Floor Statements

Madam President, when the extreme far-right Supreme Court overturned Roe, my Republican colleagues lauded this horrendous decision, claiming that a woman's right to an abortion should be left to the States. But now they are admitting what we knew all along: that this was never about States' rights. This has always been about Republicans using their power to control women and our bodily autonomy.

Despite the fact that the vast majority of the American public supports reproductive freedom and despite the fact that voters across the country are overwhelmingly voting to protect this freedom, Republicans are pandering--I think that is a really good word, apt word--pandering--to the extreme MAGA base and have now introduced a nationwide ban on abortion after 15 weeks.

Why 15 weeks, you ask? Because that is what the senior Senator from South Carolina who introduced this legislation said he would ``feel comfortable at.'' So we now have a Republican Senator attempting to restrict the bodily autonomy of women across the country because that is what he feels comfortable at. It is not enough that the overturning of Roe has created fear and confusion all across the country. We now have the introduction of a nationwide abortion ban further adding to the chaos.

This is not some sort of hypothetical debate or ``hysteria,'' as some of my Republican colleagues have claimed. If Republicans take control of the Senate, we now know what they will do. They will work to pass a national abortion ban, which would mean even in my home State of Hawaii, which was the first State in the country to decriminalize abortion even before the Roe decision--we did this in Hawaii in 1970. And for voters in States who are pushing back against their radical legislators and exercising their right to bring the issue of abortion to the ballot, including States like Kansas and Michigan, this bill would overrule their efforts.

But, of course, to add to their utter hypocrisy, if States like Texas or Mississippi want to be even more restrictive, even more harmful to women than a 15-week ban, that would be A-OK, according to the Senator from South Carolina and his extreme bill.

Allowing Republicans to regain control of Congress would be catastrophic not only for women, but for our entire country because when we women can't control what we do with our bodies, of course this impacts our families, our communities, our economy.

So this November, people are going to have a choice: Do you want to let extreme MAGA Republicans tell you what you can and can't do with your own body, or do you want to hold these politicians accountable for pushing their far-right extreme agenda and perpetuating the chaos, confusion, and fear of women, families, communities, and our healthcare professionals? Let's not forget all the doctors who are out there wondering how they can provide the kind of care that they are trained to do right now, how they can do that in the face of this kind of ban in so many States across the country, not to mention a nationwide abortion ban. The chaos and confusion being experienced all across the country following the Dobbs' decision has only multiplied by this nationwide abortion ban bill.

Talk about government overreach. I hear my colleagues talking about how it should be States' rights or government should not be telling us what to do. The word ``hypocrites'' doesn't even go far enough to call them out on what they are doing. This is an outright attack on women in this country. That is how I see it. That is how more and more women and those who support our right to make decisions about our own bodies, that is how we see it. And why? Because that is what is happening. This is literally a call to arms in our country.

I yield the floor.

I rise today in support of Dr. Gita Rao Gupta's nomination to serve as Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues, and I am glad to be here with my friend from New Hampshire to argue for her confirmation.

As head of the State Department's Office of Global Women's Issues, the Ambassador at Large leads our diplomatic efforts to promote the rights and empowerment of women and girls around the world. Who can argue with that kind of a mission?

From supporting women's economic participation to combating domestic and gender-based violence, this work is critically important, and Dr. Gupta is well-suited to take on this important task. Dr. Gupta has spent her life working to empower women across the globe. She has led several nonprofit organizations focused on advancing gender equity and has served as cochair of the World Bank's Gender-Based Violence Task Force.

But for months now, Republicans have blocked consideration of her nomination. Why? Not because she is unqualified. Dr. Gupta's record is impeccable, and her qualifications are clear. No, Republicans are blocking her nomination simply because she supports the fundamental right of all women to make decisions about their bodies and their futures, including the decision to get an abortion.

Apparently, it is no longer enough for my Republican colleagues to push their extreme anti-abortion agenda. Now that they have overturned Roe v. Wade, they are opposing anyone who expresses support for abortion access even if it is their personal view and not one they are going to be pushing forward in the position that we are being asked to confirm them for.

Last year, the Republicans did the same thing to President Biden's nominee to be Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration, SBA, opposing his nomination because of their opposition to SBA's totally lawful PPP loans to Planned Parenthood clinics providing critical healthcare to communities across the country.

The Republicans, I have to say, have been on a tear about ``How dare SBA provide these lawful PPP loans to Planned Parenthood?'' Apparently, it escapes their notice that these are lawful loans.

So Republicans' opposition to Dr. Gupta's confirmation is a dangerous position and one that threatens the health, safety, and prosperity of women here in the United States and around the world.

For example, my Republican colleagues raised concerns about the state of women and girls in Afghanistan, and yet in another example of their hypocrisy, they are opposing a nominee who would be in a position to actually help support these women.

As Ambassador at Large for Global Women's Issues, Dr. Gupta will bring

decades of experience to empower women, improve their economic security, and end violence against women and girls.

There is no legitimate reason for anyone to not support her nomination to this important role. The chaos and fear across the country generated by the Supreme Court's Roe decision is spilling over to block this nomination.

I thank Senator Shaheen for her focus on Dr. Gupta's nomination and her dedication to women and girls at home and abroad, and I urge my Republican colleagues to do the right thing for a change and end their bad faith obstruction of Dr. Gupta's nomination.

I yield back to my colleague from New Hampshire.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the confirmation of Dr. Lester Martinez-Lopez to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, or ASDHA.

The Defense Department is responsible for the health and welfare of over 1.3 million Americans who are entrusted with protecting our Nation. In order to ensure they get the care they need and deserve, the DOD must have an Assistant Secretary of Defense in place to lead their health affairs.

This position is the principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense for all health and force health protection policies, programs, activities, and the Integrated Disability Evaluation System. The ASDHA is responsible for the execution of the DOD medical mission, to provide and maintain physical and mental health readiness for medical services and support to members of the military services, their families, and those held in the control of the military services.

Dr. Martinez-Lopez is eminently qualified for the position and has an impressive history of public service. Dr. Martinez-Lopez graduated from medical school in 1978. He retired from the U.S. Army as a major general and was the first Latino to head the Army Medical Research and Materiel Command at Fort Detrick, MD. He is the former director of the Army's worldwide medical research, acquisition, and logistics program, overseeing a vast research portfolio that included cancer, trauma, infectious diseases, aviation medicine, and telemedicine research.

Dr. Martinez-Lopez also directed the premier national biological and chemical defense laboratories and research program and led the development of the National Biodefense Campus at Fort Detrick.

He served as the commanding general of the Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, where he directed a worldwide public health organization and was responsible for preventive medicine, health promotion and wellness, global medical surveillance, occupational and environmental health, and health risk communication.

Dr. Martinez-Lopez has an extensive military and medical background that makes him eminently qualified to fill this critically important role. But Republican obstruction has left us without a confirmed Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs for nearly a year, endangering the health of our servicemembers and the safety of our Nation.

Unfortunately, Dr. Lopez is not the only critically important civilian DOD nominee Senate Republicans are blocking. Just yesterday, Chairman Reed came to the floor to ask for unanimous consent on the nominees to serve as inspector general of DOD, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

This unprecedented obstruction must end, and we must fill these important positions, including Dr. Martinez-Lopez, as quickly as possible.

I urge my colleagues to confirm this nominee.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 779, Lester Martinez-Lopez, of Florida, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; and that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, very briefly, the fact that my colleague is objecting to the consequences of not adhering to the requirement for vaccination is not within the purview of Dr. Lester Martinez-Lopez. So, therefore, their objection as to this particular nominee is misplaced and, in my view, irrelevant.

I again call on my colleagues to enable this nominee to come forward under unanimous consent.

Madam President, as we focus on contraception rights this

afternoon, listen to some of the comments made by my Republican male colleagues:

They are not going to change the law on contraception.

There is zero threat of contraception being taken away.

Pure hysteria.

I have no reason to believe these precedents are going to

fall.

These are some of the statements made by my Republican colleagues-- all of them male, by the way--have made regarding contraception. ``Pure hysteria,'' they say. This is not pure hysteria to the millions of women across the country who woke up one morning in June and no longer had a constitutional right.

When it comes to this far-right, agenda-driven Supreme Court, nothing is off the table and nothing is ``pure hysteria.''

Last month, the far-right majority of the Supreme Court overturned nearly 50 years of precedent and took away the constitutional right to get an abortion. This decision was the result of a decades-long effort by far-right Republicans and rightwing groups to pack the courts with politicians in Roe.

And they are just getting started. For this MAGA majority, controlling women's bodies doesn't stop at forcing women to give birth. They actually want to ban contraception. We know this because, in this concurring opinion to overturn Roe, Justice Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court should reconsider--reconsider--the rulings that protect same-sex relationships, marriage equality, and, yes, contraception.

This kind of signaling by a Justice of a Supreme Court should be taken seriously.

So my Republican colleagues saying they have no reason to believe precedent will be overturned is resorting to magical thinking that no one should believe. After all, the Supreme Court just overturned a nearly 50-year precedent that women in this country relied on for nearly half a century--half a century. That is two generations. In fact, radical MAGA Republicans in State legislatures across the country are gearing up in Ohio.

House Republicans introduced a bill that would effectively ban all abortions from the moment of conception and, potentially, other forms of birth control, like IUDs.

Other Republicans have refused to rule out banning certain forms of contraception. We are living in a post-Roe world where our rights are on the chopping block. So, no, this is not ``pure hysteria.'' The American public knows this. Democrats know this.

So I say to my Republican colleagues, if any of you object to this bill, come down to the Senate floor and tell the American people the truth. Just be honest that you do not support guaranteeing the right to contraception because, in this post-Roe world, any suggestion that this Court won't overturn precedent is no longer something to hide behind. But if my Republican colleagues do support the right to contraception, then they should have no problem with supporting our bill, which would create a statutory right for individuals to access contraception, protect the right to healthcare providers to provide contraception to their patients, and empower individuals by extending a private right of action against any State or government official that hinders these rights.

Today, my Republican colleagues have a choice. Do they support the right to contraception and an individual's right to make decisions about our bodies and our healthcare? Or will they allow the government to tell millions and millions of women what to do?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Expanding Access to Family Planning Act, which will help ensure millions of Americans can continue receiving family planning services through the title X program.

For more than 40 years, title X has helped ensure hundreds of thousands of women--regardless of income, background, insurance status, or hometown--have access to basic reproductive healthcare, including wellness exams, cancer screenings, birth control, and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases.

While this program, which was created with bipartisan support, has been around for decades, we have seen what happens when MAGA Republicans are in control. President Trump slashed funding for title X and imposed a dangerous domestic gag rule that banned doctors from telling people how they could access abortion services. The gag rule wreaked havoc across the country. It forced providers to decide whether they wanted to receive title X funding--knowing that healthcare providers wouldn't be able to provide women with accurate and comprehensive information--or say no to this critical family planning funding that supports women across the country through clinics like Planned Parenthood and other nonprofits.

In my home State of Hawaii, the entire network of title X clinics said no to this dangerous rule and rejected the funding, forcing our State to foot the bill. On the other hand, the State of Hawaii, the clinics in Hawaii, because they rejected this funding, could provide the full range of care for their clients, but ultimately the gag rule resulted in a loss of services to thousands of women.

Across the country, Trump's rule slashed title X's patient capacity in half, jeopardizing family planning and contraceptive care for 1.6 million patients nationwide. While President Biden reversed this rule, we can't take anything for granted.

As the rightwing Supreme Court and MAGA Republicans work to eliminate reproductive freedom, it is critical we protect and strengthen title X. That is

exactly what the Expanding Access to Family Planning Act will do. This bill will nearly double funding for title X family planning services by providing $500 million in mandatory funding for title X for each of the next 10 years. It will also ban title X providers from discriminating against patients and require pregnancy consulting services receiving title X funds to provide patients with all of the information about all their reproductive care options, including abortion.

Republicans have made clear they will do anything to get rid of our reproductive freedoms, so we must pass this bill to make sure this program isn't at the whim of those trying to strip us of our healthcare. While Republicans continue to attack our fundamental rights, Democrats are doing everything we can to protect them. That is why, in addition to this important bill, earlier this week, I introduced legislation to codify the right to contraception. All of this is about who gets to make decisions about our bodies--women or a bunch of rightwing politicians.

I believe--and the American people overwhelmingly agree--individuals, not politicians, should be making these deeply personal decisions.

Our Right to Contraception Act and the Expanding Access to Family Planning Act will help ensure they can.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, just very briefly.

Senator Wyden, I am really glad to be able to sponsor the My Bodies, My Data bill with you, because, as we know, any time any of us presses the button and uses our internet, somebody is collecting data, all of this data. And can you imagine there are all of these clinics that purportedly provide information relating to contraception and whatever else relating to reproductive care--these entities are also collecting all kinds of information. And they are not there to make sure that women--mainly women but individuals who access their services--they do not know that these are not institutions that will give them all of the information they need; but, instead, they are collecting a lot of information that can be weaponized.

Thank you very much. This is yet another whole area of concern in this environment, in this climate, where individuals do not have control over our own bodies.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I rise today in opposition to S. 251, legislation that would ban transgender women and girls from participating in sports consistent with their gender.

