Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, schools, libraries, healthcare providers, and other community anchor institutions need high-capacity broadband for distance learning, access to information, and telemedicine, but too often, anchor institutions' need for broadband service are overlooked. That is why I want to make sure that anchor institutions are included in the mapping legislation under consideration today. I am pleased that S. 1822 will enable the Federal Communications Commission to develop more accurate and more granular broadband maps. However, in implementing this legislation, the FCC must make sure to include anchor institutions in its list of serviceable locations so that our broadband maps accurately cover anchor institutions as well as residences.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 65, the Motion to Table S. Amdt. 1506 to H.R. 6074, making emergency supplemental appropriations.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I rise in opposition to S. 3275, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, and S. 311, the Born-Alive Abortion Protection Act. These two dangerous bills infringe on the doctor-patient relationship and hinder women's constitutionally protected right to choose. Make no mistake, these bills are nothing more than a reminder that Republican discrimination toward women knows no boundaries. President Trump, his administration, and Senate Republicans think reproductive freedom is still up for discussion. It is not. I am here to set the record straight for Leader Mitch McConnell and my Republican colleagues. Women's reproductive health decisions should be left to women and their healthcare providers. That is it. This time last year, the Born-Alive Abortion Protection Act failed to advance on the Senate floor. I was proud to vote against this bill then, and I hope more of my colleagues will join me in voting no on this bill now. Doing so will safeguard the right for an individual to make their own health choices, without interference from the Federal Government. The Senate floor is not the only battleground for reproductive rights. Anti-Choice State legislators are continuing to assault reproductive freedom through the enactment of State laws restricting choice. Cases challenging these laws are working their way through the judicial system, including to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, the laws' supporters hope that the conservative justices will not only uphold these damaging laws but will go further and overturn Roe v. Wade, effectively ending this bedrock decision that ensures equality, privacy, and reproductive freedom. Women across the Nation are facing imminent threats to their constitutional rights, to their personal liberty, and to economic freedom. Now more than ever, we must do everything in our power to raise our voices against this extreme, rightwing agenda of discrimination. This is more than a debate about access to safe abortion services. This is about fighting for gender equality. This is about continuing to ensure access to the opportunity that comes from quality, affordable healthcare. And this is about making sure that access to reproductive healthcare is never restricted. Women's rights are not negotiable. Republicans may intend to continue advancing their radical anti-choice agenda, but I will never back away from the fight against it.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I thank you. Over the course of this trial, we have heard nothing less than a blistering, scalding indictment of President Trump's conduct. The House managers put forward a compelling--indeed, overwhelming--case that Donald Trump engaged in impeachable conduct. He withheld both congressionally approved aid to our ally Ukraine and an Oval Office meeting desperately sought by Ukraine's new President--two official acts--in exchange for personal favors that would benefit him politically. Trump sought an announcement by Ukraine of baseless investigations into bogus corruption allegations against Joe Biden, whom Donald Trump most feared as an opponent in the 2020 Presidential election. He also wanted Ukraine to announce an investigation into the discredited and debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 Presidential election. At every turn, Donald Trump refused to cooperate with and actively obstructed Congress's investigation into his wrongdoing. His obstruction was, in the words of the Articles of Impeachment, ``unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate.'' I listened carefully to the President's lawyers as they presented their defense case. Like my colleagues, I took pages of notes. My colleagues were very patiently trying to hear each argument that was being made by the defense counsel. I took notes. They took notes. As I sat at this desk, with the seriousness and sanctity of the proceedings thick in the air, I waited for the President's lawyers to rebut the avalanche of evidence against their client, and I waited and I waited. At the end of the case, I was still waiting. And that is because the President's lawyers did nothing to rebut any of the facts in this case--nothing. They knew what we all knew after we heard the House managers' case. Donald Trump did it. He did it. He did exactly what he was alleged to have done. He abused his power. He committed impeachable crimes. He is guilty. There is no question about it--no question at all. There is no doubt that President Trump used his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to solicit Ukraine's interference in the 2020 election. There is no doubt that President Trump froze the $391 million of taxpayer dollars in Ukraine military aid and security assistance that Congress authorized and appropriated. There is no doubt that President Trump conditioned the release of that aid on the Ukrainian Government's announcement of politically motivated investigations. There is no doubt that in a July 25, 2019, telephone call, President Trump directly solicited investigations from President Zelensky, as the partial transcript memorialized and as Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney admitted. There is no doubt that President Trump released the aid to Ukraine only after a patriot within the intelligence community blew the whistle on him and after several House committees announced a joint investigation into the President's coercive scheme. There is no doubt that the President directed and orchestrated a coverup and the wholesale obstruction of Congress's investigation into his wrongdoing. Donald Trump has shown no remorse, no contrition, no recognition whatsoever that his conduct was wrong. Instead, he has doubled down on his abuses, gaslighting us repeatedly with the assertion that his call with President Zelensky was ``perfect'' and by publicly urging Ukraine and China to investigate his political rivals. The question now before the U.S. Senate is not, What are the facts? We know the facts. No reasonable person can dispute them. No, the question for the Senate is, What in the pursuit of impartial justice, as our oaths require, must we do with these facts? To me, the answer is clear. We must vote to convict Donald Trump and remove him from office. All the evidence shows that he has committed impeachable offenses and is a clear and present danger to our democracy and our national