Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, technology can be transformative. The black rotary phones have given way to iPhones. Sunlight and wind have become electricity. Camera tripods have begotten selfie sticks. There are certain things, however, that do not need to be reimagined, repurposed or redesigned. There are items that serve no societal benefit whatsoever. Example No. 1, the cigarette. Yet new cigarettes have exploded into the marketplace, known as everything from e-cigs to advanced nicotine delivery systems, to vaporizers. Similar to many emerging technologies, these products are designed to appeal to young people, are more accessible to young people, and are explicitly marketed to young people, and because of this, we are being forced to write another dark chapter in the history books. After more than four decades of research, there are several incontrovertible facts. Nicotine is addictive. It affects brain development, and in combination with tobacco, it is responsible for claiming millions of lives. These facts are true and were true decades ago, at the same time that Big Tobacco willfully, consistently, publicly, and falsely denied them. Today, e-cigarette sales in the United States alone top $1 billion. The use of e-cigarettes among middle and high school students tripled from 2013 to 2014, accounting for upward of 13 percent of high school students. New data reports that nearly 2.5 million American young people currently use e-cigarettes. This data is not at all surprising when we consider the way these nicotine delivery products are targeted at young people and how these products are available in a myriad of flavors from cotton candy to vanilla cupcakes, to Coca-Cola. Strawberry-flavored vape liquid can contain just as much nicotine, and sometimes more, as a traditional cigarette. We know from years of research that flavors attract young people, and the younger a person is when they start tobacco use, the more difficult it will be for them to quit. That is why Congress explicitly banned the use of cigarettes with flavors like cherry and bubble gum because of their appeal to young people. Over the past decade, we have made great strides educating children and teens about the dangers of smoking. We cannot allow e-cigarettes to snuff out the progress we have made preventing nicotine addiction and its deadly consequences. E-cigarette use is growing as fast as the students who are using them, and we need to put in place the rules to ensure that we stop it. First, we need to ban the marketing of e-cigarettes to young people in the United States. Second, we need to ban the use of flavorings. The use of fruit- and candy-based flavors is clearly meant to attract children. Cherry Crush e-cigarettes pose the same addiction risk as the minty Kools of the 1970s. Third, we should ban online sales of e- cigarettes. The FDA should prevent online sales of these devices to keep the product out of the hands of children. Finally, last week marked 1 year since the FDA proposed long-overdue regulations to govern e-cigarettes. This is the first step to making sure children and teens can be protected from the harms of these devices. But 1 year later, these rules still have not been finalized. Until they are, new cigarettes will continue to target young people with appealing marketing, advertising, and product flavoring. Every day the FDA fails to act is another day young Americans can fall prey to harmful products pushed by the tobacco industry. Last year, at a commerce committee hearing, I asked several e- cigarette company leaders to commit to ceasing the sale of these types of flavored products, and a few of them agreed, but the vast majority have not and will not stop this marketing campaign. Today's electronic cigarettes are no better than the Joe Camels of the past because e-cigarettes, children, and teens do not mix. Young people are getting addicted to nicotine and putting their health and their futures at grave risk. It is time for the FDA to step in and stop the sale of these candy-flavored poisons, especially to the children of the United States. My father started smoking two packs of Camels when he was 13 years of age. It was the cool thing to do. My father died from lung cancer. The tobacco industry denied that there was any linkage between tobacco and smoking and cancer and death. My father died from it. He started smoking at age 13 because it was the cool thing to do. Once you are addicted at the age of 13, 14 or 15 and smoking two packs of Joe Camels a day, it is hard to stop. Here is something else we know: If a young person doesn't start to smoke until they are 19, they are highly unlikely to start at all because they have reached beyond the point where it is attractive to them from a peer pressure perspective. So what do these companies have to do? These companies have to find a way to market to young people by giving them flavored e-cigarettes and making it appealing to them because they have to get them when they are 13, 14, 15, and 16 years old. That is the marketing plan. It has always been the marketing plan since my father started smoking when he was 13. He would say to me: Eddie, you have no idea how hard it is to stop. You have no idea how much I need to smoke and how much I need the nicotine. You could see it. He started when he was a kid, and that is the way it begins because people don't start smoking when they are 20 years of age. We all know that. Everyone listening to me knows that, and that is why this marketing campaign is so invidious. That is why what they are doing plays right into what we have known for a century is the business plan of the tobacco industry. I urge the FDA to act. I urge the Members of this body to rise up to ensure that we do not have another generation that suffers the same fate as the previous generations have, in fact, had to live with, which is this addiction that was given to them at a very young age. I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to speak this afternoon, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I would like to join Senator Warren and the rest of the Senate in observing a moment of silence in honor of the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings. The people of the United States will always remember the victims of the previous acts of terrorism that have occurred in the United States and will always stand together as one people. Two years ago today, three innocent people were killed and hundreds injured in two bombings that occurred during the running of the 117th Boston Marathon. On the happiest day in Boston, Patriots' Day, two bombs detonated by the two evil men took lives, limbs, and livelihoods away. That day, we lost Martin Richard, an 8-year-old boy from Dorchester; Krystle Campbell, from Arlington; and Lu Lingzi, who came to the United States from China; and 232 innocent people were also wounded in the bombings. In the aftermath of the attacks, Officer Sean Collier, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology police force, was assassinated by the two twisted individuals who bombed our city. Officer Collier wasn't just protecting the best and the brightest minds, he was the best and brightest, an impressive and loved officer who has been greatly missed on campus and in our community. I want to express my deepest thanks to all of the men and women in law enforcement in Massachusetts and around the Nation for their unwavering determination, courage, and resolve to bring to justice those responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings. We were ``Boston Strong'' because we were Boston ready, with the best training and personnel available to save lives and to seek justice. Many others responded decisively: the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, fire and rescue workers, caregivers, Armed Forces, and thousands more who, through their many expressions of care and compassion, brought forth comfort, hope, and the promise of recovery. Today, under the leadership of Mayor Marty Walsh, the city of Boston is turning April 15 into a new tradition, honoring the resilience, generosity, and strength called One Boston Day. As Mayor Walsh said, ``It's a day everyone should come together, spread goodwill throughout the city and recommit ourselves to our deepest values.'' Mayor Walsh is right. This is a day for the citizens, businesses, and organizations in the city of Boston to display their humanity and draw neighbors together. Thank you, Mayor Walsh, for helping all of us understand that the compassion and support we all felt that day should never be forgotten but instead should be a part of our lives every single day. May the light of One Boston Day shine as an example of how our Nation responds to times of crisis.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside to call up amendments Nos. 707, 967, 896, 897, and 573 en bloc.

Mr. MARKEY. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 836, which seeks to undercut the President's Clean Power Plan to address climate change and reduce dangerous carbon pollution. The year 2014 was the single most dangerous year ever recorded in terms of temperatures, the warmest in history. NOAA and NASA continue to chronicle this ever-worsening warming planet. Not only will the President's power plan reduce greenhouse gasses, but it will also reduce the amount of pollution that leads to dangerous smog-related diseases that are contracted by Americans all across our planet. Instead of debating this amendment, we should be debating the way to reduce the impacts of dangerous greenhouse gases on our planet. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I wish to follow on the comments that were being articulated by the Senator from Vermont. He has done an excellent job laying out these issues for the American people to deliberate upon this week as we debate the budget of the United States of America. Right now, millions of Americans are gripped by March Madness and the Final Four showdown, but for our Nation's seniors and the middle class, the real March madness is happening in Congress with the proposed Republican budget. Our country isn't like the big dance. Our country was not built on a zero-sum game, where one side wins and the other side loses. But that is exactly what this Republican budget does. It picks winners, and it picks losers. Let's take a look at the GOP's budget brackets. The Republican final four features their perennial favorites. In the first game, they have seniors versus special interests. Well, in this Republican budget, it removes 11 million families from Medicaid, including 400,000 seniors in my State of Massachusetts alone. It turns Medicare into a voucher program. It forces millions of seniors, including 80,000 in Massachusetts who receive Medicare, to pay $1,000 more for their prescription drugs next year. It does all of this while preserving tax breaks for special interests, such as the deductions for corporate jets and for shipping jobs overseas. The budget preserves billions for atomic bombs of the past--supported by the defense industry--which is why I introduced legislation today to cut $100 billion over 10 years from our bloated nuclear weapons program. So there are no surprises yet in the GOP budget bracket. Special interests advance and seniors lose. That is the first match. Seniors lose. It is not unexpected. In the next game, it is a battle of generations. It is the old guard of Wall Street against the new blood of our Nation, our students. So what does the GOP budget do? Well, it cuts 8 million Pell grants for college students by almost one-third, making college less affordable for millions of young people and their families. It yanks 100,000 children from the Head Start Program over the next 10 years. It does all that while not meeting the needs of the Wall Street cops on the beat at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and it puts Americans at risk from predatory lenders and credit card scams by continuing the GOP effort to kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. So in the battle between the Wall Street boardrooms and America's classrooms, it is the big money over the little guy yet again. In the next David versus Goliath matchup, it is America's working families against billionaires. Surely the spirit and character of America's working families is deserving of a win. But there is no Cinderella story with the Republican budget. That is because it kicks nearly 900,000 families off of low-income energy assistance. So families will need to decide between heating and eating. This budget includes $660 billion in cuts over the next decade to Federal programs that lift up our most vulnerable, such as food stamps, school lunches, school nutrition programs--slashed, slashed, slashed. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 69 percent of nondefense cuts included in the House and Senate budget resolutions come from these programs that serve the poor, the sick, and the needy in our society. This budget sticks to the Republican policy of not increasing the minimum wage, keeping millions of Americans who want to get into the middle class out of the game. Are the billionaires asked to do more with less? Do they have any tax breaks taken away? Do they pay a little more to make sure the less fortunate are better off? No, the Republican refs make sure that the Republican playing field remains tilted in their favor. It is another win for the rich. Now, the matchup we have all been waiting for is the Big Oil juggernaut against clean energy and climate change. In a Republican Senate, Big Oil is undefeated, but can upstart American clean energy companies pull out a win? Well, the Republican budget protects billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil companies while killing the wind energy tax credit. The Republican unwillingness to extend the tax credit has already cost us 30,000 American jobs in the last few years. Republicans continue to deny the existence of climate change by stopping funding to protect communities against sea level rise and stronger storms, even though 2014 was the warmest year on record and extreme weather impacted every part of the country. It does all of this while handing over more of our public land to Big Oil and to coal companies instead of preserving it for all Americans. So, who is the winner? No surprise, Big Oil. They keep all of their tax breaks, even as we are taking money away from seniors, from students, from working families, and from a clean energy future in our country. It is no surprise, because when you have the Republican budget final four--special interests, Wall Street, billionaires, and Big Oil-- the fix was in from the start. Unlike the March Madness games we love to watch each year, there are never any upsets in the Republicans' bracket. There are no budget buzzer beaters. In fact, the only ones upset here are grandma, grandpa, students, clean energy workers, and hardworking Americans. Senate Republicans, once again, are trotting out their well-worn playbook to pick the winners and losers in our society and in our economy, because in this budget, there are clear winners and there are clear losers. Special interests score huge on big tax breaks. Wall Street gets to block legislation. Billionaires take a bigger share of the winnings, and Big Oil remains undefeated. Meanwhile, American families and industries lose. Seniors pay more for health care. Working families pay more for energy. Students pay more for college. Clean energy companies cut more workers, stopping this incredible clean energy revolution in our country. This is the real March madness, the Republican budget that makes winners out of Big Oil and billionaires, while the clock runs out on seniors and hardworking Americans, who are left to fend for themselves. I implore my colleagues to reject this scheme and to create a plan that does not bust the budgets of families across this Nation. I call upon my colleagues to reject this completely and totally distorted sense of priorities for our country. I call for my colleagues to put together a budget for the future of our country that invests in students, invests in clean energy, invests in research, and invests in what the 21st century should be all about, while we pay the proper respect to the seniors in our country. We cannot leave behind the poor, the sick, and the elderly. We have obligations in this country. We understand that this country has been made the great country that it is--the greatest in the history of the world--by remembering our obligations to all of those who built our country--not just those in the upper 1 percentile, who have been the primary beneficiaries, but the other 99 percent who got up every single morning and went to work as well, the other 99 percent who built this country and its values from the ground up. We have an obligation to them as well. This Republican budget does not reflect that. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Republican budget. I again thank my colleague from the State of Vermont for being an articulate, passionate, and moral voice that ensures that this debate is heard by every single person in our country. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, protecting the President's veto of the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act is about protecting the review process for this project. The President deserves to have all of the input from the different agencies delivered to him so he can make his decision. Today in the vote that we will be having shortly, we are saying the President should be able to exercise his prerogative to review the pipeline and to decide whether it is in the national interest to have this pipeline constructed through the United States of America. But we are also protecting his prerogative to decide in the end, because this is a pipeline that should be rejected on its merits. The pipeline fails the test on job creation. After it is built, it will only have 35 to 40 permanent jobs that the United States will have on its soil. Meanwhile, we should be having a debate about the wind production tax credit because if we extended that, we would keep 30,000 people working permanently here in the United States, as this wind revolution continues to explode. Last year, there were 5,000 megawatts of solar energy installed in the United States. That is like five huge powerplants. This year 7,500 megawatts, at least, of solar are going to be installed in the United States. And next year 10,000 megawatts, at least, in solar are going to be installed. But that tax break is expiring at the end of 2016. You would think there would be an urgency here on the floor of the Senate to debate the wind tax break and the solar tax break which will create upwards of 250,000 jobs in the United States. We already have 175,000 people working in the solar industry, but there is no urgency to take up wind and solar. But a pipeline from Canada taking the dirtiest oil in the world, tar sands--tar. Think about that, tar. The tar has to be actually melted down so it can be put into a pipeline. It is tar, the dirtiest oil in the world, and then a pipeline like a straw through the United States of America, built right down to Port Arthur, TX What is so unique about Port Arthur, TX? I will tell you right now. It is a tax-free export zone, and so there is the plan for the Canadians--build a pipeline like a straw through the United States, right down to a tax-free export zone, and then get that oil out of the United States of America. Why is that? I will tell you right now that the price for oil in the United States is now $12 less than it is if you can get it out onto the global market. Per barrel, $12 less. You don't have to go to Harvard Business School to get a degree to put that business plan on a 3-by-5 card. Get it out of the United States, and you will make $12 a barrel more. The advocates for the pipeline say that is not going to happen. That is why I made the amendment on the Senate floor. The oil will not be exported. If we are going to take all of the environmental risks, then we should receive the benefits of the oil being here in the United States. Why is that important? It is important for this reason: We are--the United States is--the largest importer of oil in the world. China does not import as much oil as we do. We are the leader. You might see these ads on television where the American Petroleum Institute and other oil companies advertise that with regard to what a great job we are doing in producing more oil in the United States. And we are producing more oil in the United States. Let's take note of that. The truth is we are still 5 million barrels a day short. This pipeline will be moving maybe 800,000 barrels of oil from Canada right through the United States, which could reduce our dependence upon imported oil, but it is going through a tax-free export zone. So we know what is going to happen. Why is that important? It is important because we export young men and women in uniform every single day to the Middle East to protect the ships with oil coming into the United States that we import from Kuwait, from Saudi Arabia, from the other countries around the world. So why would we be exporting oil out of the United States while we are exporting young men and women in uniform out of America who then protect oil coming back in from countries in the Middle East? That makes no sense. That is what this pipeline is all about. It is all about getting some benefit for the United States. Climate change, big loser. It is the dirtiest oil in the world. The Canadians actually escape paying the tax in the event that there is an oilspill. They don't have to pay into that fund, either, that American oil companies do. And then notwithstanding their ads on television that say they are going to keep the oil in the United States, they bitterly object to any provision being voted here that keeps it in the United States while they run ads on television saying North American energy independence, that is their greatest goal. You can't have it both ways. Life is not like that. Either your ads are saying what your goal is, North American energy independence, or you are going to export it. But you can't have it both ways, do one thing on television and then another thing in real life and say to the Senate, please don't put any restrictions on our ability to export this oil. That is the challenge for us here. By the way, one other thing. If we keep the oil here in the United States, that is going to keep a pressure to keep the price of gasoline lower, because the more oil we have here in the United States, the lower the price of gasoline. Every time there is a 1-penny reduction in the price of gasoline, it is $1 billion that goes into the pocket of consumers in America. One penny equals a billion. So when the price of oil, gasoline, drops 10 cents, that is $10 billion. When it drops $1, that is $100 billion. It is down by $1. It is down by more than $1 over where it was this time last year. That is a lot of money that goes as a stimulus into the pockets of Americans who can spend it on other things. But this oil is going out of the country, so the pressure it would keep to help our manufacturers, to help our drivers, is not going to exist. It fails on each one of these items: One, it gets exported. Two, they don't pay their full taxes, or any at all, to the Oilspill Liability Fund. We don't keep it here to keep the price lower for American drivers. I understand the Canadians want to make the most money by getting out of the open market. That hurts you. That hurts us. That hurts our drivers. That is the challenge. It fails each one of these tests. It fails on the climate change. It fails on the export test because it goes overseas. It fails on the tax issue. It fails on the process issue of trying to short-circuit the President's prerogative to be able to consider this in a comprehensive sense. The President has correctly vetoed this bill. The President is standing up for the American taxpayer, for the American consumer, for the environment of the United States. He is asking the right questions. He is doing the right things. I urge my colleagues here on the Senate floor, within the next hour, to vote to sustain the veto of President Obama on this policy which does not advance the best interests of the United States of America. I yield back the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MARKEY. I ask unanimous consent that all time within the quorum call be divided equally between the two sides.

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Brown for putting this group together to discuss the important trade issues facing our Nation. In Massachusetts, we know what a good trade deal looks like and what a bad trade deal looks like. Remember, we are the ones that traded Babe Ruth, so we know a bad trade deal when we see one. Right now in Massachusetts, we are seeing the United States negotiate two significant agreements--the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Asia and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership in Europe. Both of these agreements would establish binding rules on a wide range of issues, such as labor rights, energy, the environment, medicine pricing, patents, Internet freedom, and innovation. The scope goes far beyond the previous trade deals that focused on tariffs or access to markets. These trade deals need to meet several criteria in order to be acceptable: No. 1, workers rights. It is critically important that both trade deals protect workers rights. When we put goods on a ship, we can't do it by casting off workers rights. These deals need to benefit the middle class in our country and protect the rights of workers of our trading partners. They must also have robust and fully enforceable labor provisions that ensure compliance with international core labor standards. No. 2, protect our environment. If companies want to make more green, great, but they have to be green, too, and follow the environmental laws to protect our resources and our planet. Both trade deals must include new and robust commitments from member countries to protect and conserve forests, oceans, wildlife, and obligate member companies to comply with both domestic environmental laws and meet their commitments under multilateral environmental agreements. These commitments must be strong and binding and enforceable. No. 3, don't export our oil. Longstanding U.S. law prohibits the export of crude oil except in instances in which the President determines that exports are consistent with the national interests. There should not be any language in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement requiring the United States to automatically approve exports of oil without such a determination. We shouldn't be sending oil abroad even as we send young men and women in the military to dangerous regions of the world to protect oil shipments coming into our country. We still import 5 million barrels of oil a day. We are the largest importer in the world. We should not be exporting oil. No. 4, no fishy stuff. The Trans-Pacific Partnership should eliminate harmful fishery subsidies. It should maintain the ability of governments to support conservation of ocean resources, promote sustainable development and viable fishing industries and the coastal communities that depend on them, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership should include strong measures that address illegal fishing. No. 5, don't try to sneak through bad sneaker deals. It is my understanding that the current Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement includes a provision that eliminates all trade barriers for sneakers and shoes. This provision would endanger more than 1,350 critical manufacturing jobs at the New Balance facilities in Massachusetts and Maine. New Balance has decided to keep its manufacturing in the United States, despite economic pressures and additional costs. As the last remaining U.S. manufacturer of running shoes, New Balance already has smaller profit margins on the U.S.-made shoes than most of its competitors have on their imported shoes. They should be congratulated for making a commitment to American workers, but if the TPP agreement is passed by the Congress in its current form, we will not be making that same commitment and that is because New Balance will be forced to immediately compete with Vietnam running shoe companies which have a dramatic advantage with low hourly wages and subsidized businesses. Those 1,350 jobs might be lost. That is wrong, and we must do better for our manufacturers. No. 6, don't go around the U.S. courts. Both the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership have provisions to allow other countries to take legal action if they do not like the decisions made by our government and do it outside of our own courts. These separate panels could subject American taxpayers to billions in taxes, and when they have a problem with decisions in other countries, we will have to argue in an independent court or even in their home country courts. This double standard is wrong and it should not be included. We need trade deals that don't ship workers' rights overseas along with their jobs. We need trade deals that don't cloud our skies with more pollution or plunder our seas with illegal fishing. We need trade deals that keep our oil and manufacturing jobs here at home. We need trade deals that don't outsource justice or jobs overseas. That is why we need to make sure, just as when Babe Ruth was traded, that we don't put a curse on our own economy by passing trade bills that do not protect the American worker. Finally, I understand my good friend from Oklahoma Senator Inhofe came to the floor to argue that the existence of winter disproves global warming. I know some in my home State of Massachusetts might be thinking the same thought right now, because after the first snowstorm people look for a good place to sled. After the second snowstorm, people look for a place to pile the snow. After the third and fourth snowstorms, people stop looking for things to do and just start asking, Why? Why so much snow? Why such intense storms? Why won't it stop? What if I told my colleagues that it was all part of climate change; that the winters we have known have now been supercharged by warmer waters and stronger storms; that the carbon pollution that is making our summers hotter is also making our winters more unpredictable. Here are three facts I want my colleagues to know. No. 1, the waters off Massachusetts--and indeed up and down the Atlantic coast--have been at record warm levels; in one case, off Cape Cod, 21 degrees warmer than normal. Warmer water gives storms more moisture. That moisture has to drop at some point, and when it does, it means more snow. That is what is going on. No. 2, cold air is part of winter. We are New England, after all. But new research is suggesting that the melting of the Arctic icecap is causing more of those polar vortex situations that send frigid air rushing down to Canada and then down to us. That is global warming. No. 3, more intense precipitation events have increased by 71 percent in New England since 1958--71 percent more intense precipitation. Supercharged storms from climate change are a little like Rob Gronkowski. They are bigger, they are stronger, and whether they spike the ball or drop their snow, it is going to come down harder--a lot harder. Across the globe temperatures are going up. It is called global warming. This last year was the warmest on record across the globe. A few weeks of cold in one place does not mean global warming isn't happening. That is the difference between weather and climate. Global warming does not cancel the seasons. We will still have winter. Sometimes it will be still very cold, but overall it is going to be warmer--a lot warmer. When warmer water makes more moisture and it goes into the clouds, it has to come down, and when it does and it is cold, it should be no surprise that we will get more snow. If there is one issue we can all agree on regarding the climate, it is that every person in Massachusetts would rather be in Florida at Red Sox spring training camp right now because this snow is still coming down. But it is not just weather, it is climate change as well. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, a battle has been raging online in the past year. Millions of citizens, companies, innovators, and entrepreneurs have been sounding an alarm calling us to electronic arms. These 21st-century Netizens took to the street and they took to the Net. They raised their voices and demanded that the FCC protect the world's greatest platform for communications and commerce. Today we declare victory. Today we say the economy and the free expression of ideas depend on Net neutrality. Today we say an open and free Internet is as important as keeping our air and water clean and our roads and highways safe. Today we say Net neutrality is here to stay. Today is Internet freedom and innovation day. Just today the Federal Communications Commission is making historic decisions to enshrine Net neutrality protections. The Commission is voting to use its power to protect the tremendous power of the Internet. This battle for Net neutrality means that the Internet is protected for decades to come. It is protected for all the students and startups, for all the businesses and online buyers, for all of the inventors, the innovators, and the Internet users. By banning paid prioritization, blocking, and throttling, the FCC is applying the principles of nondiscrimination--which is what Net neutrality really is--nondiscrimination to the broadband world. This is the next chapter in the history of American innovation. It is our country's declaration of innovation. Chairman Wheeler and the FCC are on the right side of history. This battle for Net neutrality was not fought without opposition. The deep-pocketed broadband barons want to turn the Internet into a set of gated communities. They say it will raise taxes. They say it is an overreach. They say it will not stand up in court. Some claim it will harm investment. But then companies such as Sprint and Verizon say it will not, in fact, influence how they invest. So I say to the critics: Do you want to return to the days when a few telecommunications giants--which today we would call big broadband barons--control the vital wires and spectrum we use to communicate or do we want a free, dynamic, open market where the best in ideas survives and thrives? The choice is clear. The FCC Commissioners supporting the open Internet order have made the right choice. Today the people won. I applaud the FCC and Chairman Wheeler for standing up for students in their dorm rooms, engineers in their basements, and innovators in their garages. I applaud the FCC for standing up for the best ideas, not merely the best funded ideas. The FCC has chosen the right path forward. I commend the Commission for that action. Reclassifying broadband under title II is a major victory for consumers, for our democracy, and for our economy. Consider that in 2013, 62 percent of the venture capital funds invested in this country went toward Internet-specific and software companies. The free flow of ideas supported by the Internet are creating the companies launching the global revolution and supporting the communications that we rely on every day. We want a free, dynamic, open market where the best in ideas survives and thrives. Today is a historic, revolutionary day for consumers, innovators, entrepreneurs--anyone who counts on the Internet to connect to the world. I applaud and I thank the millions of American revolutionaries who stood up and fought for Net neutrality. The fight is not over. There is much more work to be done. But today is a historic victory. It is Internet freedom and innovation day. Let's celebrate this transformative power of the Internet today and for generations to come. We are going to ensure that the architecture of the Internet remains one where the smallest entrepreneurs who can go to the capital markets and raise the funding for the new ideas, for the follow-on ideas to Google and eBay and Amazon and Hulu and YouTube, are able to be joined by new companies like Dwolla, like Etsy, like Vimeo, and like hundreds and thousands of others whose names we do not yet know, because now they are going to have the capacity to be able to say to their investors: We now have the capacity to reach a market. With our ideas, we can transform some part of the way in which people communicate in this country and on this planet. That is what we are celebrating today--the power of the Net, the power of individuals to come up with the capital so they can then transform some part of the way in which we communicate in this life. So just remember that when the 1996 Telecommunications Act passed, there were no companies like the