My Republican colleagues falsely claim that allowing transgender women and girls to play sports is harmful to cisgender women and girls. They continue to hurl insulting lies about transgender girls dominating sports, but what is true is that these bans are deeply harmful to transgender girls, particularly transgender girls of color, girls who are gender-nonconforming or born with intersex traits, as well as cisgender girls.

These sex tests invade every girl's privacy and open the door to harass anyone who is perceived as different.

If my Republican colleagues were actually worried about women and girls in athletics, they would join in our efforts to address unequal athletic opportunities in school, unequal pay, sexual abuse and harassment, and more. But this isn't about supporting women and girls; this is about discrimination.

Earlier today, I stood in Statuary Hall as we unveiled the portrait of the late Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink on today's 50th anniversary of title IX becoming law. Title IX, which was renamed the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, says:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex,

be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefit of,

or be subjected to discrimination under any education program

or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Thirty-seven words that are just as relevant today as they were 50 years ago.

Patsy fought for equal opportunities for all, and this bill stands in direct opposition to her work. And to listen to my colleague talking about title IX as being that act that is going to support his bill, I can tell you, as someone who knew and was friends with Patsy T. Mink, she would be standing right next to me to say that title IX in no way or shape supports what my colleague is attempting to do.

Republicans have the wrong priorities. We shouldn't be banning anyone from playing sports; we should be fighting the discrimination that all women and girls continue to face in athletics, in the classroom, and in workplaces.

I am proud to stand up and oppose this harmful legislation and continue to advance Patsy Mink's legacy of equal opportunities for all.

Mr. President, for these reasons, I object.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, the Kaena Point National Heritage Area Act. This bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating certain land in Hawaii as the Kaena Point National Heritage Area. Such a designation would bring Federal resources to bear on elevating public awareness of Kaena Point through increased interpretation and enhanced management activities to protect resources, both cultural and natural, for future generations.

The National Park Service currently oversees 55 National Heritage Areas across the country, none of which are in Hawaii. Kaena Point, located on the westernmost tip of Oahu, is home to some of the last remaining unimproved semiwilderness areas on Oahu and one of the last intact dune ecosystems in Hawaii. Native species such as critically endangered Hawaiian monk seals, humpback whales, spinner dolphins, and green sea turtles can be found in the waters at Kaena Point. Native shorebirds such as albatrosses and shearwaters also frequent Kaena Point to nest. In addition, the area is one of the last remaining examples of intact coastal strand vegetation on Oahu and is home to a number of endangered plant species and the endangered yellow-faced bee.

Kaena Point is significant to Native Hawaiian culture, being deemed one of the most sacred places on Oahu as it is home to numerous cultural and historic sites. The area currently includes a State park and a Natural Area Reserve, both operated by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. Kaena State Park is the second most visited park on Oahu, illustrating the significance of the area.

This bill directs the U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary to conduct a study in consultation with State and local historic preservation officers, State and local historical societies, State and local tourism offices, and other appropriate organizations and governmental agencies. This study would, among other things, assess the area's unique cultural, historic, and natural resources, cultural contributions to the story of the United States,

ability to provide recreation and educational opportunities, resources available for interpretation by visitors, inclusion of local stakeholders supportive of and involved with the planning of the Heritage Area, existence of a local management entity willing to work with these stakeholders to develop the Heritage Area, and include a map identifying the boundaries of the Heritage Area.

The Secretary of the Interior is given 3 years to conduct the study and report the results to Congress. Information from that report will then indicate if Kaena Point is a suitable location to be added as a National Heritage Area and if so, the boundaries for such a designation. This bill is supported by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, the Kaena Point National Heritage Area Act. This bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating certain land in Hawaii as the Kaena Point National Heritage Area. Such a designation would bring Federal resources to bear on elevating public awareness of Kaena Point through increased interpretation and enhanced management activities to protect resources, both cultural and natural, for future generations.

The National Park Service currently oversees 55 National Heritage Areas across the country, none of which are in Hawaii. Kaena Point, located on the westernmost tip of Oahu, is home to some of the last remaining unimproved semiwilderness areas on Oahu and one of the last intact dune ecosystems in Hawaii. Native species such as critically endangered Hawaiian monk seals, humpback whales, spinner dolphins, and green sea turtles can be found in the waters at Kaena Point. Native shorebirds such as albatrosses and shearwaters also frequent Kaena Point to nest. In addition, the area is one of the last remaining examples of intact coastal strand vegetation on Oahu and is home to a number of endangered plant species and the endangered yellow-faced bee.

