Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in support of the confirmation of Julie Rikelman to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In just a few minutes, the Senate will vote to invoke cloture on Julie Rikelman's nomination, and, soon after, we will vote on her confirmation. Julie Rikelman has a distinctively American story. In 1979, her family emigrated to the United States from the Soviet Union--Ukraine, to be specific--settling in Massachusetts. Like so many Soviet immigrants in the 1970s, her family sought freedom, and especially, as Soviet Jews, they sought religious freedom. As a child, Ms. Rikelman and her family left behind the only home they knew. They endured the challenges of beginning anew in an unfamiliar country, as refugees, mastering a new language and a new culture. They embraced their new home and became naturalized U.S. citizens. Ms. Rikelman's experience as a Soviet political refugee shaped her lifelong commitment to the American legal system as well as her commitment to true ``justice for all'' and to the fundamental principles of the rule of law. With 25 years of experience, her legal career has been nothing short of stellar. Julie attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School. She clerked for Justice Dana Fabe on the Alaska Supreme Court and for Judge Morton Greenberg on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. She has worked in private practice and in public interest law, litigating a range of issues, from reproductive rights cases across the country to civil and criminal cases at both the trial and appellate levels. She has experience in securities law, antitrust law, election law, and constitutional law. Ms. Rikelman's Federal and State court cases have involved defamation, intellectual property, and employment discrimination claims. She is a brilliant legal mind and brings deep experience to issues commonly before the First Circuit. Julie Rikelman has dedicated her career to the protection of Americans' fundamental rights, including the rights to liberty and privacy, distinguishing herself as one of our Nation's leading reproductive rights attorneys. In 2021, she argued the Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a seminal case in the history of our highest Court's considering that issue. I have complete confidence that Ms. Rikelman will bring a broadened perspective, steadfast integrity, and deep knowledge to the bench. And I am not alone in my enthusiasm. My office has received letters in support of Ms. Rikelman's nomination from dozens of individuals and organizations, including members of the Alaska State Bar, current and former prosecutors, law enforcement officials, the National Council of Jewish Women, and many of her former colleagues. Colleagues describe Julie Rikelman as ``brilliant, committed to the rule of law, and deeply devoted to honoring the Constitution and protecting our civil rights and civil liberties.'' These are precisely the qualities we are looking for in a nominee to a Federal appeals court. We have them in Julie Rikelman. It is essential that our Nation's courts reflect the diversity of our country, and Ms. Rikelman, when confirmed, would be the first immigrant woman and the first Jewish woman to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. That is what this Nation is all about. Senator Warren and I are proud and enthusiastically recommend Julie Rikelman's nomination to President Biden and are proud to speak in favor of her nomination before the full Senate today. She will make an exceptional addition to the First Circuit. I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on cloture and then on her confirmation. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, last week, the Senate confirmed Dilawar Syed to be the Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration with a bipartisan vote. Mr. Syed was the longest pending nomination in the Biden administration, waiting 827 days to be confirmed. The Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration should not have been a controversial nomination. Mr. Syed has served our Nation admirably as Special Representative for Commercial Diplomacy at the State Department, where he has helped American companies compete in international markets throughout the world. He has extensive background as an entrepreneur and business leader with an inspiring immigrant success story that is only possible in America. Now that he has been confirmed, he is the highest ranking Muslim American in the Biden administration. Mr. Syed should have been confirmed unanimously years ago. But regrettably, Senate Republicans chose to play politics with changing excuses designed to obstruct the nomination. Obstruction and delay resulted in the position being vacant for over 5 years. With record numbers of entrepreneurs starting new small businesses, we need a fully staffed SBA. Senate Republicans criticized pandemic loans that were taken out by Mr. Syed's company, Lumiata, and accused Mr. Syed of being slow to disclose the loans. Mr. Syed testified before the committee that the board of his company had taken out Paycheck Protection Program--PPP-- loans from SBA, funds that they were legally eligible to receive. And to his credit, Mr. Syed and his company repaid those PPP loans when they secured an additional round of venture funding. All of this funding was disclosed to the White House during the vetting process, and Mr. Syed was transparent about his financials, even beyond the information asked by the Senate committee questionnaire. Critics tried to claim that he had misled Congress or outright lied. That is simply not true. Despite his unfair treatment, justice ultimately prevailed, and his nomination passed with bipartisan support from five Republican Senators who were able to judge Mr. Syed on his character and business acumen rather than false attacks. Many nominees would have given up and decided the attacks were not worth it. With his background, Mr. Syed could have taken a lucrative positions in the private sector. But our Nation is fortunate that Mr. Syed did not let this long process deter him from serving the public interest. I join Mr. Syed's family, friends, and colleagues in congratulating him on his perseverance throughout this process and look forward to working with him, Administrator Guzman, and the leadership team at the Small Business Administration.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, go outside. It is hard to breathe. The Sun is darkened. The air smells of ash and cinder. Children cannot go to school or even go outside. An unmasked deep breath outside is a risk. On the east coast, it is an ungodly dystopian landscape, the stuff of science fiction, movies set in Martian landscapes, except it is right now, and it is right here. This week, other than 9/11, New York City registered the worst air quality in the world. Climate change means more heat in the atmosphere, with record high temperatures in Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, and even Burlington, VT. These high temperatures get locked into place by record-setting high-pressure zones--making ``heat domes'' of sunny, hot weather that sits on top of the landscape, drying it out like an oven. More heat, less water--that is fuel for fire. And we have seen it coming. Climate change has made this pattern more frequent and more intense. And if you don't believe me, if you don't think that this is a new phenomenon prompted by climate change, then ask yourself, when was the last time that New York or Philadelphia experienced something of this magnitude? It would be disturbing enough to call this the new normal, but it is not the new normal because every year, it is going to get worse until we tackle this problem head-on. This isn't just a forest fire. This is a climate fire because our entire climate is on fire. These wildfires are not just an occurrence. They are a condition, and the condition is only getting worse. Over the past 20 years, the area of land consumed annually by wildfires has doubled. In some parts of the West, that area is expected to grow sixfold--six times the fires, six times the smoke--which means harmful and dangerous air quality days for our youngest and our oldest, for those with asthma and respiratory disease and other health conditions. When trees die in a wildfire, they release the carbon that is stored within them into the atmosphere. In that sense, you could look at each burning tree as being a kind of a massive exhaust pipe, spewing carbon up into the atmosphere and contributing to global warming. These fires aren't just the product of climate change; these fires are producing climate change. Additionally, once a tree fully burns, that particular tree is gone for good and can no longer reclaim atmospheric carbon and sequester it safely. Those of us who have been fighting the climate crisis for decades take no joy in being right. None of us can take a deep breath outside on the east coast right now and not be at risk. But if we ignore this moment, if we don't take advantage of the searing example right in front of us, then we ignore a duty to act. Our public health is at risk. Our very lungs are at risk. There might be a veil of smoke outside, but let's not veil our sight to the need for climate solutions. There is no mystery here. When you superheat the planet and create searing heat over densely wooded forests, fires are not a surprise. They are the logical outcome of your actions. The future is here right now. Today, we talk about fires. In September, we will talk about hurricanes. In the winter, we will talk about a polar vortex. And in the spring, we will talk about flood and drought before next summer, when we will talk about fires all over again, until we finally talk about the thing we should be talking about, which is how we reduce the emissions, end of this cycle of self-destruction, and secure a safe and stable planet once and for all for everyone. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise today to unmask one of the major players behind the Republican debt limit brinksmanship. With renewable energy outcompeting fossil fuels, Big Oil is worried that its oil well has run dry and wants to keep pumping the American people dry for all that they are worth. So the oil and the gas industry is running its tried and true playbook with Speaker Kevin McCarthy taking the snap as their quarterback. The Republicans all voted against the Inflation Reduction Act. They turned away from its provisions to create a livable future, its millions of new, clean energy jobs, its investments in environmental justice communities. The only thing Republicans haven't turned away is the billions of dollars in new investments unleashed in their States and districts from this landmark legislation, with $150 billion in investments already announced across the country because of the IRA, because of the largest climate bill in American history. I have seen Republicans on TV fearmongering about the Inflation Reduction Act, but I haven't seen a single Republican turn down any of those $150 billion or any of those jobs, or all those benefits for those communities in red States. But the fossil fuel industry itself is actually scared that something might happen to their season of record-shattering profits. They are scared that utilities will finally wake up and realize that installing new renewables is cheaper and more cost effective than running existing coal plants. Natural gas plants are also set up to go the way of the dinosaur. In fact, we won't have to dig up any more dinosaurs in order to create the fuel. Building new solar and wind, instead of new natural gas, could save American energy customers nearly $30 billion on their energy bills. Renewables are outcompeting fossil fuels. The average levelized cost