. I will repeat this. Judge Jackson is a mainstream judge. She has issued decisions and sentences similar to other judges across the Nation, including those nominated by both Republicans and Democratic Presidents. Despite some of my Republican colleagues' attempts to distort the truth to get more likes on Twitter, what Americans across the country saw was an incredibly impressive, highly qualified individual demonstrate that she has the intellect and the temperament to serve on our highest Court. Throughout the course of this week, Americans also learned about her character. I was particularly moved to hear the testimony of an individual who has known Judge Jackson for nearly 38 years--when they were in elementary school. He said, in part: Ketanji's incandescent brilliance was obvious to all of us from day one. But even more importantly, she has always been one of the kindest, warmest, most humble and down-to-earth people I have ever met. All this, while still possessing boundless charisma, drive, maturity, and grace. These qualities, apparently from a young age, have clearly guided her throughout her life and her career, particularly when it comes to treating every single person she encounters with dignity and respect. During the hearing, I asked Judge Jackson the same two questions on sexual assault and harassment that I ask of all nominees--male and female. In follow-up questioning, I named judges who had committed such misconduct and asked Judge Jackson what she does to ensure her court is a safe and inclusive place to work. After Judge Jackson's hearing concluded, a woman who had clerked for one of the judges I named who had engaged in this kind of harassing behavior reached out to me. And this is a person who had clerked for one of the judges that I had named. During her clerkship with this judge, she endured extreme and pervasive sexual harassment. She came forth publicly about this judge's conduct, an experience she described as ``a harrowing ordeal.'' She went on to a second clerkship, this time for Judge Jackson. In Judge Jackson's court, she said, she was treated like a valued and talented employee who could make meaningful contributions to the law. She says clerking for Judge Jackson was the most meaningful professional experience she has ever had. She stated: Judge Jackson is the reason I am still a lawyer. I have no doubt I would have left the profession were it not for the way she treated me the year after my ordeal. Judge Jackson is exactly the kind of judge and individual we need on the U.S. Supreme Court: experienced, evenhanded, with dignity, integrity, and humanity. Moreover, Judge Jackson is not just extremely qualified to serve on the Supreme Court; her nomination is a historic one. The Supreme Court has existed for over 233 years, and of the 115 Justices in the history of the Court, only 5 of them have been women, only 2 have been Black, and not a single one has been a Black woman. This is the Court that has decided cases that have had sweeping impacts on our lives, including decisions that have solidified rights for LGBTQ-plus people, empowered women, strengthened unions, and more. But this is also the same Court that has throughout the course of history upheld slavery, Jim Crow, and the unlawful internment--incarceration-- of Japanese Americans in World War II. So it is about time. It is about time we have a highly qualified, highly accomplished Black woman on the Supreme Court. It is about time our highest Court better reflects the country it serves. It is about time that Black women and girls across the country can finally see someone who looks like them sitting on the highest Court, making decisions that will impact their lives--our lives. And they will know that the possibility is there for them. I close by noting that during the hearing, Judge Jackson told the committee that as a freshman at Harvard, she wondered whether she could fit in or whether she could make it, and a Black woman she didn't know leaned into her as they were walking by, probably in Harvard Yard, and said to Judge Jackson--she wasn't a judge then: ``Persevere.'' That is something that a lot of us can relate to: perseverance, including myself, who came to this country as a poor immigrant kid, persevering to learn the language, to learn the culture of a country I knew nothing about. Judge Jackson being on the Supreme Court would send such a powerful message of perseverance to everyone in this country. I will be honored to vote to confirm Judge Jackson. I look forward to calling her Justice Jackson. I yield the floor.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. You may well ask: ``Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?'' You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word ``tension.'' I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue. One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: ``Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?'' The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals. We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was ``well timed'' in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word ``Wait!'' It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ``Wait'' has almost always meant ``Never.'' We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that ``justice too long delayed is justice denied.'' We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, ``Wait.'' But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: ``Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?''; when you take a cross country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading ``white'' and ``colored''; when your first name becomes [a racial slur], your middle name becomes ``boy'' (however old you are) and your last name becomes ``John,'' and your wife and mother are never given the respected title ``Mrs.''; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of ``nobodiness''--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair.