Floor Statements

Madam President, I was necessarily absent for votes on March 18, 2021, so I could return to Hawaii to tend to a family matter.

On March 18, had I been present, I would have voted yea on confirmation: Xavier Becerra, of California, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, rollcall vote 125.

Madam President, I was necessarily absent for votes on March 18, 2021, so I could return to Hawaii to tend to a family matter.

On March 18, had I been present, I would have voted yea on cloture motion: Martin Joseph Walsh, of Massachusetts, to be Secretary of Labor, rollcall vote 126.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for votes on March 17, 2021, so I could return to Hawaii to tend to a family matter.

On March 17, had I been present, I would have voted yea on confirmation: Katherine C. Tai, of the District of Columbia, to be United States Trade Representative, Rollcall vote 123.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for votes on March 17, 2021, so I could return to Hawaii to tend to a family matter.

On March 17, had I been present, I would have voted yea on cloture motion: Xavier Becerra, of California, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, Rollcall vote 124.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Katherine Tai to serve as the next United States Trade Representative. When confirmed, Ms. Tai will be the first woman of color and first Asian American to lead the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Katherine Tai's story is America's story. Her parents came to the United

States as graduate students and remained here to make a better life for themselves and their family, her father as a researcher at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and her mother as a scientist for the National Institutes of Health.

Given her parents' background, Katherine is no stranger to public service, and through her parents' hard work and dedication to make a better life for their daughter, she was able to attend Yale University and Harvard Law, became a talented trade lawyer, and was nominated by President Biden to lead the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. I have a deep appreciation for the Tais, their work ethic and their commitment to family. Representation matters, and Ms. Tai will be a representative for the United States in more ways than one.

Ms. Tai is a highly-qualified nominee with the experience to lead the U.S. trade policy at a critical time for our country, specifically as we continue to recover from the damage wrought by the coronavirus pandemic and rebuild our relationships with our allies abroad. She is a person who can help mend relationships and restore alliances.

Supporters have described her as a knowledgeable, tenacious trade expert who will work with a cross-section of advocates and stakeholders with the goal of bettering the lives of the American people and strengthening our economy at all levels. They have described her willingness to build coalitions across party lines, highlighting her broad support from both Democrats and Republicans, and from the labor, business, and environmental communities. They have referred to her time as a trade lawyer at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, where she worked to enforce trade agreements with China to hold that country accountable before the World Trade Organization. They have highlighted her time as a lawyer with the House Ways and Means Committee, where she built partnerships and crafted agreements that received broad bipartisan approval. These included the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, which passed the Senate by an 89-10 vote and the House by a 385-41 vote. Ms. Tai played a key role in crafting the agreement, which speaks to her skills and experience.

Perhaps more importantly, however, Ms. Tai will prioritize trade policies that promote workers, families, the environment, and local communities. I met with Ms. Tai just after President Biden nominated her, and during our conversation, it was clear she understands that trade policies have real world implications for everyday people. She knows that if trade deals are not working for people, then they need to change. People need to come first as we develop trade deals. At a time when people are still working to recover from the coronavirus, Ms. Tai is the Trade Representative we need for the United States.

A family emergency has prevented me from being here for today's vote, but if I were present, I would have voted to confirm Katherine Tai as U.S. Trade Representative.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support her nomination.

Madam President, I rise in support of the historic nomination of Deb Haaland to serve as the next Secretary of the Interior. When confirmed, Congresswoman Haaland will be the first Native American to serve in a Cabinet position.

Deb Haaland's nomination to become Secretary of the Interior means so much to the future of this country.

For the historically underrepresented and mistreated indigenous communities of these United States, it means that their experiences and perspectives will be valued and represented at the highest ranks of our Federal Government. This important milestone and this reflection of their stories cannot be overstated.

It means that young Americans and perhaps especially young people in indigenous communities, who put themselves through school, take out student loans, raise children, and run a business, will see their struggles in this nominee and realize that they, too, can work their way to high-ranking government positions.

