Floor Statements

Mr. President, it has been hard, at times, to find the words to describe the full harm that Donald Trump has inflicted on our country. We can spend hours dissecting how his policies have made us less safe and less healthy, but his Presidency has also been a profound moral failure.

Let me tell you a story. A few years ago, a father from Hawaii joined me at one of my talk-story sessions in my office, and he asked me a question that struck me hard at that time and has stuck with me until today. He said: How can I tell my son that lying is not OK when the President of the United States lies every single day? I struggled to answer his question then, and I am not sure I could offer an adequate answer now.

But this conversation remains a clear example of how we do not live in normal times. How is it normal as we and the world watched in horror as an angry mob stormed the U.S. Capitol? Blood was shed. People were hurt. Vandalism occurred.

It is not normal when we have a President who lies every single day. And even in the face of this vandalism, this mob, he really doesn't have much to say except: I love you. You should go home now.

It is not normal when, in the middle of a pandemic that has claimed the lives of over 350,000 Americans, which is nearly the combined population of the islands of Maui and the Big Island, we have a President who only seems to care about spreading conspiracies to undermine confidence in our elections and our democracy.

It is not normal when duly elected Senators who took an oath to uphold the Constitution pull a stunt to try and nullify millions of votes in six States so that Donald Trump can remain President. I call this effort a stunt because it is doomed to fail.

We have a strong bipartisan majority, as noted in the vote that we just took, in both Chambers of Congress who reject this stunt, and courts have ruled against Trump and his allies in more than 60 cases.

So whenever this farce ends, the result will be the same: Donald Trump will have lost the election, and Joe Biden will become the 46th President of the United States.

You can tell a lot about a person from the way they handle defeat. The way Donald Trump has handled defeat says a lot about who he is. Watching so many of our colleagues indulge the President tells us a lot about them too.

We don't have to look back very far in history to find examples of candidates who lost tough races but demonstrated their character in defeat. Our colleague Senator Romney graciously conceded his defeat to President Obama in noting:

At a time like this, we can't risk partisan bickering and

political posturing. Our leaders have to reach across the

aisle to do the people's work, and we citizens also have to

rise to the occasion.

And in 2000, during an election with substantial irregularities and partisan intervention from the Supreme Court, Al Gore, nevertheless, put his country first and he said:

Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the

Court's decision, I accept it. . . . And tonight, for the

sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our

democracy, I offer my concession.

As I reflect on the service of these distinguished public servants and the acts they took to maintain our democracy, I am also drawn to remarks President Obama made 4 years ago in his farewell address to the Nation when he warned that our democracy is threatened whenever we take it for granted.

It is a particularly sage warning as we contend with the President of the United States seeking to nullify a free and fair election simply because he lost. We have to stand up, speak out, and fight back because our democracy itself is at stake.

American democracy has endured over these centuries in large part because our institutions serve as guardrails to keep us from going over the cliff. As elected officials, we can strengthen these guardrails by listening to our own conscience in moments of peril, by having what our friend John Lewis called ``an executive session with myself.''

Before making a big decision, John would say: Listen self, this is what you must do; this is where you must go. Today, we can follow John's example, listen to our conscience, stand up for our Constitution, and do what is right

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, conservative, rightwing forces in our country are engaged in an all-out assault on working people. Their target? Private and public sector workers and the unions who are fighting on their behalf. While private sector unions at least have some protections under the National Labor Relations Act, public employees have been historically forced to rely on Supreme Court precedent to protect their basic rights.

That is why the Court's decision last year in Janus was so damaging. In one fell swoop, the Court overturned more than 40 years of precedent from the Abood decision and barred public sector unions from collecting fair share fees from employees who had opted out of the union but whom the union is still legally required to represent.

The Supreme Court's decision in Janus was not unexpected. Its decision was the culmination of decades-long efforts by groups like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation to undermine settled precedent in Abood in order to weaken public sector unions. These groups worked methodically to achieve their goals.

First, Justice Alito all but invited a challenge to Abood when he wrote his decision in Knox v. SEIU Local 100 and Harris v. Quinn. He called the justification for allowing a union to collect fair share fees ``an anomaly.'' He said ``the Abood Court's analysis is questionable on several grounds'' and laid out the grounds as he saw them for someone to bring a case to overturn Abood.

This was an open invitation to conservative groups to then go looking for a plaintiff to do just that--to create an opportunity for the Supreme Court to overturn Abood. They funded Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, which was fast-tracked to the Supreme Court in 2016, where ``the signaler,'' Justice Alito, awaited the case. Public employee unions received a temporary reprieve in a deadlocked 4-to-4 decision because of Justice Antonin Scalia's unexpected death.

The well-funded conservative interests then saw a huge opportunity to fill the vacancy with a Justice to their liking. From applauding Senator McConnell's single-handedly blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland to spending millions to confirm Neil Gorsuch, they wanted a Justice who was on their side.

They got it in Neil Gorsuch, who delivered the decisive fifth vote in Janus, torpedoing 41 years of precedent under the pretext of protecting ``fundamental free speech rights.'' Justice Elena Kagan saw right through this argument. In a strong dissent, she said: ``The majority overthrows a decision entrenched in this Nation's law . . . for over 40 years . . . and it does so by weaponizing the First Amendment, in a way that unleashes judges, now and in the future, to intervene in economic and regulatory policy.''

Undermining public employee unions and, in fact, all unions has gained momentum because of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. With this narrow majority, we are likely to see a lot more 5-to- 4 decisions on ideological, partisan lines. This is not good for the country and not good for the credibility of the Court. We need a Supreme Court that strives to achieve consensus as often as possible, not one pursuing a hard-right ideological agenda.

In the face of these onslaughts from the Supreme Court and conservative interests, unions are fighting back. We have seen tens of thousands of teachers taking to the streets in cities and States across the country demanding and in many cases securing more investment in schools, smaller class sizes, and a living wage for teachers.

In the year since Janus, public sector employee unions like AFSCME are adding thousands of new dues-paying members energized to fight back against the conservative assault on unions' very existence.

Our public employee unions are doing their job to stay in the fight and Congress needs to do its part. That is why I joined 35 of my Senate colleagues and 27 of my House colleagues this week to introduce the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act of 2019.

This legislation affirms to all 17.3 million public sector workers nationwide that we value their service to the public and that we are fighting to protect their voice in the workplace.

Our bill codifies the right of public employees to organize, act concertedly, and bargain collectively in States that currently do not afford these basic rights.

Under our legislation, States have wide flexibility to write and administer their own labor laws, provided they meet the standards established in this legislation, and it will not preempt laws in States that substantially meet or exceed this standard.

The right to organize shouldn't depend on whether or not your State has robust worker protections, like the State of Hawaii, and workers shouldn't be held captive to the anti-union bent of the Roberts Five on the Supreme Court.

The fight to protect the right to organize is not an abstract issue. Unions have lifted people into the middle class, especially women and people of color.

I speak from personal experience. When I was a young child, my mother worked for years in low-wage jobs that provided no job security, no healthcare, and no stability. We lived paycheck to paycheck. That all changed when my mother and her coworkers organized and formed a union. That union happens to be the CWA.

Unionization brought job and economic security to our family. Our public employee unions are fighting on behalf of millions of people across our country who are serving our communities. They are our teachers, our firefighters, social workers, EMTs, and our police officers. They are us.

These are not normal times. We all need to come together to fight back against an all-out assault on working people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to discuss Senate amendment No. 861, offered by our colleague from Utah.

The author of the amendment, Senator Romney, and others have made clear that this language does not constitute an authorization of the use of military force, or AUMF. I agree with that assessment.

While this amendment appears to restate existing Presidential authority to defend the country in the event of an attack, it includes other language that could be interpreted to provide more authority to the President. That concerns me, which is why I voted against this amendment.

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

Madam President, Donald Trump and the hawks in his administration are fueling a dangerous escalation with Iran, and instead of taking responsibility for this escalation, the President is once again blaming others for a crisis of his own making.

Adding to the confusion and concern is the President's penchant for using his Twitter account or an outburst from the Oval Office to jump between calling for restraint and embracing a potential war.

Instead of listening to the President's latest outbursts or dissecting his latest tweet, let's take a hard look at what he has done to bring us to this dangerous moment.

In May 2018, Trump followed the lead of the hawks in his administration and unilaterally--unilaterally--pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the JCPOA, breaking the agreement and leaving its other signatories, especially our allies in Europe, holding the bag.

Only a few weeks earlier, Jim Mattis, the President's own Secretary of Defense, told the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which I sit, that the agreement was working as intended and had been written with an assumption that Iran would try to cheat. He went on to note that while the deal was imperfect, it established a strong verification and inspection regime that Iran was complying with the agreement.

I continue to agree with Secretary Mattis's conclusions. The purpose of the JCPOA was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon within a 2- to 3-month timeframe. That is the kind of timeframe we were looking at. The JCPOA was not intended to cover Iran's ballistic missile program or its malign activities throughout the region.

What the JCPOA did accomplish, however, was lengthening Iran's nuclear breakout capacity from 3 months to 1 year. It included strong limitations on enrichment, redesigned and rebuilt the Arak heavy water reactor so it can only be used for peaceful-use research purposes and not for the enrichment of weapons-grade plutonium, and required Iran to ship all spent nuclear fuel out of the country.

The agreement also included a binding commitment from Iran to never pursue a nuclear weapons program. That is in the very beginning part of the JCPOA document. This commitment necessitated a continuous inspection regime by the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.

Further, the agreement included provisions that would see the international community reimpose sanctions automatically--the snapback--if Iran was violating the deal.

Instead of building upon the JCPOA to address Iran's other malign activities, Donald Trump threw out all the benefits of the deal, took on an enormous risk, and isolated the United States in the process.

In early April, the President took the unprecedented step of designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, a foreign terrorist organization. He designated the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization. That was an unprecedented step, overruling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dunford, in the process. General Dunford argued that this first-of-its-kind step would put American troops in the region at risk for retaliation. He was right.

Later that month, Donald Trump rescinded waivers granted to key American allies, such as Japan and India, to purchase Iranian oil, effectively strangling the Iranian economy in the process. Over the past few months, the administration has sent thousands of additional troops and a carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf.

These actions, taken unilaterally, have isolated the United States from our allies, encouraged Iran to stop complying with elements of the nuclear deal and to step up their aggressive actions in the region, and brought us to the dangerous precipice of war.

Although the President made the eleventh-hour decision--actually, 10 minutes before a strike--to call off a military response to Iran's downing of an Air Force drone, the fact that we got so close to a military strike is chilling, given the implications of igniting an open war with Iran.

We have learned to our peril over the past few years that Donald Trump does not keep his word or the word of our country. He says something one day, only to reverse himself at a moment's notice. We cannot rely on his restraint to avoid blundering into a war with Iran. That is why I am continuing to call on my colleagues to join in supporting a vote on Senator Udall's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

This amendment makes clear that only Congress can authorize the use of military force against Iran and would provide a clear check on Donald Trump, John Bolton, and other hawks in the administration.

We cannot allow this administration and this President a free hand to stack the deck toward military action and away from meaningful diplomacy. Otherwise, we risk committing another generation of American soldiers to a protracted, disastrous war in the Middle East.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the Patsy T. Mink and Louise M. Slaughter Gender Equity in Education Act, which I was proud to reintroduce today with several of my Senate colleagues. I also want to thank Congresswoman Matsui, who introduced the bill in the House.

Our legislation recognizes and builds on the progress started by two gender

equity champions: Patsy Mink of Hawaii and Louise Slaughter of New York.

Patsy Mink, the first Asian American woman and woman of color to serve in Congress, was a pioneer and a strong champion for gender equity in education as one of the principal authors of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Congresswoman Louise Slaughter's commitment to public service and fierce advocacy for women's equality and empowerment helped strengthen educational opportunities for all Americans.

The Gender Equity in Education Act (GEEA) would honor their legacies by providing more resources for K-12 schools, colleges and universities, States, school districts, and others to fully implement Title IX, also known as the ``Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act,'' which has transformed the educational landscape in our country by reaffirming the fundamental principal that sex-based discrimination has no place in our nation's schools.

Since its enactment, Title IX has opened countless doors for women and girls, and created important opportunities for students across the country--whether in the classroom, on the playing field, or in the boardroom. But barriers still exist, and more work remains to make sure all students have access to safe learning environments free from bias and discrimination. We need to work to make sure schools treat students equally with regard to athletic participation opportunities, athletic scholarships, and the benefits and services provided to athletic teams.

We need to work to improve gender equity in career and technical education, in higher education, and in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields while strengthening the STEM pipeline. We need to address sexual harassment and assault in our nation's schools.

We need to address discrimination based on pregnancy or parenting status by providing better accommodations and increased support for pregnant and parenting students, because currently only half of teenage mothers earn their high school diplomas before they turn 22 years old, and nearly one-in-three young mothers never get their diplomas or GEDs, which is unacceptable.

And, at a time when nearly nine-in-ten LGBTQ students reported being harassed or assaulted based on a personal characteristic, we need to address discrimination based on stereotypes of actual or perceived sex--including sexual orientation and gender identity.

GEEA provides important resources to continue this work--not only to protect the progress we have made, but also to build on that progress and create more opportunities for students.

By improving and strengthening Title IX, we uphold the great work of champions like Patsy Mink and Louise Slaughter, who fought to make sure no students are denied equal access to educational opportunities or have to worry about whether they are safe on campus. We must remain vigilant in this endeavor.

I thank my colleagues for joining me in reintroducing this important legislation as we continue our work to advance Title IX and to ensure equal access to educational opportunities for all.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss the Patsy T. Mink and Louise M. Slaughter Gender Equity in Education Act, which I was proud to reintroduce today with several of my Senate colleagues. I also want to thank Congresswoman Matsui, who introduced the bill in the House.

Our legislation recognizes and builds on the progress started by two gender

equity champions: Patsy Mink of Hawaii and Louise Slaughter of New York.

Patsy Mink, the first Asian American woman and woman of color to serve in Congress, was a pioneer and a strong champion for gender equity in education as one of the principal authors of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Congresswoman Louise Slaughter's commitment to public service and fierce advocacy for women's equality and empowerment helped strengthen educational opportunities for all Americans.

The Gender Equity in Education Act (GEEA) would honor their legacies by providing more resources for K-12 schools, colleges and universities, States, school districts, and others to fully implement Title IX, also known as the ``Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act,'' which has transformed the educational landscape in our country by reaffirming the fundamental principal that sex-based discrimination has no place in our nation's schools.

Since its enactment, Title IX has opened countless doors for women and girls, and created important opportunities for students across the country--whether in the classroom, on the playing field, or in the boardroom. But barriers still exist, and more work remains to make sure all students have access to safe learning environments free from bias and discrimination. We need to work to make sure schools treat students equally with regard to athletic participation opportunities, athletic scholarships, and the benefits and services provided to athletic teams.

We need to work to improve gender equity in career and technical education, in higher education, and in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields while strengthening the STEM pipeline. We need to address sexual harassment and assault in our nation's schools.

We need to address discrimination based on pregnancy or parenting status by providing better accommodations and increased support for pregnant and parenting students, because currently only half of teenage mothers earn their high school diplomas before they turn 22 years old, and nearly one-in-three young mothers never get their diplomas or GEDs, which is unacceptable.

And, at a time when nearly nine-in-ten LGBTQ students reported being harassed or assaulted based on a personal characteristic, we need to address discrimination based on stereotypes of actual or perceived sex--including sexual orientation and gender identity.

GEEA provides important resources to continue this work--not only to protect the progress we have made, but also to build on that progress and create more opportunities for students.

By improving and strengthening Title IX, we uphold the great work of champions like Patsy Mink and Louise Slaughter, who fought to make sure no students are denied equal access to educational opportunities or have to worry about whether they are safe on campus. We must remain vigilant in this endeavor.

I thank my colleagues for joining me in reintroducing this important legislation as we continue our work to advance Title IX and to ensure equal access to educational opportunities for all.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for votes on June 18, 2019.

Had I been present, I would have voted no on both cloture and confirmation of the nomination of Sean Cairncross to be Chief Executive Officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

I would have also voted no on cloture on the nominations of Matthew J. Kacsmaryk to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, Allen Cothrel Winsor to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, James David Cain, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, and Greg Gerard Guidry to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Madam President, this month, many of us are celebrating Pride Month and reaffirming the rights and freedoms of the LGBTQ community. We also celebrated the fight for equal rights for women with the 100th anniversary of the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.

But instead of celebrating these rights and freedoms, here is what Senate Republicans have in store for us. This week, they will confirm a Federal judge to a lifetime appointment who has devoted his career to advocating against the rights of LGBTQ people and women under the guise of religious liberty.

Through his actions as a lawyer and private citizen, Matthew Kacsmaryk, the nominee for the Northern District of Texas, has made his hostility towards LGBTQ individuals, marriage equality, and reproductive rights clear.

As deputy general counsel for the First Liberty Institute, Kacsmaryk urged the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges to rule that there is no nationwide right to same-sex marriage. After the Supreme Court disagreed with him, Kacsmaryk wrote an article criticizing not only Obergefell, but also the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. He argued that the fight for marriage equality and reproductive rights were `` `radical' . . . demands'' of the ``Sexual Revolution.'' In his view, this Sexual Revolution ``sought public affirmation of the lie that the human person is an autonomous blob of Silly Putty unconstrained by nature or biology, and that marriage, sexuality, gender identity, and even the unborn child must yield to the erotic desires of liberated adults.''

As a lawyer, Kacsmaryk advocated for employers who objected to providing contraceptive coverage as part of the healthcare required under the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds. Outside of the courtroom, he continued his advocacy against reproductive rights. In a 2016 interview, he complained about ``imposition of a secular judgment on an essentially sacred question'' in the contraceptive mandate cases. He pointed to the First Amendment concerns of religious actors while failing to mention that the use of contraception is constitutionally protected.

Kacsmaryk also urged the Supreme Court to allow a Virginia school board to require students to use the restroom corresponding to their ``biological gender'' and a State labor and industry board in Oregon to let a bakery refuse to make same-sex wedding cakes. It is no wonder that more than 200 groups oppose his nomination, including Lambda Legal and 74 other LGBT and allied groups, the National Women's Law Center, and AFL-CIO.

Earlier this year, I entered a letter into the record from about 300 parents of transgender children who opposed Kacsmaryk's nomination ``because of his demeaning attacks on transgender children and adults.'' In their letter, these parents pointed to Mr. Kacsmaryk's efforts to ``repeatedly promote [ ] fringe, junk science about transgender people, claiming that gender identity doesn't exist and that being transgender is a `delusion.' '' They explain why his actions are so concerning and why his nomination makes them fear for their children. They wrote: ``Kacsmaryk's words are deeply offensive and harmful. . . . Our children are not a delusion, and neither is our love and support for them. We believe our children are miracles, like every child.''

Despite Kacsmaryk's offensive statements and extensive record against the LGBT community, he is being rushed to confirmation during Pride Month because Majority Leader McConnell and Donald Trump are intent on packing the courts with deeply partisan judges with extreme ideological agendas.

While our friends in the House have been busy passing bill after bill to protect women from violence, reduce senseless gun violence, and ensure that all Americans have access to affordable healthcare, Senate Republicans have ignored these bipartisan bills and maintained their single-minded focus on confirming extreme judges. That is because Senate Republicans are trying to accomplish extreme, conservative outcomes through the courts that they

been unable to achieve through legislation. As Majority Leader McConnell previously explained, legislation can be repealed, but ``[w]hat can't be undone is a lifetime appointment.''