security. But if we fail to remove Donald Trump from office, we are left with an equally consequential question: What would prevent an acquitted Donald Trump from abusing his power again? We all know that the answer is nothing--nothing will. That is the answer I received from the House managers when I asked this question during the trial. In fact, we know that an acquittal will only embolden him. We know that Donald Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky took place the day after Special Counsel Mueller testified in the House of Representatives. The special counsel found and explained in his House testimony that there was evidence of a criminal conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and Russia, but the evidence was not sufficient to bring charges. Robert Mueller never said there was no evidence of such a conspiracy. There was evidence. It was merely insufficient for a prosecution. We know that Donald Trump took this as a green light to invite further foreign interference in our elections, which he did the very next day. Donald Trump has no shame. He cannot help himself. If we acquit President Trump, he will believe himself to be accountable to no one, and when--not if, but when--he is again faced with a choice between the public interest and his personal interest, he will choose his personal interest, and it will, in part, be a reckoning of our own making. A majority in this Chamber will have made President Trump a dictator. Then, what will we tell the American people? How will we convince them that we still have a democracy that they should have faith in, a system of checks and balances that ensures accountability, that no one is above the law? This weekend I asked some of my constituents what they would say on the floor of the Senate if they could make remarks in this trial. Jennifer Baker Jones of Woburn said it perfectly: Wednesday's vote won't be a vindication of Trump, but an end to the right of Congress to push back on the President. They are giving up their balance of power. It will be difficult because we have already ceded much of our authority and, indeed, betrayed the public's faith in us by the conduct of this trial. Hope Anderson in Lowell, MA, told me: We need to not only hold our leaders and ourselves accountable, but seek to maintain and repair the public's trust. We are not here simply to protect one election in 2020. We are here to protect all elections. At the beginning of this trial, we each took an oath to do impartial justice, but then we held the trial without witnesses and without documents. We moved to vote on the Articles of Impeachment without hearing from John Bolton, a witness whose firsthand knowledge directly cuts the heart out of the President's case; without hearing from Mick Mulvaney, whose fingerprints are all over this scheme; without the emails, texts, and other documents we know exist, writings that memorialize communications about the actions at issue here. A trial is a search for the truth, the full truth, the whole truth. That search for the truth requires hearing from relevant witnesses and seeing relevant documents so that the fact finders understand the entire story. By not pursuing this evidence, the Senate--the fact finders--have told the American people that the truth does not matter. They deserve better from us. Our Constitution demands it, our democracy demands it, and I believe the vast majority of my Republican colleagues do understand what Donald Trump did here and know that it is very, very wrong. They know the House managers proved their case. Some are even saying that out loud. I believe the vast majority of my Republican colleagues recognizes that abuse of power is an impeachable offense and that the President is not above the law. But, unfortunately, I also believe that they are simply too afraid of Donald Trump to do what they know is right. Every Senator needs to consider this question. If what Donald Trump did here is not impeachable--extorting foreign interference in our free and fair elections and then covering it up--then, what is impeachable? We have to have accountability. That is our duty. We cannot give future Presidents carte blanche to tear down our Constitution and interfere with free and fair elections, period. That has to be our standard. I will end my remarks with the answer I got from my constituent Matthew Murray in Gloucester to what he would say if he were here. He said: I urge you, my fellow Senators, to deliberate in accordance to your conscience and the oath you took when you were elected, and vote to remove this dangerous President from office. This is the choice we must make: duty to this President or duty to democracy. For this reason, I will be voting to remove President Trump from office. This is an historic moment. I do not think that this body has a choice. Thank you, Madam President. I yield back. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk for the House managers.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 68, to prevent an unnecessary and unauthorized war against Iran. I thank my friend from Virginia, Senator Kaine, as well as Senators Dick Durbin, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul, for standing up for our laws and for the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress, not the President, the power to make war and to authorize the use of military force. The assassination of Iranian General Soleimani was a massive, deliberate, and dangerous escalation of conflict with Iran by Donald Trump. Rather than deterring new attacks on American interests, as the administration insists, Soleimani's assassination invited them, and they came in the form of airstrikes on U.S. air bases in Iraq. But instead of sharing with Congress and the American people information and intelligence that justify the Soleimani attack, President Trump and his counselors have deflected, fabricated, and just plain refused to tell the truth about the so-called imminent threat that was prevented. We now have press reports confirming that President Trump authorized the killing of General Soleimani 7 months ago. The administration doesn't just look to be misrepresenting the imminent threat of Soleimani, it appears to be fabricating information intended to bypass Congress's constitutional role to authorize war. Last week, President Trump revealed more information on the killing to a FOX News personality, and he gave more information to that personality on FOX than he did in a 75-minute briefing to the entire U.S. Senate. That is completely and totally unacceptable. FOX News should not know more about our national security interests than the 100 Senators who sit here and have the responsibility to ensure that we are a check and balance on the executive branch. No evidence has yet been presented to support President Trump's outlandish claim that Iran would ``probably'' target four U.S. Embassies--an assertion that was contradicted days later by his own Secretary of Defense. Perhaps that is why President Trump's latest defense is just to simply throw up his hands and say: I am sorry; I am not giving you the information that you need. He tweets that the imminence test ``doesn't really matter because of [Soleimani's] horrible past.'' So it is no longer imminent threat, from his perspective, because he says it really doesn't matter. He decides, and he