Kaena Point is significant to Native Hawaiian culture, being deemed one of the most sacred places on Oahu as it is home to numerous cultural and historic sites. The area currently includes a State park and a Natural Area Reserve, both operated by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. Kaena State Park is the second most visited park on Oahu, illustrating the significance of the area.

This bill directs the U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary to conduct a study in consultation with State and local historic preservation officers, State and local historical societies, State and local tourism offices, and other appropriate organizations and governmental agencies. This study would, among other things, assess the area's unique cultural, historic, and natural resources, cultural contributions to the story of the United States,

ability to provide recreation and educational opportunities, resources available for interpretation by visitors, inclusion of local stakeholders supportive of and involved with the planning of the Heritage Area, existence of a local management entity willing to work with these stakeholders to develop the Heritage Area, and include a map identifying the boundaries of the Heritage Area.

The Secretary of the Interior is given 3 years to conduct the study and report the results to Congress. Information from that report will then indicate if Kaena Point is a suitable location to be added as a National Heritage Area and if so, the boundaries for such a designation. This bill is supported by the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his remarks just now. I, too, sit on the Judiciary Committee, and I listened to Garnell Whitfield talk about his 86-year-old mother, who was murdered, and his charge to us to do something, because basically he said: If you are not going to do something in the face of all this gun carnage in our country, what are you doing here?

I think that is a question that each of us should ask: What the heck are we doing here if not to protect America's citizens?

One of the questions that I asked of the panel, which consisted of two invitees from the Republican side and three panel members of Democratic invitees--I asked them: Is the easy access to guns in our country a major part of the gun violence and the massacres and the killings in our country? And they each said yes. They acknowledged that the easy access to guns, regardless of ideology, is what makes our country the outlier country among all developed nations. What that says to me is that we need to be very, very committed and very serious about the need to enact sensible gun safety legislation.

As I listened to one of my other colleagues a little bit earlier talking about inflation, yes, inflation is a problem, but certainly it is not the answer to just blame the Democrats. I would like my Republican colleagues to make a commitment to do what we need to do and at least get a start in ending the gun violence in our country. As I said at yesterday's hearing, Hawaii has among the strongest gun safety legislation in the country. We have the lowest gun violence in the country. There is a cause and effect here.

As Mr. Whitfield charged us with yesterday, do something. That is our responsibility.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Expanding America's Pacific Diplomatic Presence Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that seeks to deepen our diplomatic relations with Pacific Island countries and territories. I am thankful to Senator Cotton, Senator Markey, and Senator Hagerty for joining me in introducing this legislation.

The United States enjoys strong historical ties, economic relationships, and cultural links with many Pacific Island nations. During World War II, these islands became the frontlines of some of our hardest fought battles of the Pacific campaign. Now, Pacific Island nations and territories are at the frontlines of climate change. Our friendships with Pacific Island nations are deepened by generations of Pacific Islanders whose presence in the United States and contributions have enriched communities throughout our country. We also recognize the strategic importance of Pacific Island nations, as demonstrated by the Compacts of Free Association we have with the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau. Unfortunately, while our diplomatic presence in the region has waned in the last decade, the diplomatic and economic presence of the People's Republic of China, PRC, has increased as it seeks to forge closer ties with Pacific Island nations. What happens in the Pacific Islands matters to the United States and we must take steps to demonstrate the strength of our commitment to the region.

Diplomatic engagement in the region is critical for understanding how we can better support our Pacific Island partners. President Biden has worked to elevate the U.S.'s diplomatic engagement by being the first U.S. President to participate in a gathering of the Pacific Island Forum leaders. The President also signaled his commitment to the Freely Associated States by appointing Special Presidential Envoy Ambassador Joseph Yun to lead negotiations over the Compacts of Free Association. Several high-ranking administration officials, including the Secretary of State Antony Blinken, have visited the region to pledge U.S. support for efforts related to COVID-19 response, climate change adaptation, maritime security, infrastructure development, trade, and economic investment. I applaud this level of meaningful diplomatic engagement in the region and would like to see this sustained in the future.