Deb Haaland' s confirmation means that our country will, after 4 years of neglect and catering to the fossil fuel industry, work again to ensure that our natural resources are conserved for the next generation.

It means that the Federal Government will take swift, meaningful actions to address climate change.

It means that trust and relationships between local communities, Tribes, and the Federal Government will be restored and strengthened.

My Republican colleagues have gone to great lengths to smear Congresswoman Haaland as an extremist. They point to the commonsense policies and positions that she took while representing her constituents as ``radical'' and framing her as ``outside the mainstream.'' They are adamantly opposed to President Biden's environmental agenda and, regardless of what Deb Haaland says in response to their concerns, oppose her because they simply oppose the President's agenda.

If you took them for their word, you would believe that fossil fuels would disappear overnight. You would believe that workers in that industry would immediately lose their jobs, that our energy grids would become unreliable, that the sky would be falling.

What they don't talk about is how the Department of the Interior is putting a pause on new, not existing, oil and gas leases. A pause.

They don't mention how Deb Haaland, during her confirmation hearing, repeatedly assured them that the administration will not abandon workers and families in the fossil fuel industry as we transition to clean energy.

They ignored and discounted her repeated commitments to working with Senators and stakeholders in their respective States on issues that they care about.

They don't talk about the impacts of climate change on American communities, how climate change is an environmental justice issue, or the benefits of expanding our country's clean energy production.

Instead, their message is simple--if the nominee is not beholden to the fossil fuel industry, they won't support them.

Yes, President Biden's environmental agenda is bold. His commitments to addressing climate change, which he identified as a crisis, are strong.

We as a country cannot afford to continue with the fossil fuel extracting, carbon emitting status quo.

We cannot keep burying our heads in the sand and kicking the can down the road, expecting our children and grandchildren to clean up our messes.

President Biden committed to tackling some of the greatest challenges of our lifetime, and he named climate change as one of the four great crises of our time.

Major changes will need to happen including our old ways of thinking. We need to be bold, innovative, and think outside the box.

As our country takes on these issues, challenges and opportunities are inevitable. By having Deb Haaland at the helm of Interior, I know that our local communities from Hawaii, to Alaska, to Maine, and everywhere in between, will have a Secretary willing to listen, a Secretary who will take the time to understand their issues.

Our country can successfully transition from overreliance on fossil fuels, increase our clean energy production, protect our environment, and make real progress on climate change by working together.

Mr. President, a family emergency has kept me from being in attendence for today's vote. If I were present, I would have voted to confirm Deb Haaland as Secretary of the Interior. It is not only a historic vote but one of hope. I urge my colleagues to join me in my support.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Madam President, I was necessarily absent for a vote on March 15, 2021, so I could return to Hawaii to tend to a family matter.

On March 15, had I been present, I would have voted yea on the confirmation of Debra Anne Haaland to be Secretary of the Interior, rollcall vote 119.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Inventor Diversity for Economic Advancement Act of 2021. I thank my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Tillis, for working with me on this important piece of legislation, which serves as a first step to closing the diversity gap in our patent system by collecting demographic data on patent applicants.

Women and racial minorities have made some of the most significant inventions in this Nation's history. The $75 billion home security industry grew from an initial home security system invented by Marie Van Brittan Brown. The computer would never have become the multimedia device it is today without the microcomputer system invented by Mark Dean. The genetic revolution would still be science fiction if not for the CRISPR gene-editing tool discovered by Jennifer Doudna--raised on Hawaii's Big Island.

We should celebrate these inventors and the many others like them who have contributed to innovation in this Nation. But we must also recognize the hard truth that women, racial minorities, and many other groups are greatly underrepresented in the U.S. patent system.

The Patent and Trademark Office's recent report on women inventors shines a spotlight on one part of this problem. The PTO found that only 22 percent of U.S. patents list a woman as an inventor and that women make up only 13 percent of all inventors. This is true even though women held 43 percent of all full-time jobs in 2016 and 28 percent of STEM jobs in 2015.