of energy for coal and gas is much higher than wind and solar. How much? Well, coal is nearly double the cost of solar. Natural gas is almost 1.5 times more costly than wind. And this is not accounting for the new IRA subsidies, the new climate bill subsidies from last year. These statistics are the real fear of fossil fuel executives. These clean energy gains threaten Big Oil's massive bonus and even bigger profit margin. Big Oil more than doubled its profits in 2022, making nearly $220 billion in that year alone and paying out $110 billion to their investors. Those are windfalls made on the backs of American family budgets. Republicans say they care about budgets, but the only budget they are committed to protecting is the one of the big oil and big gas industry across our country. That is why attacks on clean energy and climate action are on the Republicans' debt limit and budget agendas. That is why Republicans are attacking tax credits for the American-made clean energy that makes us more secure, saves money, and protects our health and our climate. That is why Republicans are reportedly trying to jam a Big Oil and Natural Gas wish list masquerading as a so-called permitting package through debt limit negotiations, instead of going through regular order on the floor of the United States Senate. The Republican permitting package would give fossil fuels even more of a leg up while their repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act's clean energy provisions would hold our clean energy future hostage. Republicans don't want to use the budget to give students and children a head start. They want to give Big Oil a headstart over clean energy. So just as we cannot default on our national debt, we cannot default on our debt to society. That means we cannot default on climate action for a livable future. Climate should be off the table in debt limit negotiations--no repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act, no provisions to fast-track fossil fuel permitting in our country. We know we need to build a clean energy future, but the Republicans' permitting proposal wouldn't help build on the IRA. It would bury the IRA. The Republicans' permitting priorities are a carbon bomb designed to unleash fossil fuels to push renewable energy off the grid, to stall the progress that was made. Their priorities, apparently, don't include fixes for the electric transmission issues in this country, when transmission is what could improve reliability and deliver affordable energy to all Americans. In other words, they want to have permitting for more oil and gas drilling, but they don't want to fix the transmission issues. None of that is on the table that the Republicans are asking for in order to solve the problem of moving renewable energy across the country. Permitting should be about transmission lines, not pipelines. And combined with their attacks on the Inflation Reduction Act, their priorities will devastate our climate, take away good-paying jobs, and cost Americans billions of dollars. The Inflation Reduction Act is projected to save households more than $1,000 every year by 2030. It is projected to create 550,000 clean energy jobs, and it is projected to give us a fighting chance at meeting our climate targets. We cannot throw that away. We have a climate test for success--jobs, justice, and emissions reductions. That is our climate test. If we negotiate on the Inflation Reduction Act and permitting as part of debt limit conversations, we will fail that climate test, and the end result will be an environmental and climate catastrophe. Climate action and clean energy progress can't be held hostage in this debate. Fast-tracking fossil fuels while attacking renewables is and always has been and always will be the Big Oil game plan. We can't play their game. We can't play with our future. We cannot default on our debt, and we also cannot allow the destructive Republican budget to be implemented. That is why I have joined some of my Democratic colleagues in calling on President Biden to utilize his authority under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which clearly states: The validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned. It is in the U.S. Constitution. Using that authority would allow the President and the United States to continue to pay the country's bills on time and without delay. It will ensure that we prevent a potential global economic catastrophe. But let's not forget that it is the Bush and Trump tax cuts for the wealthy that are the driving force behind the debt that the Republicans are now crying crocodile tears over. Speaker McCarthy says he wants to limit, save, and grow. What he and the Republicans really want to do is to cut, gut, and slow: cut taxes even more for the wealthy and corporations; gut programs like Medicaid, Head Start, Meals on Wheels, Pell grants, and community health centers; and slow the pace of clean energy and climate action--wind, solar, all- electric vehicles, and battery storage technologies that will revolutionize energy consumption in our country--all to protect Big Oil buddies, gas buddies, all across the country. A livable future and affordable clean energy are budget realities. We can save money for American families and save our planet at the same time. The IRA's climate provisions and fossil fuel permitting should be off the table during this negotiation. We cannot allow the well-being of American families or our planet to be held hostage to a radical, rightwing, conservative House of Representatives that is out of control in terms of its relationship with reality. I appreciate the attention of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, the award for excellence in STEM and contributions to the well-being of the U.S. was presented by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman to Aaron Seth Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, at a luncheon for guests of the Center for Excellence in Education. The center celebrated its upcoming 40th anniversary of the organization, started by Admiral H.G. Rickover and Joann DiGennaro in 1982. The celebratory event took place in the U.S. Capitol Kennedy Caucus Room on April 25, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Aaron Kesselheim attended CEE's Research Science Institute in 1991. He is professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and a faculty member in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics in the department of medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital. Dr. Kesselheim developed and leads the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, one of the largest nonindustry funded academic research centers in the country that focuses on pharmaceutical policy and evidence-based use of medicines. Author of over 600 publications in peer-reviewed medical and health policy literatures, Dr. Kesselheim was recognized as one of the top three most cited health law scholars in the U.S. from 2013-2020 in Web of Science, Westlaw, and Google Scholar. Dr. Kesselheim has testified before Congress on pharmaceutical policy, medical device regulation, generic drugs, and modernizing clinical trials. He is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics. In 2020, he was elected to the National Academy of Medicine. Dr. Kesselheim earned his medical degree from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, his law degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and his master's degree from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. He earned an AB degree from Harvard University. The Senator Lieberman Award is given every 2 years on behalf of CEE's Board of Trustees. The Senator was an honorary member of the board of trustees of the center for 17 years and continues to champion the organization's programs in science and technology.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, over the past several weeks, I have heard my colleagues on both sides of the aisle voice concerns about an issue I have been raising for years--protecting children and teens from online dangers. Recently, much of that conversation has focused on the social media app TikTok. I want to be clear. TikTok poses serious and specific privacy problems. We are talking about a company that could expose American users', including young users', personal and sensitive information to the Chinese Government. The intelligence community has raised grave concerns that Beijing could potentially influence millions of American TikTok users with the platform's algorithms, spread malware to our smartphones, force the company to amass troves of data on users, and then demand that the information be handed over to the Chinese Communist Party. In other words, TikTok could collect your personal data without your consent and then target you with information that the Chinese Government wants you to see or potentially, even worse, monitor where you go and what you do. We already know that TikTok is currently on privacy probation with a Federal Trade Commission consent decree. They had to pay a $5 million fine for violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. That is my law. We should listen to those warnings, and we should do our job to legislate and regulate in response to these warnings. I am pleased to hear so much concern for the experiences of our young people online. This is the kind of formidable bipartisan movement to rein in the overreach of Big Tech that we needed in this Chamber 3 months ago when lobbyists flooded to the Capitol to kill my Children and Teens' Online Privacy and Protection Act--COPPA 2.0--to raise protections up to age 16 for young people in our country in terms of the protection of their privacy. Here is the reality: Asserting that TikTok stands alone as the one platform that poses a serious surveillance threat to our Nation's young people is deliberately missing the Big Tech forest for the TikTok trees. It is in this dark, dank forest where even more dangers lurk. TikTok needs to be regulated immediately--we can agree on that--but it is absolutely not the only digital danger kids face today. There is no justification for starting and stopping there, because do you know who else is on privacy probation with the Federal Trade Commission in addition to TikTok? YouTube. Google's video platform also violated my law. The Federal Trade Commission fined it $170 million for invading kids under the age of 12 and their privacy. That is just a slap on the wrist to Google, $170 million. Oh, and Facebook too. The Federal Trade Commission fined Facebook $5 billion for violating users' privacy protections. Remember, TikTok was fined $5 million. Facebook has been fined $5 billion for violating privacy in our country. So, yes, we do have to address the TikTok threat, but what we really need to do is to take on all of Big Tech with a set of commonsense protections to stop the tsunami of privacy invasions kids face today online. America's children and teens are literally dying because of the impacts of social media platforms, and we must save them from drowning. In other words, I agree with my colleagues. Let's make sure kids are protected from Chinese surveillance; but at the end of the day, our moral obligation is to protect our youngest people from an entire industry that poses a direct and existential threat to their generation's well-being. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just announced that 1 in 3 high school girls in the United States of America had seriously considered suicide in the last year--1 in 3 teenage girls seriously considered suicide in the last year. And over half of all teenage girls say that they are ``persistently sad or hopeless.'' Banning TikTok will not solve that problem. At least 1 in 10 girls in the United States attempted suicide in the past year. Can I say that again? At least 1 in 10 girls in the United States attempted suicide last year. Among LGBTQ+ youth, the number was 1 in 5 who attempted suicide in the past year. Banning TikTok will not solve that problem. Thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel even worse. Banning TikTok will not solve that problem. And do you know where that latest statistic comes from? Instagram's parent company, Facebook. Just remember, about 22 million teens log into Instagram each and every day in America. Our children and our teenagers--they are sick, and Big Tech is the parasite preying upon them every single day in our country. These aren't Republican children. These aren't Democratic children. These are America's children. The truth is that a myopic focus on a single app is a major missed opportunity. Why would we act on only one company when we should and can act on all of these companies that are preying upon the children and teenagers in our country as we debate here on the Senate floor? Taking on TikTok alone will not solve the sinister surveillance that kids and teens face online every single day. Here is an example. Let's say Congress does ban TikTok in the United States or, perhaps, the Federal Government simply forces the app's Chinese parent company to sell or to divest. Would that stop China from tracking teens online? No, it wouldn't. We would still have no rules and no laws stopping the Chinese Government from simply buying sensitive information about young users, which data brokers already traffic during their normal course of business in the United States of America, because, right now, a 14- year-old girl with bulimia or anorexia in our country has zero privacy rights online. Are we going to do something about that? Do we want to let that young girl continue to be made vulnerable by unscrupulous American or Chinese companies? If we are going to debate this issue, let's talk about it. Let's get right down to what this whole thing should be about: Big Tech should not control the agenda in terms of our protections for young teenage girls or boys in our Nation. She, that 14-year-old girl, cannot tell Instagram or Snapchat or YouTube: You may not collect, share, or sell my personal information. By the way, her parents can't tell those companies either. Banning TikTok will not change that. Banning TikTok does not stop the Chinese Government or its partners from simply buying the data we are afraid the company will hand over willingly. Is this threat somehow lessened if it is a transaction as opposed to part of a takeover? Of course not. Here is the truth: Right now, an entire generation is growing up with some of the most powerful companies in history that are tracking, targeting, and traumatizing them every single day in our country. Big Tech is knowingly and willfully fueling a youth mental health crisis in our Nation. You don't have to take my word for it. Listen to the President of the United States. Listen to the Surgeon General of the United States. Listen to the American Academy of Pediatrics in our country. Experts all over our Nation are drawing a straight line from Big Tech's business model to the devastating impacts on young Americans' well- being. Do you know what will help solve this problem? Data privacy protections for children and teenagers in our country if we want to really deal with the threat to our Nation when one in three teenage girls considered suicide last year. That is a threat to our Nation. When 1 in 10 teenage girls actually attempted suicide last year, that is a danger to our Nation. A lot of it is as a result of social media. Let's get down to this issue. Let's debate TikTok. Let's debate all of it in terms of threats to our country, because the data these tech companies collect about young users is the raw material--the inputs-- for powerful artificial intelligence systems. These algorithms take information about kids and teens and use it to push toxic content to those young people that they know will grab their attention and keep them scrolling on the app so they can sell more ads and make more money, and banning TikTok will not solve that problem. On the topic of algorithms, if we are worried about the Chinese Government using TikTok's algorithm to influence our elections and our democracy, we should also be worrying about how China uses Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and YouTube, as well, to undermine our democracy. Let's get at this. If we are going to debate all of this, let's put it out here finally. Let's just get Big Tech out of this debate and have 100 Senators talk about the real threats to teenagers and to our democracy. Let's have that debate. We already saw Russia manipulate Facebook in 2016. If we want to protect democracy, let's do it for every single social media platform in our country. Young people are particularly vulnerable to Big Tech's algorithmic practices. That is why, for more than a decade, I have been introducing legislation that would solve that problem. My update to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act for kids under 12 and their parents online would give them a bill of rights for kids 16 and under in our Nation. The parents could just tell those companies: Stop tracking my child. Stop tracking my 14-year-old girl. Stop tracking my 15-year-old girl. If she goes online because she has bulimia or anorexia to get more information, you can't sell that information now to companies so that they can target that girl with more products or information when the parents are only talking to the family's physician. Let's give those families some rights. Let's stand up for those families against these tech companies that are monetizing the mental health of the children in our country. Let's stop those companies from putting profits over people, over teenagers. We came very close to passing key provisions from that legislation at the end of last year. My bill almost made it. Unfortunately, industry lobbyists--they stood in our way. They made it impossible for it to pass, because it destroys their business model of preying upon, making money off of, young people in our Nation. But we just can't be deterred. We have to be more determined than ever to get this done on behalf of the parents, the pediatricians, and young people who are demanding action. I know we can do it, and there are leaders in the House, in the Senate, in both parties, who want to get this done. So, yes, we must be clear-eyed about threats of Chinese surveillance. Yes, we must be clear-eyed about TikTok's national security risks. And, yes, we must be clear-eyed about the unique threats to young people in our country who are on that app. I would urge my colleagues: Lift your gaze. Take off your blinders. Be honest about what legislative proposals to ban TikTok can and cannot accomplish on behalf of our youngest and most vulnerable in our country. Our obligation, in this moment, is to end the sinister surveillance across all of the big tech behemoths that are fueling a youth mental health crisis in this country. TikTok poses a serious and unique problem, but we know the problem is much bigger and much more pernicious than just one single app, as bad as it is. We have a responsibility to take action, and I call on my colleagues to join, in a bipartisan fashion. As we debate TikTok, let's debate all of it. Let's pass the bill that protects the imminent threat to the mental health of the children and teenagers in our country every single day. We want to talk about TikTok and its longer term threats? Let's talk about the threat right now. Let's talk about how young people are being harmed. Let's pass that legislation at the same time. That is going to be my goal as this debate unfolds. It is to have votes on the floor of the Senate on the protection of the children and teenagers in our country from Chinese and American companies that are exploiting them every single day. I close with that number that I started with: One in three teenage girls in the United States contemplated suicide last year. One in 10 teenage girls attempted suicide last year. We all know the role social media is playing in this. This is our moment to take on this entire industry globally to make sure that we protect the most precious resource we have, to protect the future of our country, and that is young people. They may be only 20 percent of our population, but they are 100 percent of our future. And, right now, they are being exploited by a single industry. Let's take on that industry. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I have 14 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in support of the nomination of Judge Margaret Guzman to serve as a U.S. district judge for the District of Massachusetts. Yesterday, the Senate invoked cloture on Judge Guzman's nomination, and in a few minutes, we will vote on her confirmation. Margaret Guzman currently serves as a Massachusetts State district court judge. She is a Massachusetts native and a graduate of Clark University in Worcester and the Boston University School of Law. In addition to Judge Guzman's more than 20 years of service on the Massachusetts State judiciary, her three-decade career in the law includes work as a solo practitioner handling civil cases and a public defender representing indigent criminal offenders. Judge Guzman will therefore bring to the Federal bench not only the knowledge and experience of a State court judge who has presided over more than 1,000 cases in her career that have gone to verdict or judgment but the wisdom of a public defender and solo practitioner, joining together precisely the kind of professional legal diversity that the Biden administration has made a priority and that the Federal judiciary badly needs. But there is more to Margaret Guzman than this impressive legal resume. Her personal story has also shaped her and her outlook from the bench. In 1999, during a challenging time for her family, she became the guardian and custodian to six of her nieces and nephews, then age 3 to 15. During this time, she also took on a caretaker role for her ailing mother. These daunting personal experiences helped Judge Guzman understand and appreciate the difficulties that so many people-- especially those who are involved in the criminal justice system--face in their day-to-day lives. Her lived experience has led her to always show compassion and understanding to her own clients as a practicing attorney and to the litigants who appear before her as a judge and to ensure that those who must navigate our judicial system--especially the indigent and marginalized--are always treated fairly and with dignity and respect. Finally, Judge Guzman will be a trailblazer. When confirmed, she will be the first Latina to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts--a long overdue milestone in a State that has nearly 1 million Latinos who call Massachusetts their home. Out of our 7 million residents, 1 million are Latino. Senator Warren and I are proud to recommend Judge Guzman as a nominee to President Biden and proud to have that nomination before the whole Senate today. Judge Guzman leaves me with no doubt that she will serve the people of Massachusetts with distinction as a Federal district court judge. I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on her confirmation today. Senator Warren and I give you our assurances that she will be a superior district court judge representing our entire country. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, today I recognize Ms. Diane Portnoy, a renowned educator, advocate, author, and CEO and founder of the Immigrant Learning Center in Malden, MA. As the Immigrant Learning Center celebrates its 30th anniversary, I am honored to acknowledge Ms. Portnoy's extraordinary work. As the founder and CEO of the Immigrant Learning Center, a nonprofit organization located in Malden, MA, Ms. Portnoy has spent the last three decades supporting the educational goals of thousands of immigrants from more than 122 countries. Under Ms. Portnoy's leadership, the organization has worked to draw attention to the many plights that immigrants and refugees face and has helped to amplify their voices. Ms. Portnoy's own personal experience as an immigrant inspired her to start the Immigrant Learning Center. She came to the United States as the daughter of Polish Holocaust survivors and witnessed firsthand the many challenges immigrant families face when adjusting to life in the United States. She began her career in education, receiving her bachelor's degree in elementary education from Boston University, followed by a master's degree in curriculum and instruction from Cornell University. Since the founding of the Immigrant Learning Center, local and national groups have recognized Ms. Portnoy as both a leader and advocate for the many immigrants in Massachusetts. Her dedication, passion, and endless resolve has helped shape the Immigrant Learning Center into an organization that provides immigrants and refugees with scholastic resources, ensures that adults have access to free English language classes, disseminates educational information about immigration, and conducts essential research on the contributions of immigrants to the U.S. economy. I am honored to take this opportunity to recognize Ms. Portnoy for her tremendous achievements. She has touched many lives, and her work at the Immigrant Learning Center will continue to have a lasting impact on individuals across Massachusetts and beyond. So, on this 30th anniversary of the Immigrant Learning Center, we thank her for her service to her community, the Commonwealth, and the country.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, 12 years ago, the U.S. Congress was on the precipice of passing historic climate legislation--legislation that may not have been perfect but would have cut carbon pollution by 80 percent by the year 2050, and it would have set us on a path to a healthier, cleaner, safer world. Unfortunately, despite that bill passing through the House of Representatives, a bill which Congressman Henry Waxman and I were able to craft and to move through the House of Representatives, even though the Senate and the Senate Democrats had a supermajority, that legislation was ultimately defeated by the same legislative body, the U.S. Senate, that I serve in today. In 2009, the U.S. Senate chose to do nothing rather than something substantial that would give us a fighting chance against this generational crisis, which is why we have spent the last 12 years in the climate wilderness, with full-blown Republican obstructionism and no meaningful congressional action on climate justice all the while. That wilderness literally burns to the ground because of climate change. In the intervening decade, we have suffered the consequences of climate inaction. Weather that used to be extreme is now the new normal, and that normal is deadly. Our addiction to fossil fuels has put communities at risk--worsening asthma, cancers, and disease in general--and has exposed working people to criminal price gouging from Big Oil and Big Gas. Throughout this summer, the United States has experienced devastating heat waves, putting 100 million Americans under heat warnings across the country. People are dying in Kentucky. Children are dying in Kentucky as a result of the extreme rain and floods--rain that still hasn't stopped. Those are so-called 100-year floods. Well, now they are happening on a weekly basis--in Kentucky. Over and over again, communities throughout the United States are facing deadly wildfires, storms, and droughts, all of which have become more frequent and more severe over the last 12 years. But instead of giving up after that missed opportunity more than a decade ago, we reengaged. We rebuilt and reenergized a stronger, smarter climate movement, one that expanded carbon calculators to include climate justice; one that swapped complicated carbon trading systems for direct funding for environmental justice communities in our country; and one that exchanged an environmental-above-all strategy for a 21st-century contract with communities, with the promise of climate justice, well-paid union jobs, and cuts to climate pollution so all of our children and grandchildren can thrive on a livable planet. So let me be clear. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is not the Green New Deal that America wants and needs. I wish it were. But I have learned a hard truth throughout my years in Congress: Perfect ideas can only live on through imperfect legislation. As the author of both the Green New Deal and the Waxman-Markey climate bill, I know we cannot wait another 12 years for billions of dollars in investment to fight the climate crisis. This is not the bill we wanted. It is not the bill I would have drafted. But we need a package now to fight for and resources to fight with. This bill will not correct every economic injustice in our society or rectify the economic disparities between Big Oil billionaires and working families, but it starts a process that we absolutely need to level the playing field. The Inflation Reduction Act makes sure that every billion-dollar corporation finally pays a higher tax rate than a preschool teacher. Last year, a preschool teacher in Massachusetts paid 8 percent of their average $39,000 salary in Federal taxes. ExxonMobil paid only 2.8 percent of their $9.3 billion U.S. earnings in Federal taxes. Chevron paid a mere 1.8 percent of their $9.5 billion in U.S. earnings in Federal taxes in 2021. A kindergarten teacher in Massachusetts paid 8 percent on $39,000 of income. Who did more for America last year--all of our kindergarten teachers or the executives at ExxonMobil and Chevron? Who contributed more to our society? That is our challenge right now to pass this legislation because the status quo is immoral. It is outrageous. And unless we pass this bill, that disparity is perfectly legal. They can evade their responsibility to contribute to solving the problem which they created: the climate crisis. Right now, they are letting preschool teachers contribute more than they are to a problem that families across our country are suffering from. By passing the Inflation Reduction Act, we can make sure that Big Oil finally pays more in taxes than preschool teachers. We can take that revenue and reinvest it into clean energy and healthier communities. This bill will not give the climate movement the trillions needed to confront the crises of systematic racism, economic inequality, a broken health system, and climate injustice. But thanks to our relentless fighting, this bill contains a historic $60 billion in environmental justice investments. Let me say that again: $60 billion will be in this bill to begin the process of rectifying the problems for Black and Brown and indigenous communities all across our country who have always been the victims of climate change, of environmental injustice. This has never happened before in any bill in U.S. history. It is in this bill, finally. Now, that is the message of the Green New Deal. That was something that was driving FOX News and the oil companies crazy when we said we have to rectify environmental injustice as well as part of the Green New Deal. It is in this bill. It is in this bill, $60 billion. And that will begin to start righting the wrongs brought by polluters in our most vulnerable communities. This could be a downpayment on clean air and safer communities everywhere, not just the suburbs, which have always breathed cleaner air than inner-city communities because they don't plant these oil and gas and other facilities in the suburbs; they put them right next to what they believe are the least powerful communities in our country. We know this bill will not get us to the critical mark of 50 percent emissions reductions, 2005 levels, by 2030, which is the baseline of what we need to meet our 2050 targets. However--however--this package gets us to 40 percent reductions economy-wide, and, more importantly, it puts our economy on an emissions reductions trajectory that positions us to enact more clean energy and climate justice provisions in the future to meet the 50 percent goal. Securing these emissions reductions now is the start which we need, and we need it now. This legislation reflects the largest single investment in climate justice and environmental protection in our Nation's history. And it meets the climate test. First, it reduces emissions, creates good- paying union jobs, and provides funding so that we can begin the long process of repairing historic harms in our environmental justice communities with that $60 billion investment. Second, the bill lowers energy costs for consumers. Price-gouging and tax-dodging big oil companies are charging Americans more than $4 a gallon for gasoline, shaking money out of their pockets at the pumps all across our country. And what we are going to do is just point to the electric vehicle owners who pay an equivalent of 75 cents a gallon right now in our country in order to go the same distance. And we are going to open up this opportunity to tens of millions of additional Americans once we pass it. The Inflation Reduction Act provides tax credits to low- and middle- income Americans so they can buy a new or a used EV, break their addiction to Big Oil, and save money on their daily commutes. And, finally, the Inflation Reduction Act will make sure we make things in America again. The domestic manufacturing tax credits in this bill for the first time ensure that we will build electric vehicles, solar panels, wind turbines here in our own backyard, in the United States. American-made infrastructure means good-paying union jobs. And a new study released today shows that this bill will create--get ready--9 million new jobs in our country. That is what we are talking about. That is what we will be debating on the floor of the U.S. Senate over the next several days. And I am especially proud of a provision I authored with Senator Chris Van Hollen and Congresswoman Debbie Dingell that would fund a national climate bank to ensure vulnerable American communities will have access to capital to invest in local clean energy projects and fuel a new generation of entrepreneurs from disadvantaged backgrounds. How big is this program? Twenty-seven billion dollars and a climate bank that communities across the country can apply to at the lowest possible interest rates for their greening of their housing units, the greening of any other part of their community. And what McKinsey has estimated is that for every dollar that is in the bank, $27 billion, it will unleash $7 to $10 of private sector investment--meaning we are looking at $200 to $300 billion that are going to get unleashed just in this section in that one program. And critical Defense Production Act funding will ensure that we have robust domestic supply chains to install heat pumps in American buildings and responsibly source critical minerals for clean energy technologies made in America. We have to break this whole addiction that we have not only to foreign oil coming into our country but also being dependent upon other countries for the clean energy technologies. We are going to do it here. That is what this bill says. We are going to tell people we don't need your oil any more than we need your sand. We are going to do it right here. We are going to build the technologies right here in our country. So my time in Congress has taught me this: We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Ending up with nothing might be a viable political option, but it is not a viable