Floor Statements

Madam President, this package contains two bills with broad, bipartisan support. One of those bills, H.R. 6062, is sponsored by Delegate Amata Radewagen of American Samoa. This bill will repeal a requirement that the Constitution of American Samoa can only be amended by an Act of Congress.

Repealing this provision will allow the people of American Samoa to amend their Territorial constitution without further congressional action, a right that they had before 1983.

In 2022, American Samoa held a constitutional convention and approved 5 of 11 proposed constitutional amendments. This marked the first time voters had approved amendments since the 1983 change requiring congressional approval. These amendments have been pending congressional action since December 2022. There is no need for further delay. We restore American Samoa's self-determination in their constitutional matters by passing H.R. 6062.

In addition to this important bill affecting American Samoa, this package includes a bill, S. 2615, sponsored by Representative Mary Peltola and

Senator Murkowski, to sunset an outdated requirement in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act for village corporations to reconvey lands for municipal uses. This will free up lands for needs such as housing and help Alaska Natives realize the full intended benefit of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

On behalf of Delegate Radewagen, Representative Peltola, and Senator Murkowski, I thank my colleagues for joining me in passing these bills en bloc.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I rise to honor the late Mitsuye Endo Tsutsumi on the 80th anniversary of the historic Supreme Court decision in her case Ex parte Endo for her courageous contributions to civil rights.

Mitsuye Endo was born on May 10, 1920, in Sacramento, CA. After graduating from Sacramento Senior High School, she attended secretarial school and began a clerical job with the California Department of Employment. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Ms. Endo was fired from her State civil service job due to her race. She joined a lawsuit challenging California's wrongful termination of civil servants with Japanese ancestry, beginning her fight against the unjust treatment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

After Executive Order 9066 was signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Mitsuye Endo and over 120,000 other Japanese Americans were forcibly removed and incarcerated in desolate camps in the interior of the country. They were incarcerated behind barbed wire and armed guards under the pretense that they posed a threat to national security on the basis of their race. Ms. Endo and her family were incarcerated for 3 years, first at Tule Lake, CA, and later at Topaz, UT, both euphemistically referred to as ``Relocation Centers.''

Mitsuye Endo stood up for what she knew was right and filed a lawsuit challenging her incarceration in July 1942. While her case was pending in the Supreme Court, the government offered her an immediate leave permit, which would have resulted in the dismissal of her lawsuit. She refused to accept the permit, even though it meant she had to remain incarcerated for over 1 more year. She stated, ``The fact that I wanted to prove that we of Japanese ancestry were not guilty of any crime, that we were loyal American citizens, kept me from abandoning the suit.''

On December 18, 1944--80 years ago, today--the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Mitsuye Endo's favor, holding that ``concededly loyal'' Japanese Americans could not be imprisoned without cause. Ms. Endo's case played a crucial role in ending incarceration; news of the Court's pending decision prompted President Roosevelt to announce the closure of the camps just 1 day before the Court's decision.

Even after her passing in 2006, Mitsuye Endo Tsutsumi's legacy of courage and integrity lives on in the thriving Japanese American communities across the country.

Thank you, Mitsuye Endo Tsutsumi, for your contributions to this Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the work we have done on a bipartisan basis to draft this year's National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA. At more than 1,800 pages, this bill contains wins for our country, our military, and our servicemembers. It provides a raise to all servicemembers, with an even bigger raise for junior enlisted troops. It invests billions in needed military infrastructure in Hawaii and throughout the Indo-Pacific region--investments that are critical as we work to counter China's influence and support our allies and partners in the region.

I am proud that it contains a provision I fought for to create a new ``major mishaps'' classification to ensure better oversight and accountability of major incidents like the 2021 fuel spills at the Red Hill fuel storage facility on Oahu, which impacted over 93,000 people.

All of these provisions and many more will support our military, our servicemembers, and their families. In fact, our priority should be supporting the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families, and that includes making sure they have access to quality healthcare.

But instead of focusing on the things that matter, such as healthcare, Republicans demanded the inclusion of a provision prohibiting TRICARE from covering gender-affirming care for minors. Despite efforts to stop this provision, to strip this provision from this bill during conference, it is in there.

