[Pages S270-S271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
S. RES. 19
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, S. Res. 19 is unnecessary because no
religious test is being applied to nominees for Federal office. If my
colleague, the junior Senator from Nebraska, wants to embrace the alt-
right's position by offering this resolution, that is his business.
Rather than passing a resolution to address a problem that doesn't
exist, we should focus on something real, like ending this totally
unnecessary, unjustified shutdown that is harming millions of
Americans.
I ask unanimous consent for, statements supporting the separation of
church and state from Catholics for Choice, People for the American
Way, and several Hawaii residents.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Catholics for Choice,
Washington, DC, January 4, 2019.
Hon. Mazie Hirono,
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hirono: Catholics for Choice represents the
majority of Catholics across the United States that believes
that each woman should be free to follow her conscience in
moral matters regarding reproductive health.
We were very disappointed to see your colleagues, Senators
Hirono and Harris, attacked for duly questioning district
court nominee Brian Buescher about his ability to keep
judicial impartiality due to his membership in the hardline
Catholic organization, Knights of Columbus. They had every
reason to raise these questions due to the Knights' troubling
record.
Today's Knights of Columbus have strayed far from their
civic roots as a philanthropic organization. Our enclosed
report, The Knights of Columbus: Crusaders for
Discrimination, provides a detailed look at how they have
brazenly used their 501c8 status to pour money, effort and
influence into political contests and policy debates.
As our investigation showed, they have spent more than $10
million since 2014 in direct antichoice and anti-LGBT
lobbying, like their petition in Albuquerque to try to ban
later abortion. The Knights' organization uses a large
portion of its time and effort funding ultrasound equipment
for fake health centers that actively deceive and pressure
women to keep unwanted pregnancies. The insurance arm of the
Knights ranks in the top one percent of the North American
insurance market, yet pays no federal and nearly no state or
local taxes. Make no mistake: they do not represent what the
majority of Catholics believe on issues of reproductive
health or the separation of church and state.
We believe this and other attacks on Senators fulfilling
their obligations to question judicial nominees are just the
latest tactic in shifting the conversation about religious
liberty toward making special accommodations to those who
wish to refuse, impede and impose rather than to protect the
true religious liberty of all, no matter their beliefs. As
Religious Freedom Day nears--and we usher in a historic new
Congress that embodies our country's religious plurality--we
must remember that our society allows for free religious
exercise, but also protects against religious influence in
politics.
Catholics for Choice works at the intersection of religious
liberty, reproductive freedom and freedom of conscience for
all. We are at your and your staff's disposal as the
committee continues to protect fundamental freedoms through
its work. Should you have any questions, please contact me at
gnorthern@catholicsforchoice.org or 202-986-6093.
Sincerely,
Glenn Northern,
Domestic Program Director.
____
[From Honolulu Civil Beat, Jan. 14, 2019]
Letter to the Editor
(By Lisa H. Gibson, Ray Markey, Maya Maxym)
U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono, Democrat of Hawaii, is under
attack.
She stands for women, both as a champion of a woman's right
to choose and as a defender of those who have been sexually
assaulted; she fought Trump and the Republicans in defense of
the Affordable Care Act, against the Muslim ban and the
Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination. She is being attacked
because she has become one of the most eloquent and effective
voices of the values Indivisible Hawaii cherishes.
The attack comes not only from rightwing ideologues, it now
comes from Hawaii's own member of the House of
Representatives, Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat who on Friday
announced her candidacy for the presidency. Her article in
The Hill accuses Democratic Party members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee of ``fomenting religious bigotry'' and
``weaponizing religion'' during their questioning of nominee
Brian Buescher to the U.S. District Court in Nebraska.
This thinly veiled attack on Sen. Hirono, who sits on the
Senate Judiciary Committee which is responsible for approving
judicial nominees, is a ludicrous assertion and a stunning
act of hypocrisy on the part of Rep. Gabbard. The assertion
is that Hirono is a religious bigot because of questions
designed to reveal a nominee's clear record of anti-choice
activism as a barrier to his appropriateness for a judicial
appointment.