decides without consultation with the Congress. Here is the lesson Donald Trump seems unwilling or unable to learn: The truth does matter. In matters of war and peace, the truth is nonnegotiable. Trump's reckless actions have put tens of thousands of American Armed Forces, diplomats, and civilians at greater risk, and his continued fabrications about intelligence threaten to draw the United States into an illegal war with the country of Iran. Look at what has happened as a result of Trump's escalation: Our Iraqi strategic partners are demanding that U.S. troops leave bases in Iraq prematurely, increasing the chance that ISIS will reconstitute itself in the region. The truth matters. Iran has announced that it is no longer bound by enrichment restrictions under the deal. This only makes it more likely that Iran will hasten its quest for a nuclear bomb. The truth matters. Despite Donald Trump's best efforts, the United States is a country that abides by the rule of law. Our laws say Congress has the sole authority to make and to authorize war. Neither the 2001 nor the 2002 authorizations for the use of military force can be used to provide legal cover for a war with Iran, and we owe it to the American people to repeal these obsolete authorizations, which Presidents of both political parties have abused to justify military campaigns in far- flung parts of the planet. To guard against another quagmire as we experienced in Vietnam, Congress acted, through the War Powers Resolution of 1973, to rein in Presidential overreach when it came to war. That resolution, which informs our debate on the Senate floor today, makes it clear that the President cannot put our brave men and women in harm's way without a vote by Congress or if there is an armed attack on the United States. Neither the 2001 nor the 2002 authorization for the use of military force provides legal cover for the killing of Soleimani or any other future attacks against the country of Iran. It bears repeating that a possible war with Iran did not begin with Iran's attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, nor did it begin with the President's decision to select the extreme option of assassinating Soleimani. The uptick in Iran's attacks in the region and that of its proxies can be traced to President Trump's unilateral and irresponsible exit from the Iran nuclear deal--the deal to put inspectors in every one of the Iranian nuclear facilities. The Iran deal was working. It was the best tool we have to ensure Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon--that was until Trump's capricious decision to pull out of the deal and crush Iran by ratcheting up American sanctions. Trump is now doubling down on his failed approach by ratcheting up sanctions on new sectors of the Iranian economy. This escalation will make the Trump deal that he says he wants all the more elusive. Before the United States backed out of the Iran deal, the President's own CIA Director, Director of National Intelligence, and the United Nation's international watchdog agency all said Iran was upholding its end of the deal. Iran was upholding its end of the nuclear deal. Since then, however, Iran has moved away from its nuclear-related commitments in phases. Most worrisome was Iran's announcement last week that it was no longer bound by enrichment restrictions under the deal. But we can still salvage a diplomatic outcome. All of Iran's steps are reversible. For one, Iran remains party to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, requiring it to foreswear acquisition of a nuclear bomb. Additionally, international inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency maintain access to Iranian nuclear sites to detect and deter any ramp-up in enrichment or reprocessing. But pulling the United States back into a position where we are not going to war will require a change in strategy by the President of the United States. It means a commitment from the President to, one, cease any further military action, as today's resolution calls for; two, engage in talks with Iranian President Hasan Ruhani or other senior leaders to defuse the crisis and to support our allies as they work in good faith to preserve the Iran nuclear deal; three, make clear that the United States does not seek to impose regime change in Iran--the future of Iran must be decided by the Iranian people alone; and four, cease any and all threats against Iranian cultural sites and civilians. These would be war crimes. Destroying cultural sites is what ISIS does. It is what the Taliban does. It is what the Chinese Government does. That is not who we are in the United States of America. Finally, we must repeal the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force immediately. Americans strongly reject President Trump's deliberate and escalatory action against Iran. They do so not just because it is wrong, but they do not want to get embroiled into another costly war in the Middle East without end. A poll last week shows that Americans by more than 2 to 1 say that the killing of General Soleimani has made the United States less safe. Sadly, they are right. In passing Senator Kaine's resolution, this body has a chance to reclaim our Founders' vision for the proper role of Congress. We are the direct representatives of the people. Congress must express the will of the people to determine when, where, and against whom our country decides to go to war. We cannot and must not get pulled into war with Iran, and we cannot allow Trump to start a war all on his own. I thank Senator Kaine for his leadership on this resolution that I call upon all of my colleagues here on the Senate floor to support. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 11, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Peter Gaynor, to be Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 12, confirmation of Peter Gaynor, to be Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, Members of the Senate, I rise first to express my grave concern over President Trump's recent actions and words that have brought us to the brink of an unauthorized war with Iran. Today I am introducing a resolution with Senator Warren and Senators Leahy and Reed and Booker and Wyden because, on Saturday, President Trump tweeted that his administration is targeting 52 sites, some of which are cultural sites treasured by the Iranian people. My resolution is very simple. It says that attacks on cultural sites in Iran are war crimes. It is as straightforward as that. The President would compound the mistake he has made and turn it into something that could be catastrophic for that region, for our country, for the world. President Trump's repeated threats to add Iranian cultural sites to his military target list is a betrayal of American values. It is wrong. It is a needless escalation which ignores international law and the Defense Department's own policies. Attacking cultural sites is a violation of international law. Article 53 of protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions prohibits any act of hostility against cultural objects, including making cultural sites the target of reprisals. The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, which has been ratified by this body, also prohibits the attack or destruction of cultural sites. Attacking cultural sites would also violate