Other reports highlight racial patent gaps. For example, a report by the Institute for Women's Policy Research found that the percentage of African American and Hispanic college graduates who hold patents is approximately half that of their white counterparts.

Closing these gaps would turbocharge our economy. According to a study by Michigan State University Professor Lisa Cook, including more women and African Americans in the ``initial stage of the process of innovation'' could increase GDP by as much as $640 billion.

Another study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that eliminating the patent gap for women with science and engineering degrees alone would increase GDP by over $500 billion.

It's simply good policy and good business to want to fully integrate people of all types into our innovation economy. But if we have any hope of closing the various patent gaps, we must first get a firm grasp on the scope of the problem.

Studies of the demographic makeup of patentees, like the ones I described, are few and far between. The reason is a simple one. A lack of data. The PTO does not collect any data on applicants beyond their first and last names and city, State, and country of residence. As a result, those wishing to study patent gaps between different demographic groups are forced to guess the gender of an applicant based on his or her name, determine the race of an applicant by cross- referencing census data, or explore a number of other options that are time-consuming, unreliable, or both.

The IDEA Act solves this problem. It would require the PTO to collect demographic data--including gender, race, and military or veteran status--from patent applicants on a voluntary basis. It would further require the PTO to issue reports on the data collected and, perhaps more importantly, make the data available to the public with appropriate protections for personally identifiable information. Outside researchers could therefore conduct their own analyses and offer insights into the various patent gaps in our society.

Let me be clear. Closing the information gap facing researchers alone will not solve the patent gap facing women, racial minorities, and so many others. But it is a critical first step. I therefore encourage my colleagues to support the IDEA Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that requires the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a study on the establishment of, and the potential land that could be included in, a unit of the National Forest System in the State of Hawaii.

The U.S. Forest Service currently oversees more than 150 National forests that receive Federal funding for watershed protection, wildlife conservation, enhancement of recreational access, wildfire prevention, among other things. Despite having unique forest ecosystems found nowhere else in the Nation, Hawaii is currently among the few States that do not have a National Forest. If warranted, a National Forest designation in Hawaii could provide additional Federal research and management resources.

This bill directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary, acting through the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, to conduct a study in coordination with the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, and in consultation with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture as well as other State and local stakeholders, on the islands of Hawaii, Oahu, Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, and Maui.

This study would, among other things, assess unique vegetation types, opportunities to improve and protect forest resources, secure favorable water flows, and opportunities for visitor use.

The Secretary of Agriculture is given three years to conduct the study and report the results to Congress. Information from that report will then inform which lands in Hawaii, if any, would be suitable for inclusion in a National Forest. This bill is supported by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that requires the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a study on the establishment of, and the potential land that could be included in, a unit of the National Forest System in the State of Hawaii.

The U.S. Forest Service currently oversees more than 150 National forests that receive Federal funding for watershed protection, wildlife conservation, enhancement of recreational access, wildfire prevention, among other things. Despite having unique forest ecosystems found nowhere else in the Nation, Hawaii is currently among the few States that do not have a National Forest. If warranted, a National Forest designation in Hawaii could provide additional Federal research and management resources.

This bill directs the U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary, acting through the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, to conduct a study in coordination with the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, and in consultation with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture as well as other State and local stakeholders, on the islands of Hawaii, Oahu, Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, and Maui.

This study would, among other things, assess unique vegetation types, opportunities to improve and protect forest resources, secure favorable water flows, and opportunities for visitor use.

The Secretary of Agriculture is given three years to conduct the study and report the results to Congress. Information from that report will then inform which lands in Hawaii, if any, would be suitable for inclusion in a National Forest. This bill is supported by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the majority of the minors who become pregnant tell their parents about the pregnancy even when they plan to seek an abortion. But it is not always possible or even advisable that a parent be informed. For some minors, telling their parents that they were sexually active, let alone pregnant, can lead to physical abuse. It can lead to those minors being thrown out of their homes. One study found that 45 percent of young people who did not seek advice from their parents about a pregnancy experienced significant negative consequences--such as punishment, abuse, being forced out of their home--when their parents found out.