This attack is not only inaccurate, it exposes Gabbard's
self-serving attempt to project herself as a defender of
religious freedom--a position which is inconsistent with her
own actions. Rather than align herself with India's overt
right-wing Hindu Nationalists or Syria's Assad, we suggest
Rep. Gabbard follow Sen. Hirono as a model of both authentic
patriotic behavior and defense of civil rights.
Members of Indivisible Hawaii and other groups have visited
Sen. Hirono's offices, as well as those of the other members
of Hawaii's Congressional delegation, dozens of times since
President Donald Trump's Jan. 20, 2017, inauguration. We know
firsthand that she has championed our beliefs because we have
talked with her and her staff many times. We have followed
her votes, watched her on television, read her Facebook Page
and emails, and attended her town halls.
Sen. Hirono immigrated to Hawaii as a child and understands
from personal experience the challenges faced by immigrants.
She is the first Buddhist to serve in the Senate. Her years
of public service establish a record which, in particular,
show her to be a defender of religious tolerance as well as
the values of democratic government and the rule of law upon
which our country depends.
We witnessed what Gabbard did at, during, and after the
Democratic Party Convention ion 2016 to attack not Trump or
the Republicans, but former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton and the Democratic Party. Since Trump's election
Gabbard's silence in response to Trump's efforts to
dismantle the institutions of our democracy has been
deafening and stands in stark contrast to Sen. Hirono's
forthright, clear and courageous actions to fight the
racist, misogynist, and authoritarian actions of Trump and
the GOP. The Hill article mimics her past behavior--why
does she choose to do this again?
As we fight to preserve our democracy unity is more
important than ever. An attack on Sen. Mazie Hirono as a
champion of progressive values in the Democratic Party is an
attack on all of us who want to take our country back. We
must stand with Sen. Hirono and other champions of democracy
to be successful.
[[Page S271]]
____
[Jan. 8, 2019]
People for the American Way: Conservatives' Dishonest use of `Religious
Bigotry' To Deflect Attention From Nominee's Disturbing Records
(By Rev. Leslie Watson Malachi)
Happy New Year! Well, for most of us it should be--unless
you are fighting to protect our courts. New year, same old
tactic by conservatives, who are hoping to insulate narrow-
minded judicial nominees from scrutiny by smearing people who
ask critical questions about their records and rhetoric.
This dishonest ``religious bigotry'' strategy has been
around as long as the organized effort to shift the federal
judiciary to conservatism and reverse decades of precedent
that protect Americans' legal and constitutional rights. In
the recent past, for example, these groups have charged some
Catholic senators with wanting to keep Catholics off the
federal bench.
The latest smear is being pushed by the notoriously right-
wing editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, which has
run an attack on Senators Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono. The
Journal's editorial is an over-the-top response to written
questions submitted by Sens. Harris and Hirono to federal
court nominee Brian Buescher about his commitment to
upholding legal equality for LGBTQ Americans and American
women's legal right to abortion.
In their questions, the senators noted Buescher's long-time
membership in the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal
organization that does much laudable charitable work, but
which was also a top funder of anti-marriage-equality efforts
and supports restrictions on federal family-planning funds.
Before the 2016 election, the group's influential leader
declared that Catholics cannot vote for candidates who
support abortion rights.
Given these facts, the senators asked Buescher whether he
could assure litigants that he would deal with these issues
fairly and impartially as a federal judge. (Buescher's answer
stated that while he had run for political office as a ``pro-
life candidate,'' as a judge he would ``faithfully apply all
United States Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals precedent on all issues, including Roe v. Wade'' and
Obergefell.)