ones I just mentioned. That was because it was an old world. But in the blink of an eye, a technological eye, we have moved to this new world where each of us is carrying a device in our pockets. Each of us is wondering how we ever got along without the capacity to be able to tap into all of these wonderful new companies and the products they provide. That is what today is all about--Net neutrality day. It will not impact the investments of the big companies, but it will ensure that the small companies--those that received 62 percent of all venture capital in America in the last year--will be able to provide their new products, their new innovations, their new challenges to the way in which we communicate. I think that is the whole key. We need to maintain the Darwinian paranoia-inducing competition that the Net has introduced. If we do that, then I think America will be No. 1, looking over its shoulder at Nos. 2, 3, and 4 in the world in terms of our innovation in the communications sector. Congratulations to the Federal Communications Commission, and congratulations to all entrepreneurs across America. Today is a day when you should be celebrating.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 1:45 p.m., as provided under the previous order.

Mr. MARKEY

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

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, everyone agrees that our immigration system is broken. The immigration system we have now hurts our economy, and it hurts our national security. The Senate passed a bipartisan immigration bill; the House of Representatives chose not to act. Again, the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill. That is why I supported the Executive action by President Obama to address our immediate immigration crisis. We cannot wait for the House of Representatives' Republicans to act, and that is because immigration is one of our country's greatest strengths. Immigrants are a vital part of the fabric of Massachusetts and of our country. They start businesses, they create jobs, and they contribute to our communities. The President's Executive order recognizes the value of immigrants to our country. President Obama's Executive order will bring millions of law-abiding immigrants out of the shadows and help to keep those families together. The order allows law enforcement to focus its resources where they belong: reinforcing security at our borders and prosecuting and deporting dangerous criminals who pose threats to public safety. This Executive action cannot and should not be viewed as the final word on the matter of immigration reform. It is the beginning of an effort to permanently fix our broken immigration system. What unites us in Massachusetts and all across America is the unshakable belief that no matter where you come from, no matter what your circumstances, you can achieve the American dream. The immigration system we have now doesn't reflect those values. Unfortunately, instead of working to fix the problems with our immigration system, the majority of the Senate has been manufacturing a government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, even as our Nation faces real threats to our safety and to our national security if we don't fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. The majority seems more interested in undermining President Obama's border policy than funding actual border protection in our country. Let's look at what could happen if Homeland Security funding lapses. No. 1, FEMA efforts. FEMA is a part of the Department of Homeland Security. FEMA efforts in Massachusetts to develop a preliminary damage assessment for disaster relief funding may be interrupted. The people in my home State of Massachusetts are suffering from the second snowiest winter in our history. We have endured more than 8 feet of snow. Those snow piles are climbing even higher. Seawalls that protect our shores are crumbling. Roofs are collapsing. Homes are being destroyed. Small businesses are shuttered while owners struggle to make ends meet. Cities and towns across the Commonwealth have overspent their budgets by tens of millions of dollars responding to one snowstorm after another. But instead of the relief that should come with the assurance that FEMA assistance is on the way, the people of Massachusetts have to worry that this Republican-manufactured government shutdown threat is jeopardizing this critical assistance. The last thing the people of Massachusetts should have to worry about is whether their disaster assistance will be delayed by the politics of immigration reform. This is absolutely outrageous. Massachusetts needs the disaster relief today. No. 2, an estimated 30,000 Homeland Security employees would have to be furloughed, including those who process Federal grants for local police, fire, and other first responders. Firefighters might not get the best oxygen masks. Bomb squads might not get the right equipment they need. These are hard-working people who help protect our Nation and help our first responders do their jobs. No. 3, a Department of Homeland Security shutdown would compromise our national security by stopping command and control activities at Department of Homeland Security headquarters, disrupting important programs such as detecting weapons of mass destruction. Homeland Security employees remaining on the job will not get paid, and those who are furloughed will be left to wonder whether they will ever be paid for the work they missed. This uncertainty hurts morale and puts families in financial jeopardy. It is time for Republicans to end this brinkmanship and help pass a clean Homeland Security budget free of unrelated policy riders. Then we should get to work on comprehensive immigration reform. The immigration system we have now doesn't reflect our time-honored values as a melting pot of diversity and innovation. It hurts our economy and national security. In short, our immigration system is broken. But for millions of immigrants who are living in the shadows, who are working every day to support their families, who have been brought up here from a young age, who are serving our country in the military or pursuing the dream of higher education--these people deserve a path that allows them to earn citizenship. That is why we need to work together on comprehensive immigration reform. It will give more families and individuals a real shot at the American dream. It will encourage immigrants who are educated here to innovate here. This is an important debate, and we should have it, and we should not have it at the expense of the safety and the security of our Nation. I call on my Republican colleagues to bring forward a clean Department of Homeland Security funding bill, free of unrelated policy riders dealing with immigration. Let's give the people of our country the confidence that the Department of Homeland Security is going to protect against al-Shabaab launching a successful attack against the Mall of America, that a terrorist group cannot