By requiring that parents of minors seeking an abortion be notified and setting the bar for an exception to this rule at a nearly insurmountable level, this bill ignores this reality of what might happen to these young people. In doing so, it turns an already difficult decision for a young person into an almost impossible one. It puts minors' health and safety at risk while doing nothing to strengthen families.

This is made clear by the fact that all of the major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Public Health Association--all of these groups oppose laws like this one that mandate parental involvement in minors' abortion decisions.

Let's be clear. This is yet another partisan attack on a woman's constitutionally-protected right to choose. It is completely unnecessary and distracts from the important work the Senate is doing right now to deliver urgently needed COVID relief.

For these reasons, I object.

Mr. President, I rise today regarding the second impeachment of Donald Trump.

The House managers made their case. Based on the evidence they presented and the events we all experienced, Donald Trump should be convicted and prohibited for holding office ever again for inciting a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

Through video, pictures, and quotes, they outlined how the President of the United States engaged in a months-long campaign to discredit the legitimate election results of the 2020 election--a deranged campaign that began before a single vote was cast.

This unprecedented campaign of misinformation, pushing the ``Big Lie,'' infected a significant contingent of the President's supporters. They came to Washington, DC, at Trump's invitation and inciteful rhetoric. They followed his direction on January 6 to storm the Capitol and tried to stop us from carrying out our constitutional duty to certify the election for the lawful winner of the Presidential election, Joe Biden.

The evidence presented by the managers is solid and irrefutable, and the President's lawyers made almost no effort to try. Given the jury they were facing, I don't blame them. Almost every Senator in this Chamber was there that day. Senators Ossoff, Warnock, and Padilla weren't sworn in until January 20. We all experienced the unthinkable that day, and we are all processing it differently. The violent insurrection shook many of us to the core. For some of us, the events of that day were so chaotic that the full magnitude of what was happening wasn't clear at the time.

Both as part of the trial evidence and through interviews and statements, we have learned more fully the measure of danger we faced as Donald Trump's murderous mob assaulted the Capitol campus. The managers' case and other media has given us all a better picture of the terror.

There are stories of bravery, like that of Officer Eugene Goodman and his U.S. Capitol Police colleagues.

The footage of Officer Goodman misdirecting the mob marauding through these halls is remarkable. Put yourself in his shoes. How many of us would have acted as quickly in the face of a rushing wave of hate? He has rightly been commended for his decisive, nearly superhuman response. All across the complex, his colleagues battled with insurrectionists who assaulted them with bats, bear spray, and other weapons in close quarters--these were scenes from a war zone, not the heart of the U.S. Government. While their bravery is commendable, Capitol Police and the other law enforcement agencies that eventually assisted to restore order should never have been in that position. But for the President of the United States sending a mob of violent insurrectionists to the Capitol, they would not have.

There are other chilling stories that should make every American's heart race. The audio of the Speaker's staff barricaded in their office, whispering into the phone, voices trembling, begging for help. The silent Capitol security footage showing just how close the Vice President, Senators, Representatives, and staff came to harm. The videos of chanting, gleeful, rioters demonstrating their horrifying fealty to

Donald Trump's lies as they broke down doors and ransacked offices and the Senate floor. The story that my friend Senator Murray has told of being trapped in her office with her husband. The mob pounding on the door while he tried to hold it shut with his foot. The absolute terror she must have felt hoping that the door was locked and that help would come quickly. They were inches away. The rest of us there that day were at least feet away. I am sure that we all called, texted, and thought of loved ones. Trying to reassure them but not actually knowing if that was true. Feeling from far away their helpless anguish for us and the utter terror and disbelief that something like this could happen in our country. To the U.S. Capitol, of all places.

The U.S. Capitol is the heart of our democratic system of government. While we may disagree vociferously, debate passionately, and represent people and communities with deeply divergent views, Congress exists to find common ground without resorting to violence. This simple fact-- that as a country we solve our problems through democratic institutions and debate--is a source of our strength and global leadership. I have strong disagreements with a number of my colleagues. I know many of them disagree with me. But each day we come to the Senate floor and voice those disagreements without fear for our safety. On January 6, that basic level of understanding--the very thing that separates our country from so many others--was shattered by the assault on the Capitol. And worst of all, that insurrection was incited by a sitting President of the United States.