In the past, this lifetime appointment was viewed as an important protection to ensure courts remained independent and fair minded. Now, it is being weaponized as a tool to enforce extreme, conservative policies through the confirmation of deeply partisan and ideologically driven judicial nominees.

In the past 2-and-a-half years, we have seen why it is so critical to have fair and independent courts. As Senate Republicans race to pack the courts with more and more partisan judges with extreme ideologies, the integrity and independence of the Federal judiciary is at stake.

Americans must be able to trust that courts act fairly and impartially to protect the rights of all Americans. That is why I will vote against Matthew Kacsmaryk's nomination today.

Mr. President, I rise today, during Asian Pacific American Heritage month, in remembrance of Representative Patsy Takemoto Mink. Representative Mink was elected 55 years ago to represent Hawaii's second congressional district. In 2006, I had the privilege of filling the seat that my friend, Representative Mink, honorably held for 24 years.

Patsy Mink was a trailblazer, whose career embodied a series of firsts. She was the first woman of color, and first Asian American woman elected to Congress in 1964. She became the first Asian American woman to practice law in Hawaii and the first Asian American woman elected to the Hawaii territorial legislature. No matter how many times she was excluded from traditionally male spheres, Representative Mink persevered and took risks. She overcame gender and racial discrimination and pursued a career during which she fought the injustice that she had endured. She devoted nearly 50 years of her life to be a champion for those who had no one to stand up and speak for them.

Representative Mink maintained a national focus on issues facing the Asian Pacific American community. Twenty-five years ago, she helped found the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. She also worked with members of Hawaii's congressional delegation to educate Americans about the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Representative Mink fought throughout her life for the principles of equity, fairness, and integrity. She was a leader on women's rights, social and economic justice, health care, child care,

and education. She introduced the first childcare bill in the House. Patsy's name is forever linked with the passage of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which she coauthored and fought for relentlessly. This act is now named the Patsy T. Mink and Louise M. Slaughter Gender Equity in Education Act. Title IX provides women and girls equal access to higher education and protection from sexual harassment, and prohibits gender discrimination in all educational activities, notably in athletics. Representative Mink often said, ``It is easy enough to vote right and be consistently with the majority. But it is more often more important to be ahead of the majority.'' I know our country can remain forward-thinking by ensuring that young women and minorities are given equal opportunity.

Representative Mink was one of only eleven women to serve in the House of Representatives in 1964, and she became one of the longest- serving women in Congress. She shattered the glass ceiling during a time when women were not seen as leaders, especially not in Congress. Representative Mink continues to be an inspiration to many, and her legacy lives on in schools, universities, and here, in Congress. Last year, a record number of women ran for public office and were elected. With 102 women elected to serve in the House of Representatives and 25 women in the Senate, the 116th Congress is the most diverse yet. Patsy would have been delighted.

In 2007, upon my election to the U.S. House, I was proud to cast my first vote in support of Nancy Pelosi for speaker and did so in memory of Patsy Mink. Earlier, Speaker Pelosi told me that Representative Mink was the first person to tell her that ``one day, you're going to be speaker.'' Patsy would have loved to have been there to see her words come true for her friend, Nancy.

The last time I saw Patsy was when both of us were in the Kailua 4th of July parade in 2002. She asked me to have lunch with her. I have a picture of us from that day and it is a poignant reminder of my friend Patsy and her attitude of never giving up and persevering because our work is not done. She is a continuing inspiration to me.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for votes on May 13, May 14, and May 15 so I could return to Hawaii to tend to a family matter.

On May 13, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the cloture motion, motion to invoke cloture: Michael J. Truncale to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas.

On May 14, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the nomination, Confirmation of Michael J. Truncale to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas and nay on the cloture motion, motion to invoke cloture: Kenneth Kiyul Lee to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.

On May 15, had I been present, I would have voted nay on the nomination, Confirmation of Kenneth Kiyul Lee to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, nay on the cloture motion, motion to invoke cloture: Wendy Vitter to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, nay on the cloture motion, Motion to invoke cloture: Brian J. Bulatao to be an Under Secretary of State for Management, and nay on the cloture motion (motion to invoke cloture: Jeffrey A. Rosen to be Deputy Attorney General.

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

Madam President, I thank Senator Murray for organizing all of us to come to the floor in honor of Mother's Day. I will take time to talk about the ongoing attacks on women's health in this country.

I feel a sense of urgency about the increasingly hostile, escalating, and unrelenting attacks on women's health by Donald Trump and Republicans. From continuous efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, to the taking away of title X funds, to trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act--all programs that support healthcare for millions of women in this country--I have to ask, why? What is the motivation to take away healthcare services for millions of women in this country? It is not clear why they are doing this. What is clear is the harm they are causing women.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act would mean that insurance plans would no longer be required to cover maternity care and birth control. Insurance companies would be able to discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. Astoundingly, for women, this would include pregnancy.

Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are proposing trillion- dollar cuts to Medicaid. If implemented, this could endanger tens of millions of women in this country who rely on Medicaid for coverage during pregnancies and births. Do they even care that these cuts to Medicaid are particularly cruel in the face of an infant and maternal mortality crisis in our country, particularly for Black women?