the Defense Department's own policies. The Department of Defense Law of War Manual states that cultural property, the areas immediately surrounding it, and appliances in use for its protection should be safeguarded and respected. The fact that President Trump's threatened attacks of cultural sites in Iran violate international law and Department of Defense policies may be why, yesterday, Defense Secretary Mark Esper appeared forced to contradict the President. When asked if cultural sites would be targeted as the President had suggested over the weekend, Secretary Esper stated that the United States ``follow[s] the laws of armed conflict.'' Well, the U.S. Senate then should speak clearly with one voice to tell President Trump it does not condone attacks on cultural sites in Iran. Given Secretary Esper's comments yesterday, I cannot see why my friends on the other side of the aisle would not support this resolution to make that statement very clear and to make it now before Iran potentially retaliates against us, and the President begins to select the targets inside of Iran. Attacking cultural sites is what ISIS does. It is what al-Qaida does. It is what the world's most heinous terrorists do. There is no excuse for the President to threaten war crimes by intentionally targeting the cultural sites of another country. This is not who we are. We are the United States of America. We are better than this. We actually fight against this. We condemn ISIS. We condemn others who destroy the culturally sacred objects in other countries. Just a few years ago, in 2017, the Trump administration itself opposed and condemned the unlawful destruction of cultural heritage at the hands of ISIS. As a top U.S. official to the United Nations, U.S. Deputy Permanent Representative to the U.N. Michele Sison said on the President's behalf: The unlawful destruction or trafficking of cultural heritage is deplorable. We unequivocally oppose it and we will take all feasible steps to halt, limit, and to discourage it. Now the President himself is threatening to engage in exactly these sorts of illegal and reprehensible attacks on Iran. The United States had a choice to make during World War II because our military kept putting Japan's ancient capital Kyoto back on the target list for the atomic bomb. Kyoto is home to more than 2,000 Buddhist temples, Shinto shrines, including 17 world heritage sites. It was Secretary of War Henry Stimson who went directly to President Truman to argue that Kyoto should be removed because ``the bitterness which would be caused by such a wanton act might make it impossible during the long post-war period to reconcile the Japanese to us.'' So if we want any ultimate reconciliation with Iran, we cannot allow Donald Trump to order the destruction of the cultural history of Iran so that reconciliation may never be possible. Imagine the outcry the American people would have if our symbols of cultural heritage were destroyed--the Statue of Liberty destroyed; Independence Hall, where the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were drafted, destroyed; the memorials along the National Mall destroyed. These places house and embody our collective history and the culture of the United States of America. The assassination of General Soleimani was a massive, deliberate, and dangerous escalation of conflict with Iran. What conditions prompt us to go to war? The U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Act leave little ambiguity. The Congress, not the President, has the power to make or authorize the war. The Congress has the authority to determine when and how we go to war. We cannot and must not get drawn into a costly war with Iran. We need to deescalate now. But President Trump's threat to illegally attack cultural sites in Iran only aligns us with the world's most sinister and draws us further along the path to war. Some might say: Well, Secretary of Defense Esper says that President Trump will not do this. Let me read you President Trump's tweet at 5:52 p.m. on Saturday evening. Here is what he said: ``targeted 52 Iranian sites . . . some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD.'' That was by the President of the United States just Saturday night at 5:52 p.m., and we are supposed to be assured by Secretary of Defense Esper that we don't have to worry? Well, here is what we have learned in just the last couple of days. The generals were stunned. The generals were shocked that President Trump ordered the assassination of Soleimani. So we can't depend upon the representations of Secretary Esper. We have to make a statement ourselves because no one in his administration controls Donald Trump. If he says that he is going to target the most valuable cultural sites inside Iran, we should believe him. He does what he says he is going to do. He wanted to kill Soleimani. Even if the generals were shocked, he did it. He doesn't understand the long-term consequences. From his perspective, just get over it. Well, if we sow the wind, we are going to reap the whirlwind in Iran. If the President decides to take the next step after Iran retaliates--and they say that they are--and these sacred cultural sites are on the list, then taking Secretary Stimson's advice from World War II, our ability to ever reconcile may be impossible. This is the moment that we have to speak as a Senate because we do not know how much time will elapse before Iran strikes back at us, as they have promised. We should make our statement right now to Donald Trump in the Oval Office that we do not want him under any circumstances to order the destruction of the most sacred cultural sites inside Iran. It would be a war crime. It would be a violation of the Geneva Convention. It would be a violation of the Hague Convention. It would have catastrophic consequences for our country and for the Middle East for a generation. So this is the time for us to speak-- before it happens, before the President fulfills his promise to destroy those sites. He is the Commander in Chief. He said that he wants to do this. He just killed--assassinated--the top military official, the second most powerful person in Iran, to the shock of his own generals. So do not think for a second he will not do this. This is a potential tragedy for our country. This is a potential source of eternal friction between our two countries. Reconciliation with Iran would become nearly impossible. So let's make this statement as the U.S. Senate. Let's follow up on what Secretary of Defense Esper represents as the position of President Trump and of the administration--that they don't want to destroy it. But let's make the statement because we know that the Defense Secretary just may not speak for Donald Trump. No one speaks for Donald Trump. Only his tweets speak for Donald Trump, and we know what his tweet said: ``at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD.'' We have a chance here to make a statement before this happens. Forewarned is forearmed. We have been forewarned, and our ability to act is with a unanimous resolution here from the floor of the U.S. Senate, saying to the President as Secretary Stimson said to President Truman in 1945: Do not do this, Mr. President. It will be a mistake of historic proportions and a war crime. Do not order a war crime to be conducted in the name of the American people. So the resolution that I bring to the floor is intended to have this body vote and vote unanimously for him not to take that action. This is our moment to speak before he compounds his original mistake--the assassination of General Soleimani--and turns it into a tragedy, which we will have to live with for a generation. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 32 submitted earlier today. I further ask that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be referred to the appropriate committee.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, just in response to the Senator from Oklahoma, it is deeply disheartening when, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, we cannot agree to a simple commitment that the United States of America should never engage in military actions that are war crimes by attacking cultural sites in Iran. When ISIS attacks cultural sites in the Middle East, we condemn that because we know what the impact on the cultures of those countries will be. When al-Qaida attacked us on September 11, 2001, which targets did they select? They selected the World Trade Center, the symbol of capitalism in the United States. They selected the Pentagon, the symbol of our defense. And but for those brave passengers on that plane in Pennsylvania, when they said ``Let's roll,'' that target could have been the Capitol Building of the United States of America where we are standing right now, the symbol of Democracy. They knew what they were doing--they were striking at capitalism, at our Defense Department, and at our democracy--and they knew what the impact would have been on our country. So we have a choice to make right now out here on the floor of the Senate, and that is to make a statement before we do that to the Iranians because we ourselves experienced it, and we know what our reaction was. They will rise up in a way that will make it impossible to reconcile. We will be in eternal war in the Middle East. My request to the Members is to have this resolution come back out here on the floor. I understand the gentleman's objection, but the President could be ordering additional retaliatory strikes against the Iranians within a week if the Iranians are good for their word that they are going to hit us. We have to be sure that if the President does that, he does so in a way that does not commit a war crime and that does not destroy these culturally significant parts of the Iranian culture that go back thousands of years. It would be something that ultimately would be catastrophic. We are better than this. We are the United States of America. President Trump has already made one mistake in assassinating General Soleimani. We should not allow him to compound that mistake.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield to Senator Inhofe.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield back.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Omar Bashir, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this session.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, thank you. This is a big day for consumers in the United States, and I want to begin first by thanking my friend, Senator Thune, for his tremendous partnership on this legislation and the issue that we are discussing today, robocalls. That is because there are no blue robocalls. There are no red robocalls. There are only despised robocalls. That is what is bringing this Chamber together today. So I thank Senator Thune for his great leadership. I thank Senator Wicker and Senator Cantwell for helping us to navigate this political pathway. Today is a big day. The daily deluge of robocalls that Americans experience is more than a nuisance in 2019. It is a consumer protection crisis. Today, the U.S. Senate is sending Americans a holiday gift on everyone's list: stopping the plague of robocalls. Americans across the country face an epidemic of illegal and fraudulent robocalls bombarding their phones. While their telephones were once a reliable means of communications, they have been turned against us. They are now mechanisms for scammers and fraudsters who wish to cheat and to defraud. The numbers are staggering. In 2019, consumers have received an estimated 54 billion robocalls. That is 6 billion more than 2018, and we still have 2 more weeks to go. The year isn't even over. In November alone, an estimated 5 billion robocalls were made to Americans. That is 167 million robocalls per day. That is 7 million robocalls an hour. That is 2,000 every second in our country. In the time it takes me to make these remarks, 10,000 robocalls will have been placed across this country. In 2019, already almost 600 million robocalls have been placed to my constituents in Massachusetts. Enough is enough. The reality is that we no longer have confidence in our phones. Our phones have become tools for fraud, for scams, for harassment mechanisms by which those with bad intent can access our homes, our purses, or even our pockets at any time. Caller ID is not trusted. Important calls go unanswered. Innocent Americans are defrauded. Our seniors in particular are targeted. Years ago, scammers needed expensive, sophisticated equipment to robocall and robotext consumers en masse. Today, they just need a smartphone to target thousands of phones an hour at relatively little expense, and readily available software permits them to spoof their numbers, which means their true caller ID is, in fact, concealed from the person picking up the phone. These new technologies allow illegal robocalls to conduct fraud anonymously, both depriving Federal regulators and consumers the ability to identify and to punish the culprit. Today, the U.S. Senate is putting robocall relief in sight. I have been proud again to partner with Senator Thune on the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act, or TRACED Act for short. We introduced it earlier this year; today is the culmination of that work in partnership with the House of Representatives. Stopping robocalls requires a simple formula, which we have included in the TRACED Act: 1, authentication; 2, blocking; 3, enforcement. First, this bill requires carriers to adopt call authentication technologies so they can verify that incoming calls are legitimate before they reach consumers phones. This will be mandatory for phone carriers. Second, the Federal Communications Commission will require phone companies to block unverified calls at no charge to consumers. Third, we will increase from 1 year to 4 years the time for the Federal Communications Commission to pursue penalties for robocallers that intentionally violate the rules. This is a recipe for success. That is what our TRACED Act does. At the same time, this bill also ensures that emergency public safety calls still go through. The bill we will vote on today has enormous support across the country: 54 State and Territory attorneys general, all commissioners at the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission. Major industry associations and meeting consumer groups endorse the legislation and agree that the TRACED Act is an essential weapon in combating the rise of illegal, fraudulent robocalls. This robocall legislation is a political Halley's Comet. It is something we can all gather around and learn from. The robocalls we receive every day are neither Democrat, nor Republican. They are