Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I think this is the kind of debate the American people expect the Senate to engage in. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the outstanding career of Rebecca L. Schmidt, who retired in 2014 after 30 years of dedicated service in the Federal Government. For the last 8 years of her career, Ms. Schmidt served the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the Director of the Office of Congressional Affairs. In that position, she brought to the agency a fresh approach to congressional relations, implementing a more rigorous and proactive liaison role with congressional offices as well as expanding the office's outreach to other Federal agencies and external groups. She received the Meritorious Executive Presidential Rank Award in 2010 in recognition of her valuable contributions to the agency, including her organizational and communications skills and her ability to build better relationships between the NRC, Congress and community groups. Ms. Schmidt started her career in the Congressional Budget Office, and later was selected for the Presidential Management Intern Program, where she participated in executive development assignments throughout government. Ms. Schmidt's assignments included working in the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation for the Army Chief of Staff; the Budget Division at Army Western Command Headquarters, Hawaii; the Management Secretariat and the National Security Division at OMB; and the House Budget Committee. She later worked for the U.S. Army Support Command in Hawaii, where she supervised analysts responsible for formulating long-run strategic plans and performing management studies for the installation. For the next 7 years she worked for the Congress serving as a senior defense and international affairs analyst for the House Budget Committee and then as a senior professional staff member of the House Armed Services Committee where she briefed Members of Congress on technical budget matters and legislative language for the Defense authorization bill. Following her time working for Congress, Ms. Schmidt spent the next 10 years working for the Secretary of Defense. Her service included evaluating costs and benefits for operating bases as the Deputy Director of the Base Closure Office; serving as staff assisting the members of Secretary Cohen's Defense Reform Task Force; and as a budget analyst developing the Department of Defense's 5-year budget for the Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller. Prior to her work at the NRC, Ms. Schmidt served 6 years in the Senior Executive Service as the Associate Director for Budget Presentation and Congressional Liaison in the Office of the Secretary of Defense for the Comptroller. She was responsible for preparing the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Comptroller for all budget hearings before Congress. Over the years, she worked for four NRC Chairmen, three Secretaries of Defense and four congressional committee chairmen. She contributed her knowledge of nuclear, defense, and budget process issues and became skillful in political strategy, strategic planning and management analysis. During her three decades of public service, she demonstrated integrity, a commitment to excellence, and outstanding leadership. Ms. Schmidt received a bachelor's degree from Wittenberg University and earned a master's degree in public policy analysis from Duke University. She has remained a loyal supporter of the Blue Devils since her graduate school days, and her blue frosted cupcakes and enthusiasm for her basketball team will be greatly missed by her congressional affairs staff during March Madness and regular season games.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I rise to speak briefly to say that Dr. Murthy is about as well qualified to be Surgeon General as anyone has ever been. He brings a unique set of skills, background, and perspective that is going to serve our Nation very well. It is my hope the Senate will take this great opportunity to ensure he is given the position to serve our country with his incredible background in the way that I know all Americans are ultimately going to come to be very proud. I want everyone to know that in Massachusetts we are very proud of him. We in Massachusetts know that he has developed a skill set which is much needed for the 21st century, much needed in an era where diseases cross international boundaries, where there is a recombinant of DNA of disease that increasingly, because of the global nature of the world we live in, is coming back here to the United States. This is our opportunity to put a real leader in this position--a leader who then can give leadership not only to our own country but to the rest of the world as well. So I urge an affirmative vote for Dr. Murthy to become our new Surgeon General. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise to add my words of admiration for this great person, for this great legislator. Just to tell a brief story, it was back in 2006, in a lameduck session just like this. The Democrats had won and were about to take over the Senate. The Democrats had just won and were about to take over the House--a different passage in time. But throughout all of 2006, even in the minority, Mary Landrieu was moving a bill to open up a vast new area in the Gulf of Mexico for drilling for oil and natural gas. I was over in the House. I was from Massachusetts. I did not want this bill to pass. I wanted to actually save it for 2007 when the Democrats were in control. We could pass it in an energy bill by the end of 2007, which would have included this provision. Mary passed it through the Senate--bipartisan, as usual. If we look up bipartisan, if we Google it, Mary's picture actually comes up. Over in the House, because of all of her momentum, I lost and that bill passed. Again, tens of thousands of new jobs fell to Louisiana through Mary Landrieu. It was about a week later when I was out shopping and here comes Mary right toward me with her daughter in her riding outfit. Mary said: I want to introduce you to Congressman Markey. I said to her daughter: Well, you have to add a few additional words because your mother just defeated me quite badly just last week and passed a big bill for Louisiana, for whom your mother always calls her people, the people of Louisiana. There isn't anybody who understands better the spirit of legislating, about protecting your home State and respecting those who are maybe not in agreement with you but are not your enemy but somebody whom you try to work with. After the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico I was the lead Democrat in the House on the Natural Resources Committee with jurisdiction over that, and Mary again was outraged that such damage could be done to her fishermen, to her tourism industry, to her people in Louisiana. She worked hard to make sure billions of dollars would ultimately go back into the gulf to ensure that her fishermen, her tourism industry, and her people were protected. Then, after having served in the House for 37 years, I arrived in the Senate with a great concern that a bill I had been working on in Massachusetts, which was the dramatic rise in the insurance rates for homeowners and businesses right along the coastline of Massachusetts, and I had to introduce legislation not only to work on the issue, but when I arrived in the Senate, Mary Landrieu was already here, already working on that bill, all ready to protect her homeowners, her small business people from outrageous increases in insurance rates that would have basically made their homes unaffordable. Throughout my career, all I can tell my colleagues is one constant is this great, legendary legislator, somebody who embodies all the best of what this institution stands for. I just want to let her know how proud I have been to be able to serve with her here and how proud I am to be able to tell a story of the time when she just beat me flat-out because that is just how she plays. She plays it for her State every time, and no waiting if it is Louisiana. I know all the people of Louisiana know that about her. So congratulations on your great career. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, Senator Rockefeller's nearly 50 years of public service has left West Virginia and our country a better place. Whether it is promoting health care, education, economic growth, or veterans, Senator Rockefeller has led the way, acting to improve the lives of hardworking Americans. When it comes to protecting consumers and children, Senator Rockefeller has been a legislative partner and a national leader. I want to especially point out his tireless efforts to increase educational opportunities for children around the country. The E-Rate has proved essential and exceptional in linking up schools and libraries to the Internet. The E-Rate has democratized access to brighter futures and better technology. The E-Rate is the only technology that has been deployed as fast in poor neighborhoods as it has in rich ones. Chairman Rockefeller, your legacy will live on for decades to come. Whether in rural areas, or urban ones, affluent, or low-income communities, all corners of our great Nation will continue to feel your impact. Finally, I want to personally thank you for your friendship throughout my tenure in Congress. These walls will feel emptier without you next year. I wish you, your wife Sharon, and the rest of your family many more years of fulfillment in your next endeavors.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I was absent from the rollcall vote on the nomination of Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Had I been present, I would have opposed his nomination.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. This debate is really about some simple fundamental principles. Keystone is a Canadian export line. That is what the oil is going to do. It is going to travel from the dirtiest tar sands fields in Canada through a pipeline like a straw through the United States, down to the Gulf of Mexico, and then be exported out of the United States of America. How do I know this? I know it because I made the amendment on the floor of the House of Representatives saying this oil stays in America. Do you know who opposed it? The American Petroleum Institute and the Canadian Government. This is the Canadian Keystone export pipeline. We take all the environmental risk and this oil goes out of our country. Ladies and gentlemen, we still import approximately the same amount of oil in 2014 as we imported in 1975 when we put the ban on exportation of oil on the books. We are still exporting young men and women overseas into the Middle East to protect tankers coming into our country, and we are going to build a pipeline for the Canadians down to the Gulf of Mexico so they can use us as a straw to send it down and then export it out of our country? Where is the American angle on this? I keep hearing that it is about American security. Do you want to know what this is all about? I will tell you what it is all about. The Canadian companies want to make more money. They want to take the oil from Canada, bring it down through the United States, bring it to the Gulf of Mexico, and