In some respects, it is difficult to know how best to move forward from that awful day. We came back. We did our jobs. And we are still here doing what our constituents sent us here to do. The Capitol may have been changed indelibly for many of us.

Again, to turn to the words of my friend Senator Murray the bipartisan actions shown in Congress in the wake of the September 11 attacks helped to restore some semblance of safety and security. That common response is absent today.

To begin to heal, we need accountability. We need to live up to our constitutional oaths and the sacred duty our constituents bestowed on us when we were elected: to uphold the law, to stand for their values, and, when necessary, to stand for our own. We can only start to heal when we have accountability and justice for what happened. To achieve this, we need those who are in leadership positions to lead.

Republicans failed to lead last year when they voted to acquit Donald Trump for his corrupt actions in dealing with Ukraine by conditioning military assistance on receiving political dirt on Joe Biden. Their failure to lead, to hold Trump accountable, and frankly to constrain his mania, emboldened him to push the boundaries of our political discourse further.

Republicans have another chance to stand up for our democracy and against authoritarianism. They have a chance to accept the reality that has been clearly outlined for them in video, audio, and their own experiences. They can make a strong statement that political violence is unacceptable in the United States. They can--and should--vote to convict Donald Trump and bar him from ever holding office again. This is the real first, meaningful step that we can take to achieve the unity that we all claim to want.

I will vote to convict. I hope that this time, more than one of them will be brave enough to lead by standing up and doing what is right.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism and Consumer Harms Act, also known as the SAFE TECH Act. I thank my colleagues, Senator Warner and Senator Klobuchar, for working with me on this important piece of legislation, which fulfills the promise of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act by forcing internet companies to finally address the serious harms their platforms cause--harms like civil rights and human rights violations, stalking and harassment, and wrongful death.

Section 230--often called the law that created the internet--was passed in 1996. For some context, in 1996, Google was two years from being founded. Mark Zuckerberg was in middle school. And, the internet effectively shut down for nineteen hours when a technical glitch took American Online offline.

The law was passed with a noble goal in mind: to encourage operators of then-nascent internet message boards to act as ``Good Samaritans'' and voluntarily police illegal and harmful content posted by third parties. Section 230 accomplished this goal by declaring that ``[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.'' These twenty-six words have effectively shielded internet platforms from liability for any harm caused by content posted by third parties for the past twenty-five years.

Unfortunately, whatever incentive Section 230 was meant to provide to encourage internet platforms to police content has proven to be no incentive at all. The statute's broad immunity applies whether a platform carefully reviews each piece of content posted by a user or performs no content moderation whatsoever. It immunizes platforms that have actual knowledge illegal content has been posted. It even applies if the platform itself encouraged the user to post the content. The result has been internet platforms large and small turning a blind eye to the real-world harms they cause.

Let me tell you about a few of those real-world harms.

Over the course of five months in late 2016 and early 2017, Matthew Herrick was harassed and physically assaulted by men directed to his home and office by the gay dating app Grindr. These men--over 1,100 in total--were responding to a fake profile created by Mr. Herrick's ex- boyfriend. Grindr was on notice of both the fake profile and its harmful effects. Mr. Herrick and his friends filed approximately fifty reports with the company reporting the problem and seeking help. But the company did nothing while Mr. Herrick suffered.

On October 21, 2012, Radcliffe Haughton walked into a Wisconsin spa and shot and killed three women, including his estranged wife, and wounded four others before turning the gun on himself. He had purchased the gun the prior day from a private seller he found on the online gun marketplace Armslist.com. He was able to purchase the gun even though his wife had recently obtained a domestic abuse restraining order that specifically prohibited Mr. Haughton from purchasing

a gun. For all intents and purposes, Armslist was designed to facilitate such illegal sales. It precluded users from flagging illegal sales; it allowed people to anonymously purchase guns without a background check; and it enabled prohibited purchasers to search only for sellers that did not check criminal backgrounds or keep records. Mr. Haughton took advantage of these features and, as a result, three people are dead.