a universal menace. They impact the elderly, the young, the small business owner, and the student. Our grandparents and neighbors, our teachers and our coworkers today, no one is spared from this consumer protection pandemic. Senator Thune and my efforts would not have been possible without the great work of groups like the National Consumer Law Center, AARP, Consumer Reports, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Action, the National Association of Attorneys General, USTelecom, CTIA, NTCA, and so many more groups. These groups join the chorus of countless Americans who raised their voices and called on Congress to pass this bipartisan commonsense legislation, and we thank you. What I would like to do, as well as Senator Thune, is to thank my staff, Joey Wender, who is sitting out here on the floor with me right now; and Bennett Butler, right over my shoulder; and Daniel Greene, who worked on it; for Alex Sachtjen, Daniel Ball, Olivia Trusty, Nick Rossi, Crystal Tully, from the majority staff, all partnered to make today possible. I just want to say, again, we can't thank Alex Sachtjen enough for all the work that was done. I thank Senator Thune, and I thank the entire Senate for their support for this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, this month we recognize the 100th anniversary of the founding of the American Meteorological Society, AMS, which spent the last century advancing the atmospheric and related sciences. The work of AMS contributed to technologies and services that expand our understanding of the world and the risks associated with our water, weather, and climate. AMS was founded in 1919 in Milton, MA, to advance, promote, and disseminate information about these important sciences. The society now has over 13,000 members, including researchers, educators, students, enthusiasts, broadcasters, and other professionals in weather, water, and climate. Its rigorously peer-reviewed scientific publications and scientific conferences have contributed to knowledge growth across the geosciences, especially in the prediction of environmental phenomena that has led to lifesaving services. AMS also offers nationally recognized certifications that serve the public's need to identify broadcast and consulting meteorologists who have achieved a high level of competency in communicating complex weather, water, and climate information. AMS has been a leader in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in the science, technology, engineering, and math STEM fields. Its activities in support of STEM education and development activities for K-12 teachers have positively impacted millions of students nationwide. Its leadership in education also brings AMS to the Halls of Congress, where the society supports congressional fellows, research studies on environmental policy, and policy briefings to ensure that policies are developed using the best available knowledge and understanding. AMS has also been crucial in developing the extensive scientific evidence of manmade climate change and has helped us understand the threat it poses to society if we do not act. AMS has been an international leader in providing peer-reviewed information to support evidence-based decision making related to climate change. Congress owes a debt of gratitude to AMS for its advocacy and education on this global threat. With the scope and size of the challenge that climate change presents, Congress and the American people will undoubtedly depend on another successful century of leadership and scientific advancements from the American Meteorological Society. We congratulate and thank AMS for its century-long effort to understand the natural world, and we pledge our continued support to the important sciences AMS aims to advance.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, today I rise in defense of net neutrality. This week marks the 2-year anniversary of the Trump FCC's wrongheaded decision to repeal net neutrality. First, let's be clear about what we are discussing today. Net neutrality is just another way of saying nondiscrimination. That is what it is all about. It is just another way of saying that big companies online can't discriminate against individual consumers; that large companies can't discriminate against smaller companies and startups; that corporations can't stifle speech online; that once you pay your monthly internet service bill, you can go anywhere you want on the internet without Charter or Comcast or AT&T or Verizon slowing down or blocking your path to a website of your choosing. Despite all this, 2 years ago this week, the Trump Federal Communications Commission voted to throw out net neutrality at the behest of the broadband barons. Since then, we have watched as countless citizens, companies, and activists have continued to stand up and demand that net neutrality be restored. This spring, the House of Representatives took an important step in passing the Save the Internet Act. My legislation in the Senate would overturn the Trump administration FCC's decision and restore net neutrality protections. In the Senate, we have already successfully passed the same proposal on a bipartisan basis. In April of 2018, my Congressional Review Act resolution passed in the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 52 to 47. We debated net neutrality, and the Senate decided to join the majority of Americans and support a free and open internet. In that vote, we sent a message to President Trump about what it means to have an internet free of corporate control and open to all who want to communicate, engage, and innovate. We made clear that this Congress won't fall for President Trump's special interest agenda that just wants to block, slow down, or discriminate against content online just to charge Americans more on their cable and internet bills. Unfortunately, the rules for a Congressional Review Act that allow just 30 Senators to force the majority to schedule a vote is not an option in this Congress because the right to bring a Congressional Review Act resolution to the floor has a time limit on it, which has now expired. So, instead, today we once again call for an immediate vote on the Save the Internet Act. Already, in June, our Republican colleagues failed to listen to the voices of their constituents and blocked a vote from happening. Sadly, the Republicans plan to stonewall us again and to block this vote. This is yet another example of the Republican Party refusing to side with the ordinary people in our country--families, small businesses, startups, entrepreneurs, anyone with an idea who needs the internet to get it off the ground. Under Senator McConnell's leadership, the Republicans have buried this bill in their legislative graveyard. Instead of passing legislation, instead of acting on legislation which already passed in the Senate in 2018 and which passed the House of Representatives this April, Leader McConnell has done little but confirm unqualified, extreme-right nominees for the Trump administration. Just listen to some of the bills that Senate Republicans refuse to act on that have already moved through the House of Representatives this year: the Violence Against Women's Act, voting and democracy reform, gun background checks, paycheck fairness, and the Paris climate agreement. The answer from the Republican leadership