By establishing a gag rule, Donald Trump is forcing healthcare providers to choose between providing full and accurate information on all available healthcare options for women, including for abortion, and hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal title X funding. States like Hawaii are refusing to succumb to this unjustified coercion by refusing title X funds and are replacing them with hard-earned State funds so that providers in our State, for example, can give the necessary healthcare to women.

By trying to pass onerous, new abortion restrictions in States across the country, conservative forces are working hard to undermine a woman's constitutional right to have an abortion. One institution that can stand up to this assault on women's rights and women's health is our Federal judiciary. Last month, for example, a Federal judge in Washington State blocked the implementation of the Trump administration's title X gag rule. In March, a Federal judge in Kentucky prevented a new law from going into effect that would have restricted abortion after 6 weeks of pregnancy. These two recent examples demonstrate the importance of our courts in upholding the Constitution and the law and in constraining radical rightwing assaults on women's health and rights.

To counter what independent judges are doing, Donald Trump, Leader McConnell, and Senate Republicans are packing our courts with ideologically driven conservative judges who will be on their ideological page. Over the past 2\1/2\ years, they have confirmed more than 100 new Federal judges, an overwhelming majority of whom was selected by two ultraconservative organizations--the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation.

Their efforts to pack the courts continue this week in an upcoming vote on a nominee for the Second Circuit in New York, Michael Park, who fought to restrict access to reproductive healthcare for women. In one recent example, Mr. Park defended Kansas's attempt to defund Planned Parenthood by terminating its Medicaid contracts. This would have ended the vital services Planned Parenthood provides to low-income patients, services such as cancer screenings and access to contraception. Fortunately, the judges who heard that case rejected Mr. Park's arguments. Yet, now, with his confirmation to the Second Circuit all but assured, Mr. Park is set to become the judge in these types of cases. It is no wonder that both of his home State Senators oppose his nomination.

In their not being satisfied with packing our courts with judges who have ideologically rightwing agendas, Donald Trump and Republican leaders are resorting to incendiary, reprehensible, and false rhetoric to inflame their base. We have seen this most recently in the debate around the so-called Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and the vilification of women who seek abortions later in pregnancy. Infanticide is already a crime, but you would never know it if you listened to Republican politicians and their mouthpieces on FOX News and the conservative media.

In a FOX News op-ed, my colleague from Nebraska, for example, accused the Democrats of ``blurring the line between abortion and outright infanticide.'' During the debate on the bill, ultraconservative FOX News host Laura Ingraham compared Planned Parenthood--the Nation's largest maternal health provider that has saved thousands of lives--to Adolf Hitler. She said: ``Hitler, just like Planned Parenthood, practiced and defended mass extermination.''

Immediately after the Senate defeated this unnecessary bill, Donald Trump tweeted:

Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent

the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position

on abortion is now so extreme that they don't mind executing

babies AFTER birth.

The President's incendiary and completely false rhetoric on this issue has become a rallying cry at his bizarre political rallies across the country. Last

month, in Green Bay, WI, for example, he said:

The baby is born, the mother meets with the doctor, they

take care of the baby, they wrap the baby beautifully, and

then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they

will execute the baby.

This kind of rhetoric is simply outrageous. It is not harmless electioneering. It is dangerous. It is incitement. It is also provoking a dramatic uptick in threats to abortion providers and supporters of abortion rights across the country.

This sustained rightwing attack is taking a heavy emotional toll on women who seek to have abortions later in their pregnancies and the doctors who provide this essential care.

Kate Carson, a woman from Boston who sought an abortion after Laurel, her daughter, was diagnosed with catastrophic brain malformations in 2012, wrote a powerful op-ed about her painful decision.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Kate Carson's op-ed, dated February 19, 2019.

Madam President, here is some of what Kate wrote:

I help run a support group for families who have ended

pregnancy after poor prenatal or maternal diagnoses. If

you're wondering, ``Who are these women who get abortions in

the third trimester?'' We are. I am. Parents who love our

babies with our entire hearts. Desperate acts like an

abortion in the 36th week of pregnancy are brought about only

by the most desperate circumstances and are only available to

those who can come up with a lot of money quickly.

I know. I've been there.

My daughter, Laurel, was diagnosed in May 2012 with

catastrophic brain malformations . . . that were overlooked

until my 35th week of pregnancy.

I did not know much about brain disorders at that point. I

imagined developmental delay, special education classes,

financial pressure, an overhaul of expectations for Laurel's

life and my motherhood. Here were the doctors' real

expectations for Laurel: a brief life of seizures, full-body

muscle cramps, and aspirating her own bodily fluids.

It is devastating to lose a child. But, unlike most

bereaved parents, women like me will live out the rest of our

lives as scapegoats, fuel for an agenda that seeks to strip

women and families of our reproductive freedoms.

Madam President, it is outrageous and offensive that Donald Trump and his allies in Congress would seek to turn women like Kate into scapegoats for their political agendas.