planetary option. This is a good bill with broad-based appeal that lowers costs for consumers, fights inflation with deficit reduction, protects our environment with critical justice investments, and provides affordable healthcare access to all Americans. In 2009, zero was an option, which this Senate took. Zero is not an option we can take. We must pass this legislation. And we will begin a pathway for generations to come that says: We understood your anger. We understood why you as a younger generation believe that the system had failed you and that it had not provided the solutions which you deserve. So let's pass this bill and keep fighting the cities and States and in the White House and in Congress so that we can finish the job in the years ahead, meet our climate targets, and finally pass the Green New Deal that our country deserves. This is our moment. And the beauty of it is that there is a poetic justice in it. And it is that Chevron only paid 2.8 percent on their profits last year. ExxonMobil only paid 3 percent on their profits last year. They are the ones who are going to pay for the solutions to the problems which they created. They are going to be the source of the funding because we are going to force them to finally pay their taxes, to pay their fair share of the dues to live in this great country. That moment of justice is arriving. And it is justice. They are the ones who should be paying for this. They are the ones who have a moral, political, and economic responsibility to pay for this bill. And they right now are screaming; they are absolutely angry that we are going to take this action. But I will tell you this. We are going to be forced to do it with no Republican support because the GOP now stands for ``Gas and Oil Party.'' It now stands for ``Gang of Polluters.'' That is the GOP of today. And they are going to say: Oh, my goodness, look at all the socialism that is going into this package for wind and solar and all-electric vehicles and batteries. And you know what this young generation's response is? What do you call tax breaks for oil, gas, and coal for 100 years? If that is not socialism, what is? And all we are looking for is fair treatment for the renewable energy revolution because once we give them the same kinds of incentives, get out of the way because we are going to have that revolution that young people in our country have wanted for so long. So it is all on us, the Democrats. It is our moment to deliver for the American people and guarantee the resources we need to keep fighting for the future we deserve. And, by the way, after we have created those 9 million new jobs, that is forever going to be a new political constituency in our country. They are going to be saying to Senators who are going to vote no today: What are you doing? You are voting against my new job that has been created? And so this is just the beginning. And we are going to telescope the timeframe ultimately in order to finish the job. Yes, we are now in a sprint to solve the problem because every night on every TV station, the lead stories are: floods and fires and every other imaginable consequence of climate change. And it is time, the moment has arrived, and the U.S. Senate, with only Democratic support, is ready to take the action that the younger generation in our country has been ready for. I thank you for giving me the opportunity of being here. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, an illegitimate, stolen, and radicalized U.S. Supreme Court is putting the fundamental rights of Americans in jeopardy. Last month, the extremist Court took away the right to abortion, a right on which millions of Americans have relied for almost 50 years, undermining their health, their safety, their freedom. The rightwing majority that overturned Roe v. Wade owns its control of the High Court to then-Leader McConnell's and Donald Trump's and Senate Republicans' theft of two seats on the Supreme Court. The Justices used their ill-gotten power to cast aside decades of precedent--precedent, which during their confirmation hearings they promised to honor, respect, and follow. If anyone thinks this newly empowered Court's decision to strip Americans of a longstanding constitutional right won't be shamelessly repeated, they are wrong. What the Supreme Court just did with Roe is a preview of coming atrocities from this Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the decision overturning Roe v. Wade. And that concurrence is like a movie trailer for an upcoming horror film that Americans are forced to watch written, produced, and directed by a captured illegitimate Supreme Court. In his opinion, Justice Thomas made clear that he believes Americans have too many privacy rights under the U.S. Constitution, that the Supreme Court had erred in recognizing those rights, and that the Court should take them away as well--just as it did with the right to abortion. This bears repeating. A sitting Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States is arguing that Americans have too many rights. What mistakes was Justice Thomas talking about? Well, Justice Thomas urged the Court to correct the error the Court committed when it recognized this right to same-sex marriage in its 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. He told the Court to fix the mistake it made when it recognized the right of Americans to engage in private, consensual sexual activity in its 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Then he said the Court got it wrong when it recognized the right of Americans to use contraception in its 1965 decision in Griswold v. Connecticut. But it is Justice Thomas who is in error, who is wrong, who has made a mistake. These are all fundamental, privacy-based rights which the Supreme Court correctly recognized. They should all remain the law of the land. Today, I want to talk about the right to contraception that this extremist and out-of-touch Supreme Court and legislators in red States are taking aim at. The Supreme Court has recognized the constitutional right to contraception for more than half a century, since its decision in the Griswold case in 1965. Over time, the Court has affirmed and expanded that right: in its 1972 decision, a Massachusetts case, Eisenstadt v. Baird, recognizing the right of all people to access contraceptives regardless of marital status; and in its 1977 decision in Carey v. Population Services International, which held that a State could not constitutionally prohibit the distribution of contraceptives to minors. The right to contraception is therefore a fundamental right that the Court has repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed. It is a right that is central to a person's health, to their well-being, to their life, liberty, equality, and economic and social freedom in our country. It is a right grounded in the need and ability to make decisions about one's own body, one's own family, and one's own future. It is a right that is woven into the fabric of a free, pluralistic, and modern society. And it is a right that we must codify and make part of our law so that far-right, extremist judges and elected officials cannot take it away in order to advance their own blatantly political agendas. That is why I have proudly introduced the Right to Contraception Act with my colleagues Senators Mazie Hirono and Tammy Duckworth, with Senator Blumenthal and Chair Patty Murray of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and have been joined by more than half of the Democratic Senate caucus. The Right to Contraception Act would codify the Supreme Court's decision in Griswold, recognizing the right to obtain and use contraception. The Right to Contraception Act would enshrine that right in Federal law, and it would guarantee a healthcare provider's right to prescribe contraceptive products and services and information related to them. The bill would also protect a range of contraceptives that are legally marketed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Right to Contraception Act would authorize the U.S. Attorney General, as well as individuals and healthcare providers harmed by unlawful restrictions, to go to court to enforce the rights the bill establishes. In short, the Right to Contraception Act would safeguard the rights established by more than 50 years of Supreme Court precedent and would protect access to contraception even if Griswold were overturned. The concerns that have led to the introduction of this bill are not merely hypothetical. Justice Thomas's concurring opinion was a call to action that some Republicans and red States are eagerly heeding by continuing to attack and restrict the right to contraception. Several States have already gone after access to contraception by cutting off the public funding for it, by seeking to define abortion broadly enough to include contraception, and by allowing healthcare providers to refuse to provide services related to contraception based on their own personal beliefs. And the harms that would flow from abolishing the right to contraception aren't merely theoretical. Attacks on healthcare, especially reproductive healthcare, fall hardest on historically marginalized communities, including Black, indigenous, and other people of color, LGBTQ people, people with disabilities, people with low incomes, those living in rural and underserved areas, and immigrants. Last week, we all on our side proudly watched the House pass its version of the Right to Contraception Act by a vote of 220 to 195, though it is dismaying that only 8 House Republicans--only 8--voted to codify that right. With the right to abortion stolen, the right to contraception threatened, and the need to protect and expand access to contraceptive methods and information on contraception, it makes it more imperative than ever that we pass this legislation. We can't wait for the next hammer to drop. We have an urgent obligation to take the first exit off this slippery slope that leads to the loss of our most personal freedoms--chief amongst them: the right of all Americans to make their own decisions about their bodies, their families, and their own futures. We can't sit idly by and watch as decades of precedent, privacy rights, and progress are violated. We can't wait for the worst to come--because it is already at our doorstep. To my anti-choice Republican colleagues, if you would deprive Americans of the choice to end a pregnancy, how can you also deprive them of the ability to prevent a pregnancy in the first place? Unless your ultimate aim is, really, to exert control over the bodies of others, especially the bodies of women, then I expect to hear no objection to the unanimous consent request to pass the Right to Contraception Act. Otherwise, the Republican position will be clear to everyone: no abortion but no birth control to prevent the need for one. That is where the Republican Party is today. I urge my Republican colleagues not to object to our unanimous consent request. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 4612 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I thank the Senator from Iowa, but her bill would not ensure access to birth control, and it fails to codify the constitutional right to birth control across the United States. In fact, her bill would actually restrict access to birth control for individuals under the age of 18--requiring a prescription even if the Food and Drug Administration has approved an over-the-counter option. And we cannot lose sight of the fact that this bill does nothing to address the reality that, for many women, true access means being able to afford birth control as well. Last month, I cosponsored a bill that would guarantee that insurers fully cover over-the-counter birth control without any out-of-pocket costs. No one should have to jump through ridiculous hoops or pay extra just to get the birth control they need, not to mention that this bill would do nothing to prevent States from restricting or even banning access to birth control. The reality that Republicans refuse to acknowledge is that an over- the-counter option doesn't help patients if their States are chipping away at their right to birth control. So, with the Senator from Iowa's objection to my unanimous consent request and with her counter unanimous consent request, the Republicans have made their position crystal clear: no abortion but no birth control to prevent the need for one. Republicans have just shown the American people where they stand on their right to contraception. While Republicans won't protect our fundamental rights as the Supreme Court and rightwing State legislatures take them away, my Democratic colleagues and I will continue our efforts to keep in place the fundamental, privacy-based rights that Americans have had for decades and codify into Federal law the right to contraception. As a result and for those reasons, I object.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, on Monday, these Chambers will be empty, but our hearts will be full because we will be joining the American people in commemorating a historic moment in our Nation's story-- Juneteenth, the formal end of slavery in the United States. One year ago today, we stood together, across party lines, to pass this legislation to memorialize this important day as a Federal holiday. Though we celebrate this anniversary today, on Monday, communities across our Nation have been marking Juneteenth for more than 150 years. The celebration of Juneteenth dates back to June 19, 1865, when Union soldiers led by Major General Gordon Granger traveled to Galveston, TX, with the announcement that the Civil War had ended and that the enslaved were now free. This was 2\1/2\ years after the date of President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Either the news of Lincoln's order had not reached many, including those in Texas, or local officials refused to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. Decades later, I introduced, along with my partners in service, Senators Cory Booker and Tina Smith and Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act to honor the day that these Americans took their first steps into freedom and finally made Juneteenth a Federal holiday. On June 17, 2021, I was honored to stand with Vice President Kamala Harris, Senator Smith, Representative Jackson Lee, Senator Cornyn, Senator Warnock, and Ms. Opal Lee, while President Biden signed the National Juneteenth Independence Day Act into law. And why do I mention Ms. Opal Lee? Well, because she is the grandmother of the Juneteenth movement, who fought for years to make Juneteenth a Federal holiday, from Fort Worth, TX, an activist, an educator, who walked 2\1/2\ miles every day, fighting for the United States to finally have Juneteenth a Federal holiday. And at the age of 94, she saw that become a reality in the White House. And in doing so, Juneteenth finally took its rightful place amongst other Federal holidays so that all Americans in all States can celebrate Juneteenth just like they celebrate Memorial Day. The same way they celebrate Martin Luther King Day, they now celebrate Juneteenth. Juneteenth is a holiday that requires us to remember, reflect, and recommit to the principles that undergird our Nation, liberty and justice for all, but that we have never fully embodied. We continue to strive to live up to these principles today. Systemic discrimination and mistreatment of Black and Brown Americans still permeates our society--from our criminal justice system to our schools, to our healthcare systems, that is why it is so important that we can learn from our past and honor the heroes in our history who have bent the moral arc of our Nation toward justice. We face a long road toward justice and equality in the United States, and for us to move forward, that path must be lit with the recognition of our Nation's history. Juneteenth is our Nation's history. Disparities and injustices reflect the unfulfilled promise of a nation built upon the notion that all people are created equal. And it has roots in our Nation's original sin--slavery--a crime against humanity that we have for far too long failed to fully acknowledge or to address. In commemorating Juneteenth as a Federal holiday, we will not fulfill our obligation to right all these wrongs or fix what remains broken, but it is the truth of our history. We must read these missing chapters to understand our national story of freedom and independence. And right now, in red States across the country, extremists don't want us to learn from our own history. They are burning books and threatening schoolteachers in an attempt to stop our young people from understanding our Nation's past and how it sheds light on our present. These extremists are afraid that learning about our Nation's history, including many dark chapters as well as the many triumphs, is a threat. And instead of empowering our children to learn from their example, they wish to silence the stories of the brave women and men who have fought for racial equality, and those who continue to fight today follow in that tradition. Critics say that this discourse will divide us, but that couldn't be less true. More than 150 years since the freeing of the last slaves in America, our Nation stands at a crossroads on our path to racial justice and equality. We must recognize our wrongs, acknowledge the pain, acknowledge the suffering of generations of slaves and their descendants, and understand the structures of inequity that continue to oppress communities of color and, importantly, learn how the freedom fighters of yesterday and today embody the truest values of our Nation. We have them to thank for our march toward a more perfect Union, but there is more work to be done. As Ms. Opal Lee said when talking about Juneteenth as a unifier, ``I truly believe that we can do so much more together rather than apart.'' Together, thanks to the work of this Chamber and so many Americans across our Nation who have fought to tell the full story of our past, Americans will commemorate Juneteenth on Monday. In doing so, we will join with one another in honoring our past and recommitting to the work which lies ahead. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 925, Alan M. Leventhal to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of Denmark; that there be 10 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form on the nomination; and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I just want to say that I appreciate the position of the Senator from Mississippi, but I will say this on behalf of Alan Leventhal: He is a favorite son of Massachusetts. He has left an indelible mark on our community, on the surrounding community, and he has done just incredible work in his life. He is in a senior position at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has worked to train the next generation of innovators and leaders. He has received broad accolades for his transformational work as chairman of the board of trustees at Boston University. In every professional, philanthropic, and personal endeavor, no matter how big or challenging, Alan has embodied excellence. The men and women of our Foreign Service and locally employed staff in Copenhagen will have an exceptional advocate and an accomplished manager and Ambassador, and our strong ally Denmark will get a committed partner with a direct line back to Washington to further strengthen our bilateral relationship. This is critical, as we rely on Denmark--a key member of NATO and of the European Union--to sustain its leadership role in defense of Ukraine in the wake of Russia's invasion. So I think it would be invaluable to have him on duty right now, especially at this critical time in European history. I understand the objection of the Senator from Mississippi, and I look forward to working with him and other Senators in order to find a route to removing the objection to this extremely qualified candidate as Ambassador to Denmark. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 6 p.m. today, the Senate vote on confirmation of the Lindenbaum nomination and the cloture motions on the Padin, Sweeney, and Morrison nominations; and that if cloture is invoked on any of those nominations, all postcloture time be considered expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nominations at a time to be determined by the majority leader or his designee, following consultation with the Republican leader.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, what is the current threat of nuclear annihilation? The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' Doomsday Clock measures how close humanity and the planet is to destruction. The answer is: 100 seconds. That is tied for the closest we have ever been to planetary ruin since the clock started in 1947. Recent nuclear events are likely to turn the dial even further. The size, diversity, and lethality of North Korea's weapons continue to grow, as does its threat to our allies in the region. North Korea's Kim Jong Un has fired more than a dozen missiles this year. Preparations are being made for another nuclear test. Iran is just weeks away from acquiring a nuclear weapon, the tragic consequence of Donald Trump blowing up the Iran nuclear deal that President Biden is now trying to stitch back together. In Xinjiang, the same province where China has constructed forced labor camps, more than 100 domes, likely housing missile silos, dot the landscape. The Pentagon says these sites are part of the evidence behind China's quest to double its nuclear forces in the next 5 years. Belarus's authoritarian leader Lukashenka has made a deal with the devil, Vladimir Putin, to stay in power. Part of the price for Putin's lifeline was a demand that Lukashenka amend the Belarus Constitution to allow for the placement of Russian nuclear weapons on its territory, further taunting Ukraine and all of Europe with existential ruin. European leaders are readying the distribution of iodine tablets in the event of mushroom cloud drifts overhead. The continent's residents are building fallout shelters right now. It should come as no surprise then that in a recent poll, 70 percent of Americans said they fear that Putin will use nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine. These global fears are well-founded. We fought over the course of decades to make nuclear weapons taboo, but they are making a big comeback. In January, the five nuclear weapons States of the Nonproliferation Treaty affirmed that ``a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought.'' But actions speak louder than words, and the actions of Russia in Ukraine, the hundreds of missile silos taking form in China, and the $51 billion the United States is set to spend on nuclear weapons this year alone tell us that nuclear weapons are still very much in vogue. The Doomsday Clock was created at the start of the nuclear age, and in the past 75 years, the minute hand has fluctuated. It has inched closer to midnight with the Soviet Union's first nuclear weapons test, India's ``Smiling Buddha'' test, and more recently, President Trump's threats of ``fire and fury'' against Kim Jong Un. When the destructive power of nuclear weapons has been curbed, the clock has receded from midnight. Kennedy and Khrushchev answered the Cuban Missile Crisis by banning atmospheric and undersea nuclear tests; Bush and Gorbachev retired thousands of nuclear weapons made obsolete by the fall of the Iron Curtain; and Obama locked down nuclear material around the globe, keeping it out of the hands of terrorists. I fear that we are seeing echoes of the darkest days of the Cold War--a time marked by fear and distrust of an adversary's true intentions; a time when the gold-plated defense establishment plowed ahead with new capabilities without any consideration of how proliferation begets proliferation; a time when the myth of a ``bomber and missile gap'' with the former Soviet Union spurred an arms race that brought us to the brink. Thankfully, President Biden has taken some steps to crank the minute hand back from midnight. While Trump was intent on dissolving the New START treaty with Russia, President Biden saved it in his first days in office. The treaty's value, especially in the context of Russia's war in Ukraine, cannot be overstated. The treaty puts our eyes on Russia's strategic forces so we can be confident in distinguishing between Putin's nuclear bluster and actions that should legitimately raise the alarm. But the New START treaty is not enough. Putin's provocations about nuclear escalation, coupled with his brandishing of battlefield nuclear weapons, highlight our need to negotiate new systems into a future treaty or agreement with Russia. Putin's invasion of Ukraine threw a wrench into progress in the U.S.