By many estimates, there are thousands of transgender children of servicemembers who are currently receiving gender-affirming care from TRICARE. Under this bill, those children would not be able to access the healthcare they need despite their parents approving the care. We know what happens when transgender and nonbinary children are refused gender-affirming care. According to the Journal of Adolescent Health, rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide all increase.

There is no question that this provision will cause concern for servicemembers worrying about their children not getting the healthcare they need, and of course this will cause trauma to servicemembers, their children, and the entire family.

We didn't have to do this, Mr. President. We didn't have to impose this cruelty on our servicemembers and their families. I thank Senator Baldwin for introducing an amendment to stop this unnecessary, cruel provision, to strip this provision from this bill--an amendment I and others are proud to cosponsor. We know this fight is not over.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in support of H.R. 8219, the Lahaina National Heritage Study Act. This bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to study the potential for Lahaina to be designated as a national heritage area.

The August 2023 wildfires brought to the forefront how special Lahaina is to Maui, to Hawaii, to our country, and, indeed, the world. So many people responded with their support of the recovery of the people who were impacted by this horrific wildfire.

A national heritage area designation could bring important Federal resources to help to promote and manage the historic, national, and cultural resources that are unique to Lahaina.

And I want to thank Senator Fischer for her partnership, and I thank my colleagues for joining me in passing this bill, along with her bill today, so that the President can sign them into law and the National Park Service can begin working with the partners--all of our partners-- in this effort.

And just to listen to my colleague from Nebraska talk about all of the people that she worked with to get her bill onto this agenda tonight really shows the importance of this bill to her constituents.

And, of course, to the people of Lahaina, to provide this designation is a start in reinforcing how important Lahaina is historically. It was the capital of the Kingdom of Hawaii in the past.

So I recognize that a number of my colleagues also have public lands bills that they hoped would be included in an ``end of the year'' package. It now appears that such a package is not going to happen. And while that is unfortunate, we should not let that doom these two bills, both of which passed the House with broad bipartisan support and have no substantive opposition in the Senate.

Rather than seeing all similarly situated bills fail, we have passed these two bills tonight.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today, I rise in support of H.R. 8219, the Lahaina National Heritage Study Act. I also want to lend my support to the bill that is proposed by my esteemed colleague from Nebraska.

H.R. 8219 requires the Secretary of the Interior to study the potential of Lahaina to be designated as a National Heritage Area. The August 2023 wildfires brought to the forefront how special Lahaina is to Maui, to Hawaii, to our country, and, indeed, the world. The National Heritage Area designation could bring important Federal resources to help protect and manage the historic natural and cultural resources that are unique to Lahaina.

I thank Senator Fischer for her partnership in supporting this measure, and I ask my colleagues to join me in passing this bill today so that the President can sign it into law, and the National Park Service can begin working with local partners on this effort.

I just want to mention that it is very clear that both Senator Fischer and I have worked very closely with our communities in garnering support for these two bills, and no one is raising any substantive objections to these measures. So as we rush to finish the work of the Senate, I think it would be a very positive decision on our part to support these bills that nobody substantively objects to. So I hope that we can UC these bills.

I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.

Madam President, I would just like to note that I certainly recognize that the esteemed chair of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is working very hard to put together a bill that contains dozens of these kinds of bills that have been worked through the committee as well as by the proponents. However, the reality of time is that there are serious concerns as to whether or not we are going to be able to get the kind of agreement that the chairman seeks.

Therefore, here we are with the actual two bills. And, believe me, if all of the other people who have similar kinds of legislation come to this floor and ask for unanimous consent, I will be happy to give it. That is all we are asking at this point--that these two bills are ripe today. Whether or not the chair is able to succeed in putting together this massive legislation that he referred to, I think, is very problematic, and I think we should, at least, take positive action on the bills that the Senator from Nebraska and I have worked very hard on.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was absent for one rollcall vote on November 19, 2024. On November 19, had I been present, I would have voted yea on the Motion to Instruct the Sergeant at Arms to Request the Presence of Absentee Senators (rollcall vote No. 283).

Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Murray for her leadership on reproductive freedom issues and my colleagues talking today about the IVF bill we just voted on.

Once again, today, our Republican colleagues have shown us where their priorities truly lie. Despite insisting time and again how much they support the right to in vitro fertilization, or IVF, they just voted again, nearly unanimously, to block a bill providing that very right.