is no, no, no, no. That is what continues to happen. Net neutrality is part of that chorus of ``noes'' that the Republicans aim at legislation the American people want and need to have passed here in the Senate. But the Senate majority leader and his Republican colleagues can keep populating the legislative graveyard at their political peril because this is the agenda the American people want to see the Senate debating. They want to see these laws put on the books to protect families in this country. The issues they are blocking are enormously popular, and most have bipartisan support. Net neutrality is one of those issues. The Save the Internet Act--the bill we are debating today--does exactly what the American people want. It restores the rules that ensure families aren't subjected to higher prices, slower internet speeds, and even blocked websites because the big internet providers want to pump up their profits. That is what today's fight is all about. It is a fight for innovation; for entrepreneurialism; for the American economy; a fight for free speech, which is the cornerstone of our democracy; and a fight for the most powerful platform for commerce and communications in the history of the planet. Some will argue that since the Trump FCC ripped away the net neutrality rules, everything has been just fine, but we are not falling for that. As the legal challenges over this issue have taken place over the last 2 years, internet providers have had every incentive to keep a low profile, to keep things as they were. But ultimately, the question before the Senate today is whether consumers trust their internet companies to do the right thing without being told they have to. We know that consumers rightfully don't trust the broadband barons. It is time we do the right thing for the American people. We can start with passing the Save the Internet Act and protecting the internet as we know it. The American people want action now. The Democrats are committed to fighting on their behalf. Net neutrality just stands for nondiscrimination online. You can't be biased against a smaller voice, a smaller company, a startup; it is not allowed. That is what net neutrality says to all the big broadband giants--you cannot discriminate. Net neutrality is something that is at the heart of what the 21st century should stand for in this internet age. I urge my colleagues to support this motion. I yield to the great leader of the State of Washington, Senator Cantwell.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I agree with every word Senator Wyden has just spoken on the Senate floor, and I thank him for his leadership in going back to 2006, which was when we first introduced into the U.S. Congress legislation on net neutrality. We did it then because it was important, and we are doing it today because it is critically important. The question is really whether the internet is going to be free and open or whether it is going to have the principles of nondiscrimination. Smaller voices, smaller companies, startup companies, and individuals in our society must be protected on the internet in the future. That is what net neutrality is all about. We are on the right side of history on this issue. Every day that goes by further instructs us as to how central the internet is in our country and on the planet. Ultimately, it has to be open, and it has to be free. It cannot have nondiscrimination built into it because a small handful of huge companies decide they have a right to discriminate. I thank the Senator from Oregon, and I thank our leader on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senator Cantwell of Washington State, for their great leadership on this issue. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 682; further, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, what we just heard from the majority is, in fact, a false narrative that contends that we have to choose between broadband deployment and net neutrality, and if we don't put net neutrality back on the books, there will be internet fast and slow lanes. That is what is about to happen if we don't act out here on the Senate floor. Innovation will be stifled, consumers will have to pay higher prices, the internet will not be as we have known it in the past. So I absolutely feel that what just happened is a disservice to consumers and innovators in our country; that they should be allowed to have net neutrality as their protection, and I think, again, that we are on the right side of history in propounding this legislation to be brought out here, and, ultimately, today history was not served well. I yield the floor.

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 was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 239, the confirmation of James Wesley Hendrix, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas. I was necessarily absent but had I been present, would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 240, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Sean D. Jordan to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas. I was necessarily absent but had I been present, would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 241, the confirmation of Sean D. Jordan to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas. I was necessarily absent but had I been present, would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 242, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Mark T. Pittman to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas. I was necessarily absent but had I been present, would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 243, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Jeffery Vincent Brown, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas. I was necessarily absent but had I been present, would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 244, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Brantley Starr, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas. I was necessarily absent but had I been present, would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 245, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Stephanie L. Haines, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania. I was necessarily absent but had I been present, would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 246, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Ada E. Brown to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas. I was necessarily absent but had I been present, would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 247, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Steven D. Grimberg to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia. I was necessarily absent but had I been present, would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 248, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Jason K. Pulliam to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas. I was necessarily absent but had I been present, would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 249, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Martha Maria Pacold to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois. I was necessarily absent but had I been present, would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 250, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Steven C. Seeger to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois. I was necessarily absent but had I been present, would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 251, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of William Shaw Stickman IV to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania. I was necessarily absent but had I been present, would have voted no on rollcall vote No. 252, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Kelly Craft to be Ambassador of the United States of America to the United Nations and Representative to the Security Council.