I have been an advocate of abortion rights for decades, and I fear that one day soon, women in this country will wake up and realize they no longer have control over their own bodies. What could be more intrusive than the government's telling women what they can do with their own bodies?

In the face of these ongoing attacks on women's health and women's rights, we will continue to raise our voices. We will continue to fight back.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my support for the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act, which I was proud to reintroduce earlier this afternoon with Senators Smith, Gillibrand and Merkley, and Congressman Deutch--who introduced the bill in the House.

Social Security serves as a critical lifeline for millions of individuals and families in Hawaii and throughout the United States. For seniors, the program is fundamental to retirement security, and for families, it provides economic security. Countless individuals rely on Social Security as a key source of income, so we must continue fighting to protect the program and make sure beneficiaries receive the hard- earned benefits they deserve. The Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act does two things.

First, the bill restores fairness in Social Security payroll taxes by eliminating the contribution cap on taxable income--gradually, over seven years.

What does this mean? Currently, most Americans contribute 6.2 percent of their incomes toward Social Security payroll taxes. However, because of the contribution cap on taxable income, higher income earners will stop contributing to Social Security after their first $132,900 of income for 2019. This means that many working and middle class families will contribute more of their income toward Social Security, while wealthy families will contribute less.

In fact, for the highest income earners, those in the ``top 1 percent'', this week marks the point in the year when they will stop contributing to the program altogether for 2019. That does not seem fair, so our bill makes sure that everyone contributes their fair share to Social Security for the entire year, and that the wealthiest individuals and families in our country do not receive a tax break at the expense of working and middle class families.

Second, the bill provides an updated measure of inflation to reflect what seniors and other beneficiaries actually pay for things like medical care, prescription drugs, and energy costs, and increases their benefits based on this measure. The Social Security Administration has indicated that these changes, taken together, would increase Social Security benefits and extend the life of the combined Social Security trust fund by another 19 years--from 2034 to 2053.

These are modest but important steps that we can take to improve the program for current and future beneficiaries.

Locally in Hawaii, we recognize that whatever hurts the most vulnerable in our communities, hurts all of us. We each have a role to play in supporting our communities. That is why my colleagues and I have reintroduced this legislation to strengthen Social Security. We will continue fighting for working and middle class families who rely on Social Security and similar programs, and we will continue to oppose cuts to Social Security--which would be devastating for millions of Americans. We will continue fighting to make sure everyone contributes their fair share so that Social Security can deliver on its promise to the American people.

I thank my colleagues for joining me in reintroducing this important legislation as we continue our work to strengthen Social Security. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my support for the Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act, which I was proud to reintroduce earlier this afternoon with Senators Smith, Gillibrand and Merkley, and Congressman Deutch--who introduced the bill in the House.

Social Security serves as a critical lifeline for millions of individuals and families in Hawaii and throughout the United States. For seniors, the program is fundamental to retirement security, and for families, it provides economic security. Countless individuals rely on Social Security as a key source of income, so we must continue fighting to protect the program and make sure beneficiaries receive the hard- earned benefits they deserve. The Protecting and Preserving Social Security Act does two things.

First, the bill restores fairness in Social Security payroll taxes by eliminating the contribution cap on taxable income--gradually, over seven years.

What does this mean? Currently, most Americans contribute 6.2 percent of their incomes toward Social Security payroll taxes. However, because of the contribution cap on taxable income, higher income earners will stop contributing to Social Security after their first $132,900 of income for 2019. This means that many working and middle class families will contribute more of their income toward Social Security, while wealthy families will contribute less.

In fact, for the highest income earners, those in the ``top 1 percent'', this week marks the point in the year when they will stop contributing to the program altogether for 2019. That does not seem fair, so our bill makes sure that everyone contributes their fair share to Social Security for the entire year, and that the wealthiest individuals and families in our country do not receive a tax break at the expense of working and middle class families.

Second, the bill provides an updated measure of inflation to reflect what seniors and other beneficiaries actually pay for things like medical care, prescription drugs, and energy costs, and increases their benefits based on this measure. The Social Security Administration has indicated that these changes, taken together, would increase Social Security benefits and extend the life of the combined Social Security trust fund by another 19 years--from 2034 to 2053.

These are modest but important steps that we can take to improve the program for current and future beneficiaries.

Locally in Hawaii, we recognize that whatever hurts the most vulnerable in our communities, hurts all of us. We each have a role to play in supporting our communities. That is why my colleagues and I have reintroduced this legislation to strengthen Social Security. We will continue fighting for working and middle class families who rely on Social Security and similar programs, and we will continue to oppose cuts to Social Security--which would be devastating for millions of Americans. We will continue fighting to make sure everyone contributes their fair share so that Social Security can deliver on its promise to the American people.

I thank my colleagues for joining me in reintroducing this important legislation as we continue our work to strengthen Social Security. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, time and again over the past 2 years, we have seen a clear pattern in the types of people Donald Trump nominates to serve in his Cabinet.