For decades, IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies, or ART, have helped people who otherwise couldn't start families of their own. While some on the right like to depict IVF as some sort of new or untested technology, that is not so. The first baby delivered via IVF was more than 45 years ago. And since then, IVF have helped bring more than 10 million babies into this world.

In fact, as a State representative in Hawaii in the eighties, I led the passage of a bill making Hawaii one of the first States in the Nation to require health insurers to cover IVF treatment.

Earlier this year, I met Dr. Lori Kamemoto, an OB-GYN in Hawaii who, decades ago, helped deliver the first baby born in Hawaii via IVF.

But now, thanks to the chaos created by Dobbs, a whole range of reproductive rights, including the right to IVF, are on the chopping block. Look at Alabama where the State Supreme Court invoked a ``fetal personhood'' law to call into question the legality of IVF, effectively halting IVF treatment in that State.

Despite the fact that more than 85 percent of Americans support IVF, Republicans here in the Senate have now, on several occasions, blocked our attempts to pass a bill to protect IVF treatments. Apparently, Republicans' obsessions with power and control over women's bodies and our lives knows no bounds.

Republicans insist that they support IVF but refuse to protect access to IVF. They insist access to contraception is safe and they support it, but when given the chance, refuse to codify that support into law.

Frankly, can anyone take Republicans at their word when they say they won't enact a nationwide abortion ban if given the opportunity? We can't. They have shown us who they are and just how wildly out of step they are with the American people.

As Republicans continue on their anti-freedom, anti-women crusade, Democrats will continue fighting to protect the right to IVF as we work to ensure people can make decisions about their bodies, their lives, and their futures free from government intrusion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin, for pointing out the need for mental

health services in our country and the disparities that exist in our country in providing such services. I thank Senator Cardin.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be recognized to speak prior to the scheduled rollcall vote: Hirono for up to 10 minutes, Stabenow for up to 5 minutes, Klobuchar for up to 10 minutes, Murray for up to 5 minutes, and Schumer for up to 5 minutes.

Further, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 420, S. 4554, be waived; finally, that the cloture motion with respect to the Kiko nomination be withdrawn and, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate vote on confirmation of the Kiko nomination.

Madam President, after Dobbs came down, we worried about what a post-Dobbs America would look like. Would other reproductive freedoms be attacked and stripped away, piece by piece, across the country? Now, 2 years later, we know the answer is yes.

In Dobbs, the Supreme Court ``return[ed] the issue of abortion'' to the States and eliminated a constitutional right women in our country had relied on for nearly 50 years.

We often refer to the States as laboratories of democracy. Sadly, these laboratories are now experimenting on women with dystopian results. This hellish experimentation has resulted in devastating consequences for women and families across the country who are now subject to State-imposed abortion bans.

As a result of over 20 States enacting abortion bans--some without exception for rape or incest--women all over our country are being forced to travel far distances for abortion care or, worse, to continue pregnancies regardless of the risks. Their stories are horrifying-- stories like that of Kate Cox, a mother of two in Texas whose pregnancy was threatening her life and her ability to have more children in the future.

Despite her deteriorating physical condition, Texas officials ruled that she wasn't sick enough to get an abortion, forcing her to travel out of State to receive the lifesaving care she needed.

While Kate has the ability to travel, so many other women in her condition do not and are forced to suffer the unimaginable consequences of Republican's obsession with power and control.

What is more, healthcare workers in States with abortion bans are living under a constant threat of criminal prosecution. When patients in States with abortion bans present with signs of a miscarriage, doctors are unable to provide emergency treatment--going against their legal and professional duty of care and years of expert training. As a result, many of these providers are fleeing their practices, contributing to reproductive healthcare deserts all across the country.

The cruelty of Dobbs has also resulted in an increase in infant mortality in States with abortion bans, as women are forced to carry fetuses with fatal birth defects to term.

Let's be clear. Abortion bans aren't about protecting anyone. They are about the right's obsession with power and control, plain and simple.

But while Republicans continue their march toward a nationwide abortion ban, they refuse to be honest with the American people. Time after time, Republicans have come to this floor insisting that they support women's health, only to turn around and vote against bill after bill that would do just that. Despite their rhetoric, they voted en masse against the right to contraception, the right to IVF, and have consistently blocked any effort in this Chamber to protect women's fundamental rights. But still my Republican colleagues insist they stand with women.