On August 25, 2020, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two people and injured a third on the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin during a protest of the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Mr. Rittenhouse was one of many armed, right-wing counter-protesters encouraged to travel to Kenosha by a Facebook page run by a group called ``Kenosha Guard'' that asked if any followers would be willing to ``take up arms and defend [the city] from the evil thugs.'' Despite being flagged to Facebook at least 455 times as a call to violence, the company left the page up.

In none of these cases did Grindr, Armslist, and Facebook act like ``Good Samaritans.'' They did not voluntarily police the content on their platforms. Instead, they either actively encouraged or turned a blind eye to dangerous and illegal content knowing full well Section 230 immunized them for any harm their platforms caused. Any attempt by victims to hold the platforms accountable for their roles would be blocked by Section 230.

Under the SAFE TECH Act, this would no longer be the case. This bill would ensure that internet companies either address the serious problems they are causing or face potential liability. It does so by creating targeted exceptions to Section 230's broad immunity, including exceptions for advertisements and other paid content; claims for injunctive relief; civil rights, stalking, and harassment laws; wrongful death actions; and suits under the Alien Tort Claims Act.

Introducing these exceptions to Section 230 does not guarantee that platforms will be held liable in all--or even most--cases where they cause real-world harm. But it will give victims the opportunity to make their case. By doing so, the SAFE TECH Act will punish those bad actors who are actively encouraging or turning a blind eye to dangerous and illegal content, while allowing true ``Good Samaritans'' to flourish online. That was the promise of Section 230. After twenty-five years, it's about time we realize that promise.

I therefore encourage my colleagues to support the SAFE TECH Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to posthumously award Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu with the Congressional Gold Medal. Fred challenged the illegal internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and devoted his life to expanding civil rights and liberties for all people. Awarding him the Congressional Gold Medal, Congress' highest civilian honor, would be a fitting tribute to his lifelong pursuit of justice and equality.

Fred was born in Oakland, California on January 30, 1919, to Japanese immigrant parents. Although he was an American citizen, Fred was discriminated against due to his Japanese ancestry. As the United States entered World War II, Fred tried unsuccessfully to enlist in the U.S. military, and was fired from his job at the Oakland shipyard. In 1942, Fred was arrested and convicted of defying military orders issued under Executive Order 9066, a discriminatory presidential order that authorized the mass removal and incarceration of more than 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.

Fred challenged the constitutionality of the government's order but was convicted in federal court of violating

military orders issued under Executive Order 9066. After a federal appeals court upheld his conviction, he appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. On December 18, 1944, the Court ruled against him in a 6-3 decision, finding the government's discriminatory policy to incarcerate Japanese Americans was justified due to military necessity.

Decades later, legal historians discovered key information that the federal government did not share with the Supreme Court, including a report that concluded very few Japanese Americans represented a national security risk. After this evidence of government misconduct emerged and was presented to the court, Fred's conviction was overturned by a Federal court in San Francisco nearly forty years later, on November 10, 1983. Fred believed that the Supreme Court's decision was wrong, and stated, ``I would like to see the Government admit that they were wrong and do something about it so this will never happen again to any American citizen of any race, creed or color.'' Although the Supreme Court's infamous ruling in Korematsu v. United States has been widely rejected by historians and legal experts, it has never been formally repudiated, and stands as one of the Supreme Court's worst precedents.

The internment of Japanese Americans was a shameful act, and it was not until 1988 that the Civil Liberties Act was passed and our Government formally apologized to Americans of Japanese ancestry who were incarcerated during World War II. Fred Korematsu fought for this redress legislation and continued working to expand civil rights throughout his life. He spoke out against prejudice directed at minorities and immigrants, and after September 11, 2001, filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court, warning our nation not to repeat history by committing civil and human rights travesties.