then send it to Europe, Latin America, and China. Why? Because they will pay more for this oil than the United States will pay for this oil. They will make billions of extra dollars once they can get it on a ship because the price for world oil is set at a price, which is called Brent, but it is the global price. Well, in the United States, because of fracking, because of our rise in domestic energy production, and because of our dramatic increase in fuel economy standards, we are producing more oil and consuming less simultaneously, and the price of oil at the gasoline pump for people who use home heating oil as a way of heating their home is going down dramatically. What does that translate into? Well, every time the price of a barrel of oil goes down just 1 cent at the pump, it is $1 billion into the pockets of the American consumers--$1 billion. So from July of 2008 until today, it has dropped from $4.11 to $2.88 at the pump, and Americans all across America are not afraid to go to a gasoline station right now and fear that they are going to be tipped upside down and have money shaken out of their pockets because they can pay $2.88 and it is dropping. If we keep the Canadian oil in the United States, that price is going to drop even more because we will have to import even less than we do now from the Middle East. That helps consumers. That helps our economy. That should be the plan, not taking all these environmental risks and not getting the economic benefits. The lower the price is, the greater the economic activity in our country. Manufacturers start to say: I will build my plant here. The price of energy is much lower. There is much greater economic activity because people have more money in their pockets to buy other American products other than oil, and they buy them in their neighborhoods, they buy them in their communities. That is what this should be all about. What is this debate not about--I mean decidedly not about? It is not about solar, it is not about wind, and it is not about energy efficiency. It should be. If we are going to debate an energy future for our country, it should not be oil above all; it should be all of the above. So right now what we are hearing from the other side is that they just might not support the extension of the wind tax break, even as wind has now created 80,000 new jobs in the American economy. They are not talking about extending the solar tax break for another 5 years, which they should be. That has creating 142,000 new jobs in the American economy. And I will tell you why. Because this is an agenda to make sure the oil industry gets what they want on the one hand, and they can starve their competitors on the other--wind, solar, energy efficiency. Senator Shaheen and Senator Portman had a bill that addressed energy efficiency. It has been dying here on the floor of the Senate for the last 2 years. What is its biggest problem? I will tell you what it is: It creates 190,000 new jobs in energy efficiency which would reduce the need to use fossil fuels to generate the same amount of electricity because the single wisest way to consume energy is to not consume it in the first place so you don't have to take the money out of your pockets. That is energy efficiency. That is working smarter, not harder. Shaheen-Portman, dead. The Republicans killed it. The wind tax break, dead. The solar tax break is not going to be extended. If we are going to have a debate in our country, if we are going to talk about job creation, if we are going to have something that really deals with the future of our country, let's put solar, wind, energy efficiency, biomass, and geothermal--let's bring them all out here. Let's have a big debate and not just something that has the Canadians use America as a conduit--as a straw--to get their oil out of our country so they can make an extra $5 or $10 or $15 for every barrel they sign. You don't have to go to Harvard Business School to see this business plan on a 3-by-5 card. If you get it out of America, you make $10 to $15 more per barrel. It is simple. There is no thinking required here. What is in it for us? The dirtiest oil in the world goes through the United States so that Canadian oil companies can make money. It makes no sense, not if America is generating hundreds of thousands of new jobs with wind and solar and the tax breaks in those industries are on the table to be killed. We should be trying to use this as a debate about the big issues. Yes, reducing greenhouse gases, but it is job creation and it is national security. If that oil stayed in America-- this Canadian oil--and if wind and solar and biomass and geothermal were given those incentives, we could tell those Arab nations that we don't need their oil any more than we need their sand. That is what we should be talking about out here, that plan. That is not what we are talking about, however. We are talking about something that is very narrow and only creates jobs in the short run. Once the pipeline is built, it takes almost a handful of employees to run that pipeline. Rather than creating the permanent jobs in wind and solar, the permanent jobs in energy efficiency, the permanent jobs in solar panel manufacturing--how do you possibly expect the American people to think this institution is serious if we are not going to be having that kind of a debate? Ladies and gentlemen, don't kill the production tax credit; don't kill the solar tax breaks in 2 years. Let's have the big discussion about where America is going. Let's do it in a way that has a comprehensive plan which is ultimately put together. I say to you right now: Do not build this Canadian Keystone ``export'' pipeline. Don't build it until we have the debate, which this country expects. Young people in campuses all across the country expect a debate on wind and solar; they expect a debate on using technology. We are the brain country; we are the technology country. We are the country that can invent our way into this new world--into reducing greenhouse gases and breaking our dependence on imported oil. That is who we are as a nation. We put a man on the Moon in 8 years. We were challenged, and we did it. We invented new metals and new propulsion systems. We are the can- do Nation. We invent the new technologies that young people want. We are not doing that here today. We are just helping the Canadians take oil and send it right out of our country. If they would accept an amendment to say this oil stays here in America, that would change the debate a little bit. If they were willing to add wind and solar tax breaks and efficiency incentives, that would change the debate. But they are not going to do that.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask for one additional minute.

Mr. MARKEY. By the way, I just served over in the House in the last 4 years when the Republicans--the tea party--took over the House of Representatives. What did they do on an ongoing basis? Cut incentives for renewables, cut the energy efficiency budget, kept passing bills that stripped the Environmental Protection Agency of its ability to regulate pollution and its ability to increase the fuel economy standards, not just for cars but for boats and planes. That is not the direction our country should be going in. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. I also have to say at the same time that I have the highest respect for Senator Landrieu. She is a passionate and dedicated and articulate force fighting for her State and fighting for her beliefs. There is no one in this entire institution whom I respect more than her and her passionate belief and the cause she is championing out here on the Senate floor, but at the same time, I respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on the Keystone Pipeline.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 3 minutes.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I respect the Senator from Louisiana, and there is no more fierce advocate for this pipeline in our country. She has been a relentless advocate for that pipeline. I am not going to speak on this issue today, but I look forward to a much more extensive debate that we will have next week. But there is no one more vulnerable than the Senator from Louisiana in her advocacy. Remembering Tom Menino I rise today to speak about Tom Menino, our great mayor from the city of Boston who just passed in the last month. He always looked out for the little guy. He always stayed true to the people who elected him, and he stuck by his principles. In every neighborhood across the city, Boston mourns the loss of our great mayor, Tom Menino. We mourn along with his wife Angela, his family, and everyone who ever was touched by Mayor Menino. But we will fill that void with the love and respect that we have for the life and the legacy of this extraordinary man. Boston loves Tom Menino because Tom Menino loved Boston with all of his heart. Tom Menino wasn't satisfied with leading the best city in America. He wanted Boston to be the best city in the world. He was an urban architect without equal, attuned to every detail in every neighborhood. He forged a more inclusive Boston, where diversity is embraced. Tom Menino was everyone's mayor. In a poll a few years back, half of all Bostonians in the poll said they had personally met Tom Menino. That really captures how Tom Menino approached his job, but we all know how he viewed those poll results-- that his job was only half done. Yet Mayor Menino's vision for Boston was global, and he pushed the city into a new era of innovation. He helped our shining city on a hill illuminate its light of innovation across the world, building a beacon of entrepreneurship and ingenuity. He laid the foundation for Boston's economic leadership in the 21st century, including spearheading Boston's Innovation District and developing the seaport area. The Innovation District is supporting the companies and industries that are creating jobs today, and Mayor Menino has ensured that Boston will continue to be a national leader in biotechnology, clean energy, and health care for generations to come. He did all of this while keeping Boston's historic character alive. Tom knew what potholes needed filling, but he also knew when to leave the cobblestones alone. So today, if you take a drive around Boston--or, as Tom would want you to do, take a bike ride--you would see there is no place in Boston that hasn't felt the caring imprint of Tom's hand: kids playing on new playgrounds in safer neighborhoods; poor communities with better access to life-saving health care; entrepreneurs and investors collaborating on the next big thing. Boston will move into the future a stronger, brighter, safer, and healthier city because of Tom Menino. So today we honor his life and his legacy. Tom Menino is a man and a mayor for the ages. Rest in peace, Mayor Tom Menino. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, WHOI, on the 50th anniversary of the commissioning of the deep-sea, human-occupied submersible Alvin. Alvin was commissioned on June 5, 1964, at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in Woods Hole, MA. It is owned by the U.S. Navy and operated by WHOI. In one of its first missions, it responded to a national emergency in 1966, locating and helping to recover a hydrogen bomb that had accidentally dropped into the Mediterranean Sea. In 1974, Alvin brought scientists for the first time to the mid-ocean ridge during Project FAMOUS, the French-American Mid-Ocean Undersea Study, and revealed a seafloor that scientists had not imagined. Project FAMOUS proved that submersibles could effectively explore the deep seafloor and marked the beginning a new era of exploration. Alvin discovered and explored previously unknown and unexpected communities of deep-sea organisms that thrive in the absence of sunlight, sustained not by photosynthesis but by chemosynthesis. This discovery was one of the most profound of the 20th century, because it completely transformed our conceptions of where and how life can exist on this planet; reconfigured our search today for life on other planetary bodies; and opened entirely new lines of microbiological and biogeochemical research, including those that have led to commercial and pharmaceutical applications. Over the following decades, Alvin discovered several previously unknown seafloor environments harboring a diversity of chemosynthetic communities, including high-temperature black-smoker chimneys that spew like undersea geysers in the Pacific, 1979; cold-seep habitats sustained by hydrogen sulfide, methane, and other hydrocarbon-rich fluids seeping from the seafloor Guaymas Basin, Gulf of California, 1982, and in the Gulf of Mexico, 1983; and ``Lost City'' environments, where seawater reacts with mantle rock, peridotite, to produce methane and hydrogen in the Atlantic, 2000. Alvin has also explored another type of seafloor habitat--seamounts, or ancient undersea volcanoes--with their diverse communities of deep- sea corals, fish, and other organisms, in the Gulf of Alaska, the Pacific, and the Atlantic. Scientists aboard Alvin have discovered many hundreds of previously unknown marine species. Alvin has contributed to other events of historical significance, exploring and bringing back images of the wreck of the Titanic in 1986 and responding to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, by investigating impacts to deep-sea habitats in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Alvin inspired scientists and engineers to develop new generations of deep-submergence technology; including remotely operated vehicles, ROVs, tethered by fiber-optic cables and free-swimming autonomous underwater vehicles, AUVs. These vehicles are now routinely used for naval activities and national security, oil exploration, maritime, and other industries, environmental and fisheries monitoring, and disaster response, and are now being developed for use under ice in polar regions and to explore other planetary bodies. Alvin resumed operations in 2014 after a major upgrade, funded by the National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research, and WHOI, which dramatically enhanced its capabilities. An anticipated second phase of this Alvin upgrade will increase the submersible's diving capacity from 4,500 to 6,500 meters, 14,000 to 21,000 feet, allowing it to reach 98 percent of the seafloor. Alvin has been a workhorse for U.S. scientists, safely taking nearly 2,600 individual researchers on more than 4,700 dives to the ocean depths and is the only deep-sea human-occupied vehicle in the National Deep Submergence Facility for the U.S. oceanographic community. Alvin has thrilled and inspired generations of schoolchildren around the world with its adventures and discoveries and become an icon for exploration and a symbol of American ingenuity. The accomplishments and discoveries achieved by this single submersible and the scientists, engineers and ship's crew who built, use, and operate it during its first 50 years demonstrate the importance of continued support for the development of deep-submergence technology and exploration of the largest portion of Earth's surface and its last frontier the ocean. Alvin is a national scientific treasure and we are proud that it calls Massachusetts and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution home.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. I ask to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. MARKEY. I rise today to speak about an issue that is fundamental to our democracy and vital to the future of our Nation. This is an issue so important that it requires us to take the monumental step of amending our Constitution. This is not an action any of us should take lightly, but our democracy is under assault and I will not stand by and watch the damage being done without trying to do something to repair it. Because of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, a tsunami of undisclosed, unlimited campaign funding is corrupting our democracy. Our government is supposed to be about checks and balances. Citizens United and the recent McCutcheon decision make it more about who is writing the checks and how big is their bank balance. In the 2012 election, 60 percent of the contributions to super PACs came from just 159 donors. Sixty-four percent of the money raised by the Senate candidates came from a mere .04 of 1 percent of the population. Our government is in jeopardy of no longer being of the people but instead becoming of and for the wealthy. The voices of the majority of the American people, those of middle-class families, seniors on fixed incomes, workers making minimum wage, are being drowned out by an ocean of campaign cash. This is utterly undemocratic and it needs to stop. Congress has tried to stop this tidal wave of unlimited money, but the Supreme Court interprets the First Amendment not as a guarantee of free speech but of who can