Today, they have the opportunity to put their money where their mouths are. The Reproductive Freedom for Women Act is straightforward. It simply expresses support for protecting access to reproductive health care. The bill is one-page long and does not codify Roe or enact any policy changes.

This should be a no-brainer for anyone who actually supports women and our right to control our own bodies. But if past is prologue, it is safe to say Republicans will vote against this bill today, only to insist tomorrow that they are the party of freedom. Give me a break.

Democrats, meanwhile, are determined to restore, protect, and strengthen reproductive rights, and we will not stop fighting until we succeed in this. That is why today I am proud to stand with my fellow Democrats in voting for the Reproductive Freedom for Women Act to support reproductive rights and health care for all.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today deeply concerned that the far-right majority on the Supreme Court is preparing to sow further chaos in our country.

Any day now, the Court is expected to rule on two cases pertaining to the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year-old doctrine with roots that go back to our country's founding that is critical to a functioning Federal Government.

The Chevron doctrine is pretty simple. It recognizes that Congress delegates authority to technical experts at Federal Agencies so that those Agencies can effectively and efficiently implement Federal laws in their areas of expertise in line with congressional intent. As a result, for nearly four decades, courts generally have deferred to reasonable interpretations by administrative Agencies where the law is unclear or ambiguous.

In fact, before 1984, lower court judges were criticized for overriding agency experts and imposing their own policy views. That is why the Court handed down the Chevron decision in the first place.

The Chevron doctrine was originally favored by conservative judges, including the conservative majority on the Supreme Court during the Reagan administration who viewed it as a check against judicial activism.

In recent years, however, many on the right have turned against the Chevron doctrine, viewing it as an impediment to their efforts to consolidate power and enable far-right judges to legislate from the bench.

Now the same far-right ideologues who fought to end Roe are all in for ending Chevron as well. Justice Gorsuch, one of the most outspoken critics of Chevron, has gone so far as to call for the Court to give the doctrine ``a tombstone no one can miss.'' The so-called Alliance Defending Freedom--the same group leading the charge to eliminate access to mifepristone, as approved by the FDA--has called for the Chevron doctrine to go, asserting without evidence that it allows Agency experts to ``impos[e] personal political agendas that Congress has not authorized.''

To be clear, this case is not about the so-called major question doctrine but about the sorts of day-to-day decisions that Federal Agency experts make when implementing law. Overturning Chevron would undermine these sorts of everyday decisions and, in doing so, jeopardize the regulatory system on which much of our country and our economy rests. It would empower the hundreds of individual Federal judges to overrule carefully considered rulemaking decisions by Agency experts, turning a consistent regulatory framework into a chaotic mess of conflicting opinions.

At its core, this case is about who should be making policy decisions on issues that affect our lives--subject matter experts or Federal judges. Who gets to determine the safety of the air we breathe-- environmental scientists at the EPA or Federal judges? Who decides whether or not a new drug is actually effective--doctors at the FDA or Federal judges? Who determines whether nursing homes are meeting safety standards--eldercare experts at HHS or Federal judges? With no disrespect to our Federal judges, they lack the expertise to make these kinds of decisions.

While Congress enacts legislation at a high level, it recognizes that the institutional capacity and expertise to implement legislation exists within executive Agencies. That is why our Federal Agencies exist--to implement informed, evidence-based regulations that provide a level of regulatory certainty and stability.

Eliminating Chevron now, after more than four decades, would sow chaos and confusion on Agency actions moving forward as well as the nearly 18,000 Federal cases that have been decided based on the Chevron doctrine. Even if the Court stops short of fully eliminating Chevron, significantly narrowing it will have much the same effect.

Overturning Chevron is yet one more component of the far-right's broader agenda to capture the courts, advance their conservative ideological agenda, and hollow out our regulatory system.

The Court will hand down a decision in this highly important case in a matter of days, and we will see whether this case becomes yet another cautionary tale for a Court that has been busy overturning decades of precedent, sowing chaos left, right, and center.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, as we approach the 2-year anniversary of the disastrous Dobbs decision, I am struck by the chaos it has sown across our country.

