Executive Calendar

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, there was a time when Blacks and Whites couldn't get married or go to the same school. The Supreme Court changed that. There was a time when gay people could be arrested for loving one another and when it was illegal for them to get married. The Supreme Court changed that. There was a time when thousands of women died from having illegal, unsafe abortions. The Supreme Court changed that.

The Justices on the Supreme Court matter to each and every one of our lives. That is why there is so much concern over President Trump's nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court--Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Rightwing groups, like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, have been working for decades to set the stage to pack our Federal courts with ideologically driven conservatives. They have invested millions of dollars and decades of time in this effort. These two organizations have played the primary role in vetting and selecting Donald Trump's nominees to the Supreme Court. By including Judge Kavanaugh on their list of potential nominees, these two organizations certainly expect that he will reflect their own ideological perspectives, which include overturning Roe v. Wade and repealing the Affordable Care Act, the ACA. They certainly expected Neil Gorsuch-- another name on their list--to do the same when he got on the Supreme Court. In the short time he has been on the Court, Justice Gorsuch has not disappointed them.

Is it any wonder that millions of people across the country are raising concerns over the nomination of yet another nominee on the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation's wish list? Isn't it reasonable to conclude that Judge Kavanaugh will also reflect the ideological agendas of these organizations?

This is why Judge Kavanaugh does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. He has the exceptionally high burden of proof to assure the American people he can be fair and objective. The Senate has a constitutional obligation that is equal to the President's to vet a President's nominee to the Supreme Court and fulfill its advice and consent obligation responsibilities. I take this responsibility seriously because a fight for the future of the Supreme Court will have ramifications for so many issues that we care about.

Our Federal courts have been at the center of the Republican Party's strategy to dismantle, gut, and weaken the Affordable Care Act, the ACA, since it was passed over 8 years ago. The Supreme Court narrowly upheld the constitutionality of the ACA's core provisions in 2012. The ACA provides affordable, accessible health insurance to millions of people in our country who would otherwise not have such insurance. But the Republican Party's effort to sabotage this critically important law through the courts continues unabated.

Right now, Texas and 19 other States have a lawsuit pending in Federal court that claims, among other things, that the Affordable Care Act's protections for Americans living with preexisting conditions-- illnesses such as diabetes, asthma, and cancer--are invalid. The Trump administration filed a brief supporting Texas in its attack on the ACA's protections for millions of people in our country with preexisting conditions. This case will likely end up before the Supreme Court. If Texas wins its lawsuit, the healthcare of millions of Americans will be at stake--meaning one in four Americans could either lose their health coverage or pay exponentially more for healthcare.

The outcome of this case is personal to millions of Americans and their families, and it is certainly personal to me. A little over 1 year ago, I was diagnosed with kidney cancer. I was fortunate. I have health insurance that allows me to focus on fighting my illness rather than worrying about how I will pay for my treatment. I now join the millions of Americans living with a preexisting condition--illnesses that don't discriminate on the basis of age, gender, or political ideology.

As this case makes its way to the Supreme Court, the American people should not forget that Donald Trump and this administration have been openly hostile to the ACA, a law that has helped millions of people. In fact, the President has openly bragged about all the things he has done to gut the ACA. Does the President expect his nominee, Judge Kavanaugh, to protect the ACA? I don't think so--quite the opposite.

The next Supreme Court Justice will also play a determining role in the future of a woman's right to make her own reproductive health decisions. I remember vividly the stories of women dying in America, unable to access safe, legal abortions. The fight for reproductive freedom, prompted by these stories, was one of the reasons I got involved in politics.

When I was in college, the first letter I ever wrote to Hawaii's congressional delegation was about abortion at a time when our State legislature was debating whether to legalize abortion. Hawaii became the first State in the country to do so. Those of us who lived in a time before Roe v. Wade, when a woman was forced to have a child against her will, are deeply concerned about the future of a woman's right to have an abortion, to have that freedom of choice.

Throughout his campaign for the Presidency, Donald Trump repeatedly promised to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court who would favor overturning the core holding in Roe v. Wade. The Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society share this goal, and it is not a stretch to assume that the names they included on their Supreme Court wish list hold the same views.

Judge Kavanaugh's record on this issue is deeply troubling and of significant concern. Last year, Judge Kavanaugh issued a dissent in a case that granted a 17-year-old immigrant in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, the right to get an abortion. Kavanaugh argued in his dissent that holding the young woman in custody, refusing to release her for a medical appointment for a procedure until HHS was able to find her a sponsor who would serve as a foster parent, was not an undue burden under the Supreme Court's legal test.

He did not consider holding someone in government custody to be an undue burden. This is the view of someone who will not follow the law as it is currently set forth by the Supreme Court if confronted with challenges to Roe. Let us remember, it is the Supreme Court that sets precedent, and that can happen if Judge Kavanaugh is on the Court. Really, his dissent in this case is a view of someone chosen for a reason, ready to fulfill Donald Trump's campaign promise to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

This fight matters. Who sits on our courts matters. How we exercise our constitutional duty to examine a nominee for the highest Court in our land matters. Just as well-financed conservative interests have spent decades setting the stage for the court packing going on today, those of us who oppose this agenda need to mobilize, resist, and stay engaged for the long haul in the fight for a fair and independent judiciary.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source