pay to speak. As a result, our democracy is in peril. Campaign finance limits don't limit our free speech. They increase it by ensuring that every citizen can be heard and that no one gets unfair access to our government at the expense of everyone else. Campaign finance laws don't stifle democracy, they enhance it. We need to fix our broken campaign system. We need a constitutional amendment that overturns the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions. Our democracy is based on the fundamental principle that all voters, and each and every vote cast, are created equal. People, not dollars, are the true currency of our Constitution and democracy. That is why I will be voting for Senate Joint Resolution 19, to support a democracy for all attitudes in the United States. Net Neutrality I also rise in support of another principle that enshrines democratization to access of information and ideas: net neutrality. Net neutrality is as basic to the functioning of the Internet as nondiscrimination is to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, net neutrality is just a fancy word for nondiscrimination. The Internet is a success today because it is open to anyone with an idea. An open Internet enables freedom of expression and the sharing of ideas across town or across the world. Yet the vitality of this open platform is at stake. The FCC is currently considering a proposal that could allow broadband providers to charge Web sites, applications, and services more for faster delivery times to consumers. We cannot allow that to happen. That is why I am proud to stand with the netizens--all Internet users--to show what the Internet would look like with fast and slow lanes. Today is our battle for net neutrality. Today we demonstrate on our Web sites what paid prioritization really means: Web users stuck on a bumpy gravel path while the select few whiz by on a sleek highway with their Internet E-Z passes. In solidarity with netizens everywhere, I have posted on my Web site a symbol familiar to Internet users everywhere--the loading symbol you get when your video is waiting to appear because there is congestion on the net. My Web site today, along with countless others, serves as a harbinger of the dark days that lie ahead if we let the broadband behemoths win. I believe we should never forget that the net comes with a manufacturer's guarantee: No one should have to ask for permission to innovate. To prevent this from happening, this summer I led 12 of my Senate colleagues in urging the FCC to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service under title II, enabling the Commission to put the strongest rules on the books to prevent discrimination. Internet access today is like traditional phone service was decades ago, it is essential for everyday living. But if the ISPs have their way, the FCC would turn the Internet from a democratic ``Field of Dreams'' into an exclusive set of gated communities. But the good news is the online activist community--the Netroots and the startups, the Internet investors--have spoken out in favor of implementing title II to protect net neutrality. I will continue to join with my colleagues in the Senate to fight for an open and nondiscriminatory Internet because the future of our country depends upon it. I yield back the remainder of my time and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I rise to speak on an issue of vital importance to all who value true liberty in the United States. Last month the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hobby Lobby case. In 2010, in the Citizens United case, the Court said corporations have a First Amendment right to participate in elections. In the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Court took it a step further and said that since a corporation can be a person, it can also have religious views and because a corporation is a person, it can impose its religious beliefs on an employee and deny a woman insurance that protects her health by providing contraception. So the folly of the Supreme Court has come full circle, where an actual person will be denied their rights because the views of a corporation have been given priority under the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by this Supreme Court. Instead of ``we the people,'' it is now ``I the CEO of a corporation'' who has the right to exercise their constitutional privileges as interpreted by this Supreme Court that truncates the right of individual women in America to exercise theirs. The Supreme Court majorities have continued to extend our basic constitutional rights--the inalienable rights held by individuals--to corporations. Corporations are not people. Supporters of the Hobby Lobby ruling have accused Democrats of hyperbole. They say we are making the Hobby Lobby case seem more dire than it truly is. The corporate personhood supporters say the ruling doesn't mean women can't use the contraception of their choice, just that the insurance provided by their employer doesn't have to cover it or they say the ruling doesn't mean a boss is imposing his or her religious views on their employees. That is just wrong. It says that the boss doesn't have to subsidize health care that violates the boss's religious views. What happens when the religious views of a CEO are imposed on the real life of a working woman?