Last week, on this floor, I was joined by a number of my Democratic colleagues in speaking out against the Republicans' attacks on contraception. Despite the relentless attacks from my colleagues across the aisle that they actually support the right to contraception, when it came down to it, nearly every single Republican voted against a bill protecting the right to contraception.

Today, I rise in defense of another tool that has helped millions of people across our country start or grow their families. This tool is called in vitro fertilization. For decades, IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies--or ART--have helped people who otherwise couldn't start families of their own.

While some on the right like to paint IVF as some sort of new or untested technology, that is not so. The first baby delivered via IVF was more than 45 years ago, and since then, IVF has helped bring more than 10 million babies--10 million babies--into this world. In fact, as a State representative in the Hawaii Legislature in the 1980s, I led the passage of a bill making Hawaii one of the first States in the Nation to require health insurers to cover IVF treatment. That was in 1987, years before the iPhone, before email, before some of my colleagues in Congress were even born. And earlier this year, I met Dr. Lori Kamemoto, an OBGYN who helped deliver the first baby born in Hawaii via IVF.

And yet, thanks to the chaos created by Dobbs, a whole range of reproductive rights are on the chopping block. Look at Alabama, where the State supreme court invoked a fetal personhood law to call into question the legality of IVF, effectively halting IVF treatments in the State. In this Chamber, earlier this year, Republicans blocked our attempts in passing a bill protecting IVF.

The impacts of these concerted attacks are being felt far beyond the red States. In Hawaii, a doctor who practices in the OB-GYN field on Oahu reported that he ``[O]bserved an increasing level of anxiety among both [his] fertility patients and staff.'' So Hawaii being one of the first States to protect IVF and promote IVF, this doctor is saying that even his patients are seeing the impact of all of these attacks on our reproductive rights.

IVF is a complicated process as it is, even under the best of circumstances. The last thing people trying to conceive need to worry about is being criminalized by some of the States I mentioned-- Alabama--because of the whims of far-right jurists and politicians.

That is why this bill is so important. It would establish a nationwide right for patients to access IVF and other ART services and a right for doctors to provide IVF treatment. And, crucially, it would require and expand health insurance coverage of IVF because we know access without affordability is not true access. But my Republican colleagues appear blinded by their obsession with power and control over women's bodies that they are unable to support even this commonsense bill--again, indicating how out of touch Republicans are about the needs of particularly women in our country. It is disappointing, but not surprising. They continue to show us just how out of step they are with the American people.

So today, the Democrats will vote to protect the right to IVF as we continue working to ensure people can make decisions about their bodies, their lives, and their futures--free from government interference.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today in proud support of the Right to Contraception Act, straightforward legislation that would protect individuals' right to access contraception and providers' right to provide it.

Our bill wouldn't force anyone to take or provide contraception if they don't want to, but it would help ensure that those who do can without the government getting in their way.

As Republicans continue their assault on our fundamental reproductive rights, this bill is critical to safeguard the right of all Americans to access contraception.

I look forward to saying more about this important legislation later on, but first I am glad to be joined by many of my Democratic colleagues who will come to the floor to speak on this bill. They know how vital it is that we protect the right to contraception, starting with my colleague from Massachusetts, my partner on this bill, Senator Markey.

Madam President, I want to thank all my colleagues who came to the floor of the Senate yesterday and today with the fierce urgency of now to urge passage of the Right to Contraception Act.

This month marks almost 2 years since the Supreme Court's disastrous Dobbs decision, resulting in women in half the country having fewer rights than women in the other half of the country. What kind of a country is that?

I thought this was a country founded on equal protection and equal rights--not according to this Supreme Court.

Dobbs wreaked chaos in its own right, overturning Roe v. Wade and eliminating a constitutional right that I had for almost 50 years. But it also foretold more chaos to come. In his concurrence in the Dobbs case, Justice Thomas specifically called for ``reconsidering'' Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 case protecting the right to contraception. When a Supreme Court Justice says he wants to ``reconsider'' a case, that is a signal that he wants to overturn it. It is bad enough that they overturned Roe v. Wade's 50 years of a constitutional protection. Now they want to overturn Griswold. That is a 59-year precedent protecting our right to contraception.

We have what I have described as an out-of-control Supreme Court majority that has no problem overturning decades here, there, and just about everywhere based on their ideological agenda.