-Russia strategic dialogue, but when the moment arrives, we need to restart these discussions, and we need to be bold. The use of nuclear weapons as coercive tools means it is essential that we do not welcome any new members to the nuclear weapons club. President Trump failed us by creating a minefield of obstacles against cleanly reentering the Iran nuclear deal, but President Biden knows that the alternative to reentry is far worse: We will see more enrichment, more proxy attacks, and risk a direct war with Iran versus the United States. We must also hold our partners to the same verification standard as we hold Iran. Saudi Arabia must come clean about its illicit nuclear and missile cooperation with China. We should insist that Saudi Arabia adopt the Additional Protocol to its International Atomic Energy Agency Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement so that we can be sure that any future nuclear program turns out peaceful megawatts, not megatons; so that it is an electricity program and not a nuclear weapons program. Kim Jong Un's recent missile launches show that we ignore the North Korean leader at our own risk. In consultation with our allies, we need to break the endless cycle we have seen: a provocation from the North, followed by sanctions, then another provocation, sparking a fresh round of sanctions. Our policy is stuck in an endless loop of nuclear Groundhog Day. It is time to concede that a leader like Kim Jong Un, who is willing to divert resources away from his starving people in order to strengthen his weapons of mass destruction program, cannot be coerced to disarm by piling on sanctions alone. While the denuclearization of North Korea is a worthy long-term goal, we have to humble ourselves to pursue the art of the possible--incremental steps that reduce the threat of war on the Korean Peninsula. In facing all of these challenges, we cannot continue to preach temperance from a barstool. As the leader of the only country to have used nuclear weapons in a conflict, we can't afford to take a back seat when it comes to reducing nuclear risks. The President must use his position to send the message that responsible nuclear weapons powers don't roll out new weapons systems in military parades; they sit down in good-faith negotiations to reduce the sizes and uses of their nuclear deterrents--and that must include China. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has set back the nonproliferation regime, but it also creates an opportunity for President Biden to challenge China's Xi to join him in reassuring a rattled world that firing on nuclear reactors is off limits, that threatening countries with existential weapons is unacceptable, and to show the world that the inevitability of a ``Sputnik moment'' with China does not have to come to pass. Our two countries may disagree on a lot, but we can embrace the organizing principle that the only way to win an arms race is not to run in one. For instance, we are concerned about China's development of maneuverable hypersonic systems and its plans to expand its ICBM force, but Pentagon leaders admit that Beijing's concerns about advances in U.S. missile defenses are partly the impetus for that buildup. We are concerned that China may be drifting away from its no-first-use doctrine, but both the United States and Russia explicitly allow for the use of nuclear weapons in response to a nonnuclear attack. We fear that China may use new civilian nuclear reactors to churn out massive amounts of separated plutonium for bombs, but other countries in the region also have the capacity to divert fissile material from a peaceful to a nonpeaceful program. If President Biden can get Xi to the negotiating table, we have a chance to shape an alternative future to the inevitable doom that the Pentagon has previewed--one that does not see the United States and China joining Russia in pursuit of new innovative, more lethal ways to kill one another; one that instead negotiates near-term confidence- building measures to reduce nuclear risks with China and that can ultimately lead to the conclusion of formal arms control agreements between our countries. The United States cannot do it alone, but we can break the cycle of nuclear escalation and secure a future wherein the fate of millions no longer hangs on the whims and judgments of fallible leaders or the military- industrial complex. We need President Biden to outline that bold action plan that draws inspiration from our better angels, not from the unhinged policies of nuclear weapons overkill that Stanley Kubrick lampooned in ``Dr. Strangelove.'' In my book ``Nuclear Peril: The Politics of Proliferation,'' written in 1983, I wrote: Nuclear proliferation is a problem too long ignored. Now, before it is too late, the public must draw the line. The stakes are too high. The public clearly understands that the stakes for our planet have never been higher, but it is not too late, not yet. Once the clock hits midnight, though, our time is up. It is time for action, not rhetoric. This issue is one that can no longer be ignored. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, in the aftermath of last week's leak of the draft Supreme Court opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, we are facing one of the lowest moments in history for our Nation's highest Court. An illegitimate, far-right majority on the Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and take away a fundamental constitutional right that has been the law of the land for almost 50 years--the right to a legal, safe abortion. Every American deserves the right to make their own decisions about their own bodies. While the leaked opinion may only be a draft, we cannot ignore the profound threat it poses. That is because the opinion is the outrageous culmination of a rightwing campaign to take over the Court and take America back to the days when far too many faced not only a loss of liberty but a loss of life when seeking abortion care. It validates the theft of two Supreme Court seats by President Trump, then-Leader McConnell, and Senate Republicans. It confirms that conservative Justices lied to the Congress and the American people about their commitment to the Court's precedent and the rule of law. Overturning Roe v. Wade will undermine the health, safety, and freedom of millions of Americans, and it will create horrific pain and hardship for people all across the Nation, especially those without the means or resources to travel to States where abortion will remain safe and legal. Already, for pregnant Americans in red States across the country, access to abortion is functionally denied because of a lack of funds, geography, immigration status, and other barriers. This war on people of color and the poor is already being waged, and we cannot let the Supreme Court provide deadlier weapons. If the extremist rightwing of the Court is willing to abandon something as fundamental as the right to privacy and the right for Americans to make decisions about their own bodies, then we are on a slippery slope to the undoing of other fundamental rights the Court has recognized as being grounded in the right to privacy, including the right to use contraception or the right to marry whomever you love. But this was the goal of the Republicans and the rightwing all along: steal the Supreme Court seats, steal an election, and steal the rights of Americans. This is the direct consequence of an anti-majoritarian and anti- democratic national electoral system that allowed two Presidents, who both lost the popular vote, to nominate more than half of the current Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court and allowed them to be confirmed by Senators representing a minority of the Nation's population. This is the racist, misogynistic, xenophobic manifestation of a radical rightwing, extremist vision of America that is out of step with the vast majority of Americans. In fact, by a 2-to-1 margin, Americans say Roe v. Wade should be upheld. This egregious and overtly political act cannot be allowed to go unanswered. Faith in our judicial system is in jeopardy, so we are left with no other choice. We have to immediately pass Federal legislation that protects millions of Americans' right to choose, that lifts dangerous and discriminatory bans on abortion, and that removes unnecessary limits on reproductive freedom. The Women's Health Protection Act will do all of that by codifying Roe so as to affirm it as the law of the land. The Women's Health Protection Act enshrines in Federal law a healthcare provider's right to provide abortion services and a patient's right to receive them. Among its provisions, the bill would prohibit previability bans designed to undercut the right to an abortion, like the 15-week ban imposed by the Mississippi law at issue in Dobbs or specious ``heartbeat'' bans like the one imposed by Texas's SB 8. The Women's Health Protection Act would prohibit bans that do not make exceptions for the patient's health or life. I am appalled that any Member of Congress could consider themselves in support of women but then support a ban that explicitly devalues life. This bill would also ban so-called TRAP laws--the targeted regulation of abortion providers--that impose onerous and unwarranted requirements on facilities and providers who do nothing to promote health but, rather, make it nearly impossible for healthcare providers to keep their doors open. The bill would also prohibit requirements that providers share medically inaccurate information and impose medically unnecessary and manipulative tests and procedures like mandatory ultrasounds. It would prohibit limitations that prevent providers from caring for patients by telemedicine--a service that we have all learned to have been invaluable over the course of the pandemic and one that is all the more necessary for abortion care given the already draconian laws in some red States across the country. It would bar other unjustified, onerous, and discriminatory practices intended to place obstacles in the path of those seeking abortion services. In short, the Women's Health Protection Act will safeguard the rights established by 50 years of Supreme Court precedent and would protect abortion access even if Roe is overturned. This bill is all that is standing between the America we have known for decades and one that plunges millions of people back in time--into despair, pain, poverty, and forced parenthood. If we fail to act, we know Republicans will. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, 28 States are poised to ban abortion outright. Of those, 13 States already have trigger bans in place--activating laws that would ban abortion automatically when Roe is overturned. These bans and attacks fall hardest on those most marginalized, including people of color, LGBTQ people, people with low incomes, and those in rural communities. Many of these States would criminalize abortion. Those seeking abortions and those performing them would face the prospect of prison. It is not just at the State level. The Republican leader in the Senate has said the quiet part out loud: If Republicans gain control of the Senate, they could consider Federal legislation that bans abortion as passing on the floor of this Senate. We can't sit idly by and wait for the worst to happen. It is already at our doorstep. We must make the right to safe and secure reproductive health and freedom the law of the land. We must do it now. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion to instruct from Senator Barrasso. If we want to talk solutions to the energy price crisis, if we want to talk solutions to the climate crisis, we have bills to do that. Our Federal oil and gas leasing programs include critical State and public involvement that this amendment is attempting to undercut and sabotage and to try to weaponize this bill in order to have the hope of prompting yet another giveaway for oil and gas companies, which is not going to do a thing to help the American people or the American economy. Oil and gas companies already have more than 1,500 offshore leases that they are not currently using, encompassing a swath of ocean larger than the entire State of Maryland. The top 25 oil and gas companies posted $237 billion in record profits last year, which they should be using, if they want, to drill there, but they are not doing it. So we need to focus on delivering clean energy, efficient solutions to communities, not undercutting Federal processes and giving more handouts to Big Oil. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Vote on Motion

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. When confirmed, Judge Jackson, who currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, will take the seat on the Supreme Court that Justice Stephen Breyer has held for almost three decades, so I would like to first offer a few words about Justice Breyer as he prepares to step down from the Bench. Justice Breyer has served the Court and the Nation with grace, expertise, humility, brilliance, and an unwavering dedication to justice. He has worked tirelessly to build consensus among his colleagues, and he has always kept in mind the real-world impacts of the Court's decisions on the American people. Justice Breyer knew that ``justice for some'' was a failure of the Court. From his opinions on voting rights to reproductive rights, to the Affordable Care Act, he has been a key voice in many historic decisions that have affected so many Americans. We owe him a great debt of gratitude. And I am honored and privileged to call Justice Breyer a dear friend, and I wish him the best in his retirement. Now, in looking for Justice Breyer's successor, President Biden said that he wanted to nominate a ``persuasive'' Justice, someone in the mold of Justice Breyer, and with Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Biden has found that person. I am confident that Judge Jackson--who clerked for Justice Breyer on the Supreme Court--will follow in his footsteps as a Justice who will make a lasting contribution on the Court through her pragmatism, evenhandedness, and deep understanding of the Constitution and the impact that the Court's decisions have on all Americans. And as the first African-American woman Justice on the Bench, Judge Jackson's historic nomination is an important and long overdue step toward making the Supreme Court better reflect the Nation whose people the Court serves. Fifty-four years ago yesterday, our Nation, our world, lost the guiding light of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to assassination. That loss was incalculable. We can only imagine the society we would live in if Dr. King were still with us, preaching, marching, teaching, and I have no doubt that Dr. King would be on the steps of the Capitol as the loudest and proudest voice in support of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be our next Supreme Court Justice and the first Black woman to serve on our highest Court. He would know that with the appointment and confirmation of Judge Jackson, we would take the long overdue step to make the Nation's top Court look more like and better represent all of the American people. The legacy of the more just, more equal society that Dr. King pushed us to create is alive and it is well in this confirmation and on the floor and hearing rooms of the U.S. Senate this week. The Judiciary Committee held 4 days of hearings on Judge Jackson's nomination, including 2 days of testimony from the judge herself. As we all saw, some of the questioning of Judge Jackson from some of my Republican colleagues was nothing short of offensive, distorting her record, and tinged with racism and sexism. But Judge Jackson responded with poise. She responded with brilliance. She calmly addressed and corrected her questioners' false and misleading premises. And she did so while demonstrating deep knowledge of the law and the Constitution, respect for precedents, and displaying precisely the kind of temperament we expect of someone sitting on the Nation's highest Court. The hearings showed the Nation that Judge Jackson possesses all of the essential qualities of a jurist committed to the words engraved above the entrance to the Supreme Court itself ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Of course, to anyone who knew Judge Jackson before her introduction to the Nation as a Supreme Court nominee, none of this was surprising. Judge Jackson's qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court are second to none. She holds broad experience across the legal profession--as a Supreme Court clerk, as a Federal public defender, as an attorney in private practice, and as a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, as a Federal district court judge, and as a Federal appellate judge. It was, therefore, surprising to no one that she earned a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. Let me speak for a moment about one aspect of Judge Jackson's background that stands out, and that is her experience as a public defender. When confirmed, Judge Jackson will become the first-ever Justice with background as a public defender and the first Justice with significant criminal defense experience since the service of Justice Thurgood Marshall, who retired in 1991. That work as a Federal public defender has unjustly come under attack from my colleagues across the aisle who suggest that being a public defender means that she is soft on crime. But my Republican colleagues--who far too often focus singularly on the constitutional right to bear arms--would do well to remember that among the Constitution's other enshrined rights is the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases. Without that right, criminal defendants who cannot afford an attorney would find it difficult or impossible to navigate the Court system with their rights protected, including the fundamental right to a speedy and fair trial. My Republican friends may also want to consider that Judge Jackson comes from a law enforcement family, with a brother and uncle serving as police officers, and that she has won the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Nation's largest police union. Now, let me remind my colleagues that public defenders do not select their client. They take on every assigned case because they are committed to preserving and defending constitutional rights for everyone. As a Federal public defender, Judge Jackson represented the most vulnerable among us. She represented the clients other lawyers avoided, and in doing so, she followed a long and honorable tradition in the American legal profession that began with John Adams stepping forward in 1770 to represent the British soldiers who committed the Boston Massacre because he feared that they would not receive a fair trial without adequate representation. By confirming Judge Jackson, we will affirm that the rights of those who cannot afford a lawyer are just as important as the rights of those who can pay lawyers charging $1,000 an hour; that the rights of the indigent and powerless are just as important as those of the rich and the powerful. Public defenders also experience firsthand and, therefore, understand better than other lawyers just how our justice system treats the accused, how it treats people of color, how it treats low-income people. Every day, public defenders see the systemic biases and prejudices that permeate our criminal justice system. At a time when the United States holds more people behind bars than any other Nation on Earth--including authoritarian regimes like North Korea and China--the highest Court in the land would greatly benefit from a Justice with a public defender background. Public defenders serve as a unique bulwark of liberty and racial justice. So we should welcome a public defender on the Supreme Court, especially one as well qualified as Judge Jackson. Her singular perspective and voice are sorely needed. Judge Jackson's service as a trial judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is also of particular note in this nomination. Only one of the current Supreme Court Justices--Justice Sotomayor--has ever served on a trial court. And as a trial court judge, Judge Jackson worked to ensure the parties before her understood her approach to deciding cases. Judge Jackson has explained that, as a trial judge, she emphasized speaking directly to the individuals who appeared before her, not just to their lawyers. She used the parties' names and treated them with respect. She sought to ensure that those whom her rulings would directly impact clearly understood the proceedings in which they were involved, what was happening, and why it was happening. This approach speaks to a judge who understands the importance of accessibility to the law, to a judicial process that isn't shrouded in mystery, and to a system that fulfills its promise of equal justice under the law to everyone. We will be fortunate to have such a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. I have had the opportunity to meet with Judge Jackson one-on-one. I came away deeply impressed and convinced that President Biden has made a great choice. The Senate has already confirmed Judge Jackson three times on a bipartisan basis--most recently in June of 2021, when she was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit. The Senate should again confirm her with bipartisan support. And when Judge Jackson is confirmed and becomes Justice Jackson, the first African-American woman ever to take a seat on the High Court, she will be an inspiration to so many across our country and around the globe. She will especially be a role model for young Black girls everywhere, showing them that in the United States of America, nothing is beyond their reach. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once said: Sometimes history takes things into its own hands. History says it is time for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, and I am honored to help her and the Court and our country make history with her confirmation. I urge all of my colleagues to vote to confirm Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I have eight requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until 3 p.m., Monday, April 4; and that following the prayer and the pledge, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand in recess under the previous order.