The Journal's editorial board responded to the senators'
reasonable line of questioning with outrage and horror. By
seeking to protect LGBTQ equality and reproductive rights,
and asking questions about the Knights' public policy
positions, the editorial implied, Sens. Harris and Hirono
were resurrecting the kind of anti-Catholic bigotry directed
at John F. Kennedy and earlier presidential candidate Al
Smith. The editorial said the questions were part of a
``distressing pattern'' that seeks to ``banish'' religious
people from public life--the kind of false charge Religious
Right groups have often leveled to deflect criticism of their
political agendas or tactics.
This is not only absurd, but an insult to American voters.
The Journal also gave space to conservative African
American pastor Eugene Rivers to repeat the charge, saying
that the senators' questions were ``about silencing believers
of any kind whose views differ from the progressive view on
social issues.'' He unbelievably suggested that opponents of
Buescher's confirmation would be voting to deny his chance to
be a public servant based on his baptism in the Catholic
Church.
These inflammatory charges are designed to create
distraction. It is not only acceptable, but necessary for
senators to explore whether a nominee for a powerful lifetime
job as a federal judge will uphold every Americans' rights.
In the case of Buescher this is doubtful, given that as an
unsuccessful candidate for attorney general of Nebraska, he
said he did not believe LGBT Americans should be protected by
anti-discrimination laws the way people are protected from
racial or ethnic discrimination. It was also at this time
that he declared that he supported the ``complete reversal''
of Roe v. Wade. Buescher has a long record as a partisan
ideological warrior, an additional reason cited by the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights in opposing his
confirmation.
Religious freedom is a core constitutional principle, and
as the Constitution makes clear, there must be no religious
test for public office. We rely on the federal courts to
enforce all Americans' constitutional rights. That means
judges, regardless of their religious or personal beliefs,
must be counted on to uphold Americans' legal protections.
Subsequently, a person's political positions or legal
ideology grounded in their faith does not make those legal
and political stances off-limits to questioning or criticism.
With Senate Republicans rubber-stamping even President
Trump's most extreme and unqualified nominees, right-wing
intimidation tactics must not prevent senators from
fulfilling their constitutional obligation to ensure that
lifetime federal judges are committed to protecting the
rights of all Americans.
Thank you, Senators Harris and Hirono! It's a new year, and
it's time to retire this old dishonest tactic of silencing
and attempts to shame. Let the questions be asked and let
them be answered.
____
[From the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Jan. 6, 2019]
Letter to the Editor
(By Gary Edwards)
With regard to Donna L. Ching's letter (``Leave religion
out in vetting qualifications,'' Star-Advertiser, Dec. 27):
While I agree that a person's religious affiliation, alone,
should not be a means of exclusion for public office, I do
not agree that religion should be ``left out of the
conversation.''
One of the real concerns in vetting candidates for public
office is how they will apply their personal beliefs,
including their religion, to the role they seek to fill. And
while freedom of religion is a vital right, so is freedom
from religion.
Significant damage can be done to our society by those who
would seek to impose their religious beliefs and values on
others through the force of law. These beliefs and values do
not always align with the principles of our Constitution, and
laws based on them would deny others their freedom and fair
treatment.
I'm glad U.S. Sens. Mazie Hirono and Kamala Harris are
probing these issues.
Kaneohe.
____
[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 15, 2019]
Senators Were Right to Ask Those Questions on Religion
(By Michael Keegan)
Regarding your editorial ``Kamala Harris's Dark Knights''
(Jan. 3): Sens. Harris and Mazie Hirono's questions for Brian
Buescher were focused on appropriate and important questions,
namely whether the nominee could be counted on as a federal
judge to recognize and protect the legal equality of LGBTQ
Americans and the right of American women to have access to
safe and legal abortion.
You charge that such questioning is about trying to
``banish'' people from public life for their religious
beliefs and associations. In reality, protecting the legal
rights of all Americans of all faiths by ensuring that
nominees for powerful lifetime seats on America's federal
courts are committed to enforcing them is one of senators'
most important responsibilities, one that the current
Republican majority has abandoned in its rush to achieve
ideological domination of the courts.
____________________