Justice Alito, meanwhile, respects his wife's right to make her own decisions, but he has no problem telling millions of women--the rest of us--what to do with our bodies. I mean, just think about it. Do you see the irony of it? Do you see the hypocrisy of it?

And just this year, both of those Justices--I am talking about Justices

Alito and Thomas--suggested that the Comstock Act, a Civil War-era law--Civil War, I mean how far back are they going to go--could be used to restrict access to reproductive care nationwide. This crusade against reproductive rights by these Justices and the rest of their cohorts, I have to say, really comports with the Republicans' obsession with power and control over women's bodies.

As they work toward a national abortion ban, Republicans and their allies on the Supreme Court have given us every reason to believe contraception is also on their hit list. Republican States across the country have already blocked or rolled back access to contraception.

You have heard from my colleagues. Virginia's Governor vetoed a right-to-contraception bill just last month. Earlier this year, Arizona Republicans blocked a similar bill in their State. Oklahoma's Legislature advanced a bill that could ban access to IUDs and emergency contraception.

The list goes on. They are very specific about the kinds of contraceptives that we should have access to.

So this whole desire that I really can't figure out on the part of the MAGA Republicans and their supporters on the Supreme Court really comes down to power and control over women's bodies. That is what it is.

Madam President, contraception is healthcare--essential healthcare-- that millions of people across the country rely on, not only to decide if and when to become pregnant but also to treat medical conditions, regulate hormone levels, and more. And that is why the vast majority of Americans support the right to contraception.

The current assault on women's rights is horrifying, but it is not new. Our country has a long and dark history of exerting control over women. For much of our country's history, women were denied a fundamental right to vote. They didn't have a right to own property. They couldn't open bank accounts. The list goes on. Some women of color faced forced sterilization and coercive contraception testing. That is the dark history in our country of controlling women and our bodies.

These attacks on women and our freedoms were wrong then, and you would think, by now, we would have learned a thing or two to protect all of our rights--but not this MAGA-majority Supreme Court. The attacks we are facing today are a reality.

The right to control one's own body, free from government interference, is as fundamental as it gets. That is why it is critical that the Senate pass the Right to Contraception Act.

Our bill is simple. It would protect an individual's right to access contraception and a provider's right to provide it. It wouldn't force anyone to take or provide contraception if they don't want to, but it would ensure that those who do can, without the government getting in their way. It would ensure people can access the healthcare they need, from IUDs and birth control pills to emergency contraception, like Plan B, and more, especially for women of color, women with disabilities, LGBTQ people, and those from rural communities who have difficulty accessing this kind of care. They already face increased barriers to accessing contraception.

This bill shouldn't be controversial, but Republicans have become so obsessed with controlling women's bodies that they refuse to protect even the most basic freedoms.

To my Republican colleagues, I ask: What is with this obsession with power and control over women's bodies?

Democrats know that women, not politicians, should be the ones making decisions about our bodies and our healthcare, and we are doing everything we can to protect and strengthen the reproductive rights of all Americans, including the right to contraception.

We are going to vote on this bill today, and I urge all of my colleagues, with the fierce urgency of now, to stop taking away ever more rights of women in this country--women and others in this country--and vote for this bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I was absent for one rollcall vote April 11, 2024. On April 11, had I been present, I would have voted yea on the motion to proceed to Executive Session for the consideration of Executive Calendar No. 478 Ramona Villagomez Manglona, of the Northern Mariana Islands to be Judge for the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands for a term of ten years, rollcalll vote No. 123.

Madam President, next month, the U.S. Mint will launch a quarter featuring the late-Congresswoman Patsy Takemoto Mink as part of its American Women Quarters Program, which celebrates women who have made significant contributions to our country.

Congresswoman Mink, who represented Hawaii from 1965 to 1977 and 1990 to 2002, was a tireless advocate for gender and racial equality, and I am proud to have sent the letter recommending her inclusion in this program. Mrs. Mink's quarter will soon be in circulation alongside Edith Kanakaole's, another noteworthy woman from Hawaii who was honored by the American Women Quarters Program last year.

Mrs. Mink can be defined by her incredible resiliency and drive in the face of injustice. Born on December 6, 1927, in Paia, Maui, she attended Maui High School and received a bachelor's degree from the University of Hawaii at Manoa. After being denied admission to medical school because of her gender, Mrs. Mink chose to pursue a law degree and devoted her life to fighting for civil rights.