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the impeachment inquiry currently under way in the House of Representatives. The House impeachment inquiry is a solemn and serious matter. It concerns the official conduct of the President of the United States, and it implicates matters of grave importance: our national security, the rule of law, and the very foundations of our Constitution. We all--Democrats and Republicans alike--have a duty to defend our democracy, so when we are confronted with evidence that President Donald Trump abused his power and violated his oath of office by seeking foreign interference in our elections and then sought to cover it up, we have a constitutional obligation to investigate. The evidence we have already seen validates Speaker Pelosi's decision to open an impeachment inquiry and reinforces the need for this inquiry to continue unimpeded. Indeed, Donald Trump himself has already confirmed key evidence. Just look at what we know so far. We know that Donald Trump asked a foreign power, Ukraine, to investigate his political opponent. The President both admitted it on live television and then released a transcript showing that it had happened just as a whistleblower alleged that it did. That is not in dispute. We also know that Donald Trump then doubled down, subsequently admitting on camera that he wants foreign governments like Ukraine and China to investigate his political opponents. That is not in dispute. So instead of focusing on the Latin phrase ``quid pro quo,'' the President should be saying, ``mea culpa''--my fault, but he is not. And with each passing day, additional evidence of serious wrongdoing at the highest levels of our government has surfaced, evidence that Donald Trump has subjugated the Nation's interest to his personal and political interest and evidence that plainly warrants further investigation. For example, we learned that prior to his phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, Donald Trump blocked almost $400 million in military and security aid to Ukraine. Moreover, as the White House's own partial transcript of the conversation reflects, Donald Trump conditioned this aid on the Ukrainian President's willingness to conduct a political investigation, telling him: ``I would like you to do this as a favor though.'' Donald Trump's quid pro quo linking U.S. military and security aid to a politically motivated investigation makes his admitted solicitation of foreign interference in our elections that much worse. It is an abuse of power and betrayal of Trump's oath to the Constitution and promise to the American people. We have also learned that White House officials moved the transcript of the phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky from its typical electronic storage system to a separate system intended to handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. In other words, there appears to have been an effort to cover up Donald Trump's wrongdoing. We are also witnessing extraordinary attacks by Donald Trump on the whistleblower who brought the matter to light. Donald Trump's attacks on this individual are so serious and so harmful that they may rise to the level of witness tampering and obstruction of justice. They send a chilling message to others who may have information and are contemplating coming forward. It should go without saying that whistleblowers play an important role in our democracy, especially when it comes to whistleblowers in the intelligence community. They should be praised and not demonized or threatened. Most recently, we have learned that the President allowed his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to conduct a shadow foreign policy outside of proper State Department channels--a foreign policy that serves personal interests and the President's personal political interests, but not the interests of the United States or the American people. We have learned that two individuals connected to Giuliani have been indicted on charges of violating Federal campaign finance laws stemming from hidden foreign campaign donations. We have learned that a career diplomat with an unblemished record was recalled from Ukraine because she honored her oath to the Constitution, but Trump viewed her as an impediment to his foreign policy agenda. These are just some of the things we have learned in the past few days. So what must we do? The answer is simple. We must investigate and get all the facts, Donald Trump's unprecedented and unjustified refusal to cooperate notwithstanding. The torrent of revelations of serious misconduct relating to foreign interference in our elections only underscores the need for the House investigation to continue unimpeded. The Founding Fathers were very concerned about foreign interference in America's democracy. They knew that foreign involvement in our politics and elections posed a threat to our sovereignty as a new nation. In 1787, John Adams wrote: ``As often as elections happen, the danger of foreign influence recurs.'' In 1788, Alexander Hamilton warned us that foreign powers trying to gain influence in our politics would be ``the most deadly adversaries of Republican government.'' The threat of foreign interference in our elections is as serious today as it was more than 200 years ago. We must do all that we can to defend against it, and that includes an impeachment inquiry into the conduct of the President when he admits to soliciting that very interference. The House of Representatives is going to begin a process. If the House of Representatives ultimately approves articles of impeachment against Donald Trump, the Senate will hold a trial and our Members will serve as jurors. As a member of the Senate and a potential juror, I will take my job as seriously as any I have ever had in this institution, and I hope my Republican colleagues will do so as well. The American people deserve nothing less. Leader McConnell and my Republican colleagues must uphold their oaths to the Constitution, put country over party, and conduct a fair trial. Anything short of that would be a dereliction of duty. No one should prejudge the case. Indeed, that is precisely the advice that Leader McConnell gave during the 1998 impeachment proceedings when he stated: ``As a potential juror, if it's serious enough to warrant a potential impeachment proceeding, I don't think I ought to prejudge the case.'' We have a constitutional duty to investigate President Trump's attempts to orchestrate foreign interference in our elections, the usage of his office to support his personal political goals, and how he sought to cover up that effort. Nothing less than our national security, the rule of law, and our constitutional order are at stake. I yield the floor.