During his lifetime, Fred Korematsu did not choose the easy route. Instead, he chose to fight and speak out against injustice his entire life. He fought not just for himself, but for everyone, particularly minorities who could be discriminated against based on their ethnicity. However, many of these injustices remain, and can be reborn as we have seen with the rise in anti-Asian prejudice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Fred Korematsu reminds us that we must remain vigilant against discrimination, particularly when it is disguised in times of emergency or for reasons of security. On January 30, Fred Korematsu Day of Civil Liberties and the Constitution, we honor the life of this civil rights hero whose legacy continues to inspire people of all backgrounds to speak up and fight for justice. This day uses one of the most blatant examples of racial discrimination to educate individuals on the dangers of political scapegoating and works toward a future that guarantees civil rights for everyone. I am proud to introduce the Fred Korematsu Congressional Gold Medal Act in his memory, and I call on my colleagues in the United States Senate to swiftly pass this bill during the 117th Congress.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to posthumously award Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu with the Congressional Gold Medal. Fred challenged the illegal internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and devoted his life to expanding civil rights and liberties for all people. Awarding him the Congressional Gold Medal, Congress' highest civilian honor, would be a fitting tribute to his lifelong pursuit of justice and equality.

Fred was born in Oakland, California on January 30, 1919, to Japanese immigrant parents. Although he was an American citizen, Fred was discriminated against due to his Japanese ancestry. As the United States entered World War II, Fred tried unsuccessfully to enlist in the U.S. military, and was fired from his job at the Oakland shipyard. In 1942, Fred was arrested and convicted of defying military orders issued under Executive Order 9066, a discriminatory presidential order that authorized the mass removal and incarceration of more than 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.

Fred challenged the constitutionality of the government's order but was convicted in federal court of violating

military orders issued under Executive Order 9066. After a federal appeals court upheld his conviction, he appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. On December 18, 1944, the Court ruled against him in a 6-3 decision, finding the government's discriminatory policy to incarcerate Japanese Americans was justified due to military necessity.

Decades later, legal historians discovered key information that the federal government did not share with the Supreme Court, including a report that concluded very few Japanese Americans represented a national security risk. After this evidence of government misconduct emerged and was presented to the court, Fred's conviction was overturned by a Federal court in San Francisco nearly forty years later, on November 10, 1983. Fred believed that the Supreme Court's decision was wrong, and stated, ``I would like to see the Government admit that they were wrong and do something about it so this will never happen again to any American citizen of any race, creed or color.'' Although the Supreme Court's infamous ruling in Korematsu v. United States has been widely rejected by historians and legal experts, it has never been formally repudiated, and stands as one of the Supreme Court's worst precedents.

The internment of Japanese Americans was a shameful act, and it was not until 1988 that the Civil Liberties Act was passed and our Government formally apologized to Americans of Japanese ancestry who were incarcerated during World War II. Fred Korematsu fought for this redress legislation and continued working to expand civil rights throughout his life. He spoke out against prejudice directed at minorities and immigrants, and after September 11, 2001, filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court, warning our nation not to repeat history by committing civil and human rights travesties.

During his lifetime, Fred Korematsu did not choose the easy route. Instead, he chose to fight and speak out against injustice his entire life. He fought not just for himself, but for everyone, particularly minorities who could be discriminated against based on their ethnicity. However, many of these injustices remain, and can be reborn as we have seen with the rise in anti-Asian prejudice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Fred Korematsu reminds us that we must remain vigilant against discrimination, particularly when it is disguised in times of emergency or for reasons of security. On January 30, Fred Korematsu Day of Civil Liberties and the Constitution, we honor the life of this civil rights hero whose legacy continues to inspire people of all backgrounds to speak up and fight for justice. This day uses one of the most blatant examples of racial discrimination to educate individuals on the dangers of political scapegoating and works toward a future that guarantees civil rights for everyone. I am proud to introduce the Fred Korematsu Congressional Gold Medal Act in his memory, and I call on my colleagues in the United States Senate to swiftly pass this bill during the 117th Congress.

I yield the floor.

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