Over the following decades, her life was marked by an impressive series of firsts: She was the first Japanese American woman to practice law in Hawaii; the first woman elected to Hawaii's territorial legislature; and the first woman of color and first Asian American woman to serve in Congress.

At each stage in her career, Mrs. Mink fought against prejudice and advocated for greater opportunities for women. While in Congress, she coauthored the Title IX amendment of the Higher Education Act of 1972 (Title IX). This landmark law, comprised of only 37 words, ensured that no person would be denied access to any federally funded education program on the basis of sex. Title IX, coupled with Mrs. Mink's Women's Educational Equity Act of 1974, gave women and girls unprecedented access to educational and athletic opportunities.

Mr. President, today marks 6 months since fire tore through Lahaina and Upcountry Maui. We continue to see the heart and resilience of our communities as we recover and remember the lives lost.

As recovery efforts continue, I am grateful to the thousands of people who have come together from literally all over the world to support our neighbors on Maui. Maui's recovery will take time, resources, and continuity of effort. I will keep working with my partners to ensure Maui has the resources it needs to recover and rebuild.

Supplemental Funding

Mr. President, the national security supplemental package we are debating demonstrates our strong support for our allies at a time of rising global instability, recognizing that an investment in our partners is also an investment in our own national security.

While the funding for Ukraine, Israel, and the Indo-Pacific currently included in this bill is critical, missing from this bill is the text of the recently renegotiated Compacts of Free Association, agreements with the Pacific Island nations, Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands. In exchange for economic assistance, the Compacts of Free Association provide our country with exclusive military access to these countries and their territorial waters.

With their strategic location in the South Pacific, these countries provide a strategic buffer between the United States and China. At a time of rising tensions in the Pacific, these compacts are a critical component of our ability to operate in the Pacific, especially as we work to counter China's growing influence in this region.

Our military leaders have unanimously pointed out the importance of these compacts. Most recently, Admiral Paparo, nominated to lead U.S. military operations in the Indo-Pacific, reiterated the importance of the compacts in his confirmation hearing recently. These compacts date back more than 40 years, but our relationship with these island nations dates back to World War II.

First agreed to in the early 1980s, the compacts have to be renegotiated and approved by Congress every 20 years.

Over the past 4 years, U.S. negotiators have worked with their counterparts in the COFA nations to agree to new compacts that will govern our relationship with these countries for the next 20 years.

Imagine, if we get this done with this bill, we will have accomplished what we need to do in our relationship in support for our compact nation allies for the next 20 years.

These compacts have broad bipartisan support, including from both the chairs and ranking members of the Foreign Relations, Armed Services, and Energy and Natural Resources Committees. These are the committees of jurisdiction over these compacts.

They understand how critical these agreements are to our posture and readiness in the Pacific. And the harmful message--frankly, the harmful message it would send if we do not get these compacts agreed to.

Believe me, China is watching to see what we do in our support for our island friends. And, in fact, just this week, the Presidents of all three compact nations, Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands sent a letter to Congress in which they wrote:

Although we understand the delay in the legislation's

approval, it has generated uncertainty among our peoples. As

much they identify with and appreciate the United States . .

. this has resulted in undesirable opportunities for economic

exploitation by competitive political actors active in the

[region].

Of course, they are talking about China. As I mentioned, China is watching and would love nothing more than for the United States to fail to pass these compacts.

Failure for the United States would present China with a golden opportunity to bring the COFA nations close to their sphere of influence, significantly undermining our credibility and ability to operate in this region.

Beyond the serious national security implications of the compacts, nearly 100,000 citizens of the COFA nations live, work, and pay taxes in our country. Moreover, COFA citizens enlist in our military at higher rates than U.S. citizens.

With this bill, we stand with our allies, yes, but the compact nations are our allies in the Pacific. We are not just talking about our allies in Europe. These compact nations are our allies in the Pacific just as important, just as important to our national security.

We are introducing an amendment with strong bipartisan support to add to this bill the text of the compacts. And I thank Senator Risch, the lead sponsor of this amendment, for his leadership and partnership in this effort.

As we work to support our allies around the globe, I urge my colleagues to stand with our COFA partners and support our amendment.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.