now be put together, thinking, perhaps erroneously, that the Department of Homeland Security has taken its eye off the ball while worrying about the funding levels that are necessary in order to secure our country. I lived through this in Boston. Mohamed Atta and the other nine who hijacked the two planes on September 11, 2001, thought they could find an opening--and they did--in our airline security. In 2013 the Tsarnaev brothers thought they could find a hole in our security, and they attacked again in Boston. We should not have any question raised about the Department of Homeland Security being on the job protecting our citizens and providing the security our country needs. That is where we are right now, and the Republicans are holding up the funding of this vital agency under the misguided notion that they are going to be able to write the entire comprehensive immigration bill inside a Department of Homeland Security budget. It is not going to happen. Everyone in this country knows it is not going to happen. The Republicans are playing a dangerous game with the security of our country. I ask all who make the decisions in the Republican Party to please tell their most radical Members that the Department of Homeland Security must be funded. It must be funded this week. We must not only pay those who work for us, but we should thank them every day for the security they provide to our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of Michael Botticelli in our effort today to confirm him as Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The State of Massachusetts, like too many other regions of this Nation, is being ravaged by the scourge of prescription drug and heroin addiction that is breaking apart families and burying communities under a mountain of despair. Massachusetts experienced 114 deaths in December, and that doesn't count our biggest cities, such as Boston and Worcester and Springfield. Drug overdose deaths fueled by prescription pain killers now claim more lives than car accidents nationwide. Approximately 100 Americans die from an overdose every day. As a Senator from Massachusetts, I have a deep appreciation and respect for Michael Botticelli's accomplishments addressing addiction during his nearly two decades serving in the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. He is a public health and drug policy pioneer, and he lived in my hometown of Malden, MA, while he did this job. Immediately prior to joining the Office of National Drug Control Policy as Deputy Director, Mr. Botticelli was the director of the Bureau of Substance Abuse Services at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. While he was there, he pioneered innovative, effective approaches to substance abuse challenges. He was responsible for launching a program that expanded treatment and recovery opportunities in local community health centers, including a focus on providing a continuum of care for those suffering with substance use disorders. Mr. Botticelli also expanded innovative and nationally recognized prevention strategies. He established and implemented evidence-based jail diversion programs, reentry services for those leaving State and county correctional facilities, and overdose prevention programs. Although there is always more work to be done, it is because of Mr. Botticelli's efforts and the legacy he left behind that Massachusetts is in many ways a national leader in addressing the prescription and heroin abuse epidemic. Mr. Botticelli has been very public about his personal history of struggling with an alcohol use disorder as a young professional and seeking help that has led him into long-term recovery. He recently celebrated 26 years of sobriety, and I applaud him for that. Mr. Botticelli's personal life experiences have provided him a unique perspective on the epidemic facing our Nation. When he joined me at a recent roundtable I convened in Boston about this crisis, he spoke about it in human terms. He reminded us that there is a family, a loved one, a friend, or a child behind each and every one of these statistics. His openness about his own struggles and his path to recovery helped shed much needed light on the issue of addiction, which has lurked too long in the shadows of shame and stigma. I think his story helps others to seek treatment and begin a life of recovery. He truly is leading by his own personal example. The drug problems facing our country have changed dramatically since the Office of National Drug Control Policy was created in 1988. Mr. Botticelli has an excellent understanding of the mission of this office, the changing needs of the addiction community, and the urgency for solutions to halting the rise of substance use disorders in this country. I believe he is going to make a superlative Director, bringing his strong heart, keen mind, and Malden, MA, roots to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. I am honored to speak in support of his nomination on the floor today and look forward to working with him in the years to come. I recommend in the strongest possible terms Michael Botticelli for the Office of Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple. It would require that before the Keystone XL Pipeline is deemed approved, we should determine whether carbon pollution, including the carbon pollution from tar sands oil production, will contribute to an increase in more extreme weather events. We should know if carbon pollution is going to put another climate change card in a deck that is already stacked for more extreme rainfall and snowfall and for more dangerously hot summer days. Since 2010 there have been 49 weather and climate disasters in our country that caused at least $1 billion in damages across the United States. We should not be making energy policy decisions that increase the risk of costly, extreme weather events. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, right now the Canadian pipeline company is receiving a ``get out of Canada free'' slip. They do not have to pay taxes into the oilspill liability fund. My colleagues may remember that last week the Republicans objected because they said the amendment of Senator Wyden had a blue slip problem from the House because the tax has to originate in the House. You might remember that last Thursday night Senators on the Republican side objected to my amendments--late at night and, again, on procedural grounds. Well, the good news is we have been able to find a way to have a straight up-or-down vote on the substance of whether the Canadians have to pay into the oilspill liability fund. So this is going to be the vote that determines whether they are going to be able to build a pipeline right through our country--where we are running all the environmental risk--and if a spill occurs, they have not contributed to the oilspill liability fund. This is a pure vote. It is not procedural. It is yes or no--do they contribute or not to that fund. I urge an aye vote.