They have extensive conflicts of interest. If confirmed, they work to advance the interest of former clients and special interests, and in doing so, they are often hostile to the very mission of the very Department they have been nominated to lead.

We have seen this time and again with the same disastrous results-- from Scott Pruitt at the Environmental Protection Agency and Ryan Zinke at the Department of Interior to Andy Puzder at the Department of Labor and Tom Price at Health and Human Services.

Today, the majority leader and Senate Republicans are forcing through the nomination of David Bernhardt to serve as Secretary of the Interior--another person who fits Trump's pattern for conflicted, unethical Cabinet nominees.

Bernhardt brings so many conflicts of interest to the job that he has to carry a list around in his pocket to remind himself of what they are. I am putting up this graphic poster that shows a card he carries around in his pocket to remind himself of the people he is not supposed to be interacting with or helping.

In normal times, a President would not nominate someone with David Bernhardt's background as a superlobbyist who represented interests before the Department he was nominated to lead. In normal times, the majority party would push back against a nominee who brings so many obvious conflicts of interest to the job. But these are not normal times, and the Senate is moving in an all-fired rush to confirm someone who shouldn't have been nominated in the first place.

During his tenure as Deputy Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Bernhardt was well-placed to deliver results for the special interests who paid his firm millions of dollars to lobby on their behalf over the past decade.

Mr. Bernhardt, for example, spent years lobbying on behalf of an organization with a misleading name--the Center for Environmental Science, Accuracy & Reliability, or CESAR. Far from being a nonpartisan group, CESAR is an industry front group dedicated to, among other things, attacking and weakening the Endangered Species Act, the ESA.

As a lobbyist at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Bernhardt spearheaded CESAR's efforts to gut the ESA through a disingenuous shell campaign to list the American eel as a threatened or endangered species.

Here is what they did. First, CESAR petitioned the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to designate the American eel--a species whose habitat spans the entire east coast of the United States--as a threatened or endangered species. These Agencies are required to complete their review of such a position within 90 days. Both Agencies were unable to complete their review on such a short timeline, and CESAR filed a lawsuit in DC District Court.

CESAR did not undertake this campaign with the objective of protecting a threatened or endangered species. Instead, as an E&E News report made clear, CESAR tried to undermine the law by making it nearly impossible to enforce.

Why was this the case? Because the American eel has habitat all along the eastern seaboard and to make a listing and to conduct critical habitat designations would be a paralyzing undertaking that might force Congress to undergo a rewrite of the ESA.

Mr. Bernhardt did not just represent CESAR, but he has also served on their board for many years. It was reasonable to conclude, therefore, that his sustained personal advocacy on behalf of his client to undermine the ESA would carry over to his work at the Department of the Interior, and, indeed, it has.

Last summer, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and

Wildlife Service proposed some of the most drastic changes to the ESA in 30 years. These changes include allowing economic estimates during the listing process, changing the definition of ``foreseeable future'' to not allow for the consideration of climate change when determining whether to list a species and removing a blanket rule that protects threatened species.

It certainly doesn't seem like a coincidence that the Department is considering such radical changes to the ESA under the leadership of Mr. Bernhardt--someone who was paid by his clients to challenge it.

Over the past few weeks, we have also learned from reporting in the New York Times about Mr. Bernhardt's efforts to suppress a Fish and Wildlife Service report on the impacts of certain pesticides on endangered species. This report was due to be released more than 1\1/2\ years ago, and despite documents indicating that the Department had completed the report on time, it has yet to be released.

Last week, I, along with several of my colleagues, sent a letter to the Department's deputy inspector general, requesting that she open an investigation into these allegations. Based on Mr. Bernhardt's industry priorities and past attempts to weaken the ESA, I think it is prudent that we get to the bottom of what is going on at the Department before confirming him.

If the Department of the Interior's mission is to ``provide scientific and other information about natural resources,'' then isn't it Mr. Bernhardt's job to ensure that scientific reports on the impacts of chemicals on endangered species are released in a timely manner, especially knowing that these species are threatened or endangered? Yet this report has been kept back for over 1 year.

Unfortunately, I don't think he considers that a priority of his job. Instead, he seems to prioritize moving the levers within the Department that he was unsuccessful in moving while representing his clients as a lobbyist.

This pattern of activity also extends to his former clients in the oil and gas industry. During the government shutdown, for example, Mr. Bernhardt recalled furloughed DOI employees in order to have them process and approve 267 offshore oil drilling permits and 16 leases for drilling on public land. His decisive action on behalf of oil and gas interests came as thousands of employees went without pay and critical Federal services were shuttered for over 1 month.

Is it really any wonder that executives from the Independent Petroleum Association of America were caught on tape bragging about the unprecedented access they have to Mr. Bernhardt at the Department?

The American people deserve an Interior Secretary devoted to the mission of the Department, not the narrow special interests of his former lobbyist clients.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination and await the IG report before voting on this nomination.

One would hope that with all of these conflicts he has to carry around in his pocket, surely we can come up with someone to lead this Department who actually has the mission of the Department as his calling. That is not the case with Mr. Bernhardt.

I yield the floor.