Establishing new U.S. diplomatic posts would support our efforts to build lasting relationships with Pacific Island nations and territories. The United States currently has eight Embassies among Pacific Island nations, with plans to reopen an Embassy in the Solomon Islands. These Embassies play an important role in forging relations with host nations and serve as important symbols of the U.S.'s long term commitment to the region. Opening new embassies, consulate generals, or other diplomatic posts would allow U.S. diplomats to have more regular interactions with the governments of the Pacific Islands and learn more about the challenges and opportunities facing each nation. The year-round presence of more U.S. diplomats would improve our ability to compete with the PRC's growing presence in the region and would enhance our coordination with Australia, New Zealand, and Japan on economic development assistance and humanitarian aid. An expanded diplomatic presence in the region would also improve oversight of U.S. Government-funded programs in the region.

The legislation I am introducing would direct the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to conduct a feasibility study on establishing new diplomatic posts in Pacific Island countries and territories that currently do not have a U.S. Embassy or other U.S. diplomatic post. This legislation recognizes and seeks to understand what potential benefits and challenges may exist for establishing new U.S. diplomatic posts in the region. I hope that the results of an independent study conducted by GAO will inform future decisions by Congress and the executive branch to establish and appropriately fund new diplomatic posts in the region.

I urge my colleagues to pass the Expanding America's Pacific Diplomatic Presence Act to demonstrate our support for greater diplomatic engagement with our partners in the region and reaffirm our commitment to building a shared future with the people of the Pacific Islands.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Expanding America's Pacific Diplomatic Presence Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation that seeks to deepen our diplomatic relations with Pacific Island countries and territories. I am thankful to Senator Cotton, Senator Markey, and Senator Hagerty for joining me in introducing this legislation.

The United States enjoys strong historical ties, economic relationships, and cultural links with many Pacific Island nations. During World War II, these islands became the frontlines of some of our hardest fought battles of the Pacific campaign. Now, Pacific Island nations and territories are at the frontlines of climate change. Our friendships with Pacific Island nations are deepened by generations of Pacific Islanders whose presence in the United States and contributions have enriched communities throughout our country. We also recognize the strategic importance of Pacific Island nations, as demonstrated by the Compacts of Free Association we have with the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau. Unfortunately, while our diplomatic presence in the region has waned in the last decade, the diplomatic and economic presence of the People's Republic of China, PRC, has increased as it seeks to forge closer ties with Pacific Island nations. What happens in the Pacific Islands matters to the United States and we must take steps to demonstrate the strength of our commitment to the region.

Diplomatic engagement in the region is critical for understanding how we can better support our Pacific Island partners. President Biden has worked to elevate the U.S.'s diplomatic engagement by being the first U.S. President to participate in a gathering of the Pacific Island Forum leaders. The President also signaled his commitment to the Freely Associated States by appointing Special Presidential Envoy Ambassador Joseph Yun to lead negotiations over the Compacts of Free Association. Several high-ranking administration officials, including the Secretary of State Antony Blinken, have visited the region to pledge U.S. support for efforts related to COVID-19 response, climate change adaptation, maritime security, infrastructure development, trade, and economic investment. I applaud this level of meaningful diplomatic engagement in the region and would like to see this sustained in the future.

Establishing new U.S. diplomatic posts would support our efforts to build lasting relationships with Pacific Island nations and territories. The United States currently has eight Embassies among Pacific Island nations, with plans to reopen an Embassy in the Solomon Islands. These Embassies play an important role in forging relations with host nations and serve as important symbols of the U.S.'s long term commitment to the region. Opening new embassies, consulate generals, or other diplomatic posts would allow U.S. diplomats to have more regular interactions with the governments of the Pacific Islands and learn more about the challenges and opportunities facing each nation. The year-round presence of more U.S. diplomats would improve our ability to compete with the PRC's growing presence in the region and would enhance our coordination with Australia, New Zealand, and Japan on economic development assistance and humanitarian aid. An expanded diplomatic presence in the region would also improve oversight of U.S. Government-funded programs in the region.

The legislation I am introducing would direct the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to conduct a feasibility study on establishing new diplomatic posts in Pacific Island countries and territories that currently do not have a U.S. Embassy or other U.S. diplomatic post. This legislation recognizes and seeks to understand what potential benefits and challenges may exist for establishing new U.S. diplomatic posts in the region. I hope that the results of an independent study conducted by GAO will inform future decisions by Congress and the executive branch to establish and appropriately fund new diplomatic posts in the region.

I urge my colleagues to pass the Expanding America's Pacific Diplomatic Presence Act to demonstrate our support for greater diplomatic engagement with our partners in the region and reaffirm our commitment to building a shared future with the people of the Pacific Islands.