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, throughout my career, I have been proud to stand up for equality for all Americans regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. While I have seen much progress with respect for the rights of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender, LGBT, community within the United States, the struggle for equality and justice abroad remains significant. Many countries have laws that criminalize homosexuality, prohibit public support of the LGBT community and persecute those who identify as LGBT. To adequately address the challenges posed by these discriminatory laws, the United States must make LGBT rights a priority in all of our foreign policy and there needs to be dedicated position responsible for coordinating that effort. That is why, today, I am introducing the International Human Rights Defense Act of 2015, which directs the Department of State to make international LGBT human rights a foreign policy priority and would establish a Special Envoy position in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor responsible for coordinating that effort. Over the past few years, conditions have deteriorated for LGBT individuals in many regions of the world. Russia enacted a ban on arbitrarily-defined ``homosexual propaganda,'' endangering the position of many LGBT individuals and their allies. Russia's law has been the basis for similar legislation threatened or introduced in countries across Eastern Europe and Central Asia, including Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan, and Belarus. In December 2013, India's Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling and reinstated the criminalization of homosexuality in the second most populous nation on earth. Nigeria, Uganda, and Gambia have all passed laws that make homosexuality a crime punishable with life imprisonment. While Uganda's law was overturned by its Constitutional Court, leaders have pledged to pursue similar legislation. Conditions for transgender individuals are particularly troubling in Brazil, where 113 transgender individuals were murdered in a 1-year period. In light of these alarming developments, I am introducing the International Human Rights Defense Act of 2015. It is critical that the United States fight for LGBT equality both at home and abroad. The Obama Administration has taken great steps in affirming and strengthening the United States' commitment to LGBT equality as a critical component of our international human rights objectives. However, our government does not yet have a comprehensive strategy for addressing LGBT discrimination overseas and we lack a central individual office responsible for inter-bureau and inter-agency coordination to achieve these objectives.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, throughout my career, I have been proud to stand up for equality for all Americans regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. While I have seen much progress with respect for the rights of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender, LGBT, community within the United States, the struggle for equality and justice abroad remains significant. Many countries have laws that criminalize homosexuality, prohibit public support of the LGBT community and persecute those who identify as LGBT. To adequately address the challenges posed by these discriminatory laws, the United States must make LGBT rights a priority in all of our foreign policy and there needs to be dedicated position responsible for coordinating that effort. That is why, today, I am introducing the International Human Rights Defense Act of 2015, which directs the Department of State to make international LGBT human rights a foreign policy priority and would establish a Special Envoy position in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor responsible for coordinating that effort. Over the past few years, conditions have deteriorated for LGBT individuals in many regions of the world. Russia enacted a ban on arbitrarily-defined ``homosexual propaganda,'' endangering the position of many LGBT individuals and their allies. Russia's law has been the basis for similar legislation threatened or introduced in countries across Eastern Europe and Central Asia, including Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan, and Belarus. In December 2013, India's Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling and reinstated the criminalization of homosexuality in the second most populous nation on earth. Nigeria, Uganda, and Gambia have all passed laws that make homosexuality a crime punishable with life imprisonment. While Uganda's law was overturned by its Constitutional Court, leaders have pledged to pursue similar legislation. Conditions for transgender individuals are particularly troubling in Brazil, where 113 transgender individuals were murdered in a 1-year period. In light of these alarming developments, I am introducing the International Human Rights Defense Act of 2015. It is critical that the United States fight for LGBT equality both at home and abroad. The Obama Administration has taken great steps in affirming and strengthening the United States' commitment to LGBT equality as a critical component of our international human rights objectives. However, our government does not yet have a comprehensive strategy for addressing LGBT discrimination overseas and we lack a central individual office responsible for inter-bureau and inter-agency coordination to achieve these objectives.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. The amendment offered by the Senator from Texas is drafted so broadly that it allows just about every nation which is a member of the World Trade Organization to automatically receive natural gas exported from the United States of America. The process is just eliminated--automatic. What will that do? No. 1, it will increase prices to American consumers. The Energy Information Agency has already determined that the LNG export facilities already approved are going to lead to a 50- percent increase in the price of natural gas here in America. It would jeopardize American manufacturing which has seen 700,000 new jobs created in the last 5 years in America largely because of low-priced natural gas. It is going to increase carbon pollution because it is going to slow the pace of change from coal over to natural gas in the generation of electricity. It is going to undermine our trade negotiations because it is all going to be given away here on the Senate floor. And, finally, it is going to harm our national security, because if we converted one-third of our trucks and buses, it backs out all the oil that we import from the Persian Gulf by using natural gas in American vehicles. We are going to ship jobs along with that gas going overseas. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Cruz amendment.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I have a second amendment, Markey amendment No. 141. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up Markey amendment No. 141.