Mr. MARKEY. In real life working women earn their insurance coverage. It is part of their pay, and they depend on insurance to pay for their health care--including contraception--for themselves and their families. If that employer's choice of insurance doesn't pay for a particular type of contraception, a woman will be forced to give up her right to use it. If one form of contraception is--just as Ginsburg explained in her dissent--$1,000, and insurance won't cover even a penny, a working woman is going to be forced to make medical decisions based on the religion her employer practices, not on what she and her doctor determine is best for her from a medical perspective. The religion of the employer trumps the recommendation of a physician to a woman, and this is just a step that changes the whole relationship between an individual and their country. If a corporation's insurance doesn't cover any contraception because all contraceptives violate the employer's religious beliefs, then their employee's religious views are especially burdened, and she will have to pay for contraception out of her own pocket. Keep in mind that the average woman makes 77 cents on the dollar to a man, but if you are an African-American woman, then it is 66 cents on the dollar, and Latina women earn 59 cents on the dollar compared to what a white man makes in the United States of America. In the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court transformed religion from a personal choice into a corporate decision, and the corporate world-- in real life--can impose its religious views on its employees. That is why I am an original cosponsor of S. 2578, the Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act, or as supporters call it the Not My Boss's Business Act. Let's be clear. Corporations are not people, period. For-profit corporations do not have religious views. For-profit corporations should not be able to deny their employees critical health care or force American taxpayers to pay for it because of the owner's personal religious views. The Not My Boss's Business Act will fix the Hobby Lobby decision by making it illegal for corporations to deny their employees health care benefits--including contraception--that are required to be covered by Federal law. It will protect employees from having their health care restricted by bosses who want to impose their religious belief on others. I urge my colleagues to vote to restore true liberty by voting to pass S. 2578. I thank all of my colleagues. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow in my office, Lisa Foster, be granted privileges of the floor until the end of September.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, since 1973, when the Supreme Court decided that a woman's right to choose was constitutionally protected, women's health clinics across the country have been targeted by violence and other criminal activities by extremists. The crimes are alarming: harassment, arson, acid attacks, obstruction, violent threats, and even murder. Women's safety has been repeatedly put at risk simply for exercising a constitutional right. In the past 10 years, there have been approximately 75,000 incidents of violence against abortion providers in the United States. That is unacceptable. We should always remember that each of these victims of violence has a name, a family, and a story. In 1994, a gunman killed two people and wounded five others at two clinics in Massachusetts. One of these victims was 25-year-old Shannon Lowney, a daughter of public schoolteachers, a beloved sister, and a volunteer who worked domestically and internationally with poor families and children. Shannon worked as a receptionist and Spanish translator at Planned Parenthood in Brookline, MA. She worked there not for the pay but because she fundamentally believed women had a right to affordable health care. She wanted to do her part to ensure that patients at a vulnerable and stressful time in life were greeted with a smile. Five days after Christmas in 1994 she was fatally shot in the neck at a Planned Parenthood clinic by an extremist protester. Shannon's story is just one of the many tragedies caused by violence against women exercising their rights. In 2007, after the laws on the books proved inadequate, Massachusetts ensured that there would be fair and balanced laws that created a buffer zone of 35 feet around the entry of reproductive health care facilities. This law was intended to protect people such as Shannon and the thousands of women and staff who visit and work at clinics. The buffer zone law worked. Massachusetts women could exercise their fundamental right to health care without running a gauntlet of abuse. According to a survey of reproductive health care centers across the country, a majority of facilities with buffer zones experienced a decrease in criminal activity after the buffer zone was instituted. Today the Supreme Court of the United States took away those buffer zones of safety when it struck down the Massachusetts buffer zone law, effectively undoing the historic progress we have made in ensuring that women are protected when accessing reproductive health care and exercising their constitutional rights. Today's Supreme Court ruling puts women at risk simply for exercising their constitutional rights. Shannon's brother Liam visited me on the day that this case was argued before the Supreme Court. Their family is representative of what has happened across this country in terms of the endangerment of women when they seek to exercise their constitutional rights. So today is a sad day. It is not just a sad day for America but in particular for Shannon's family because they put a lot on the line to ensure that this case was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court's decision makes it more difficult for States to guarantee women's reproductive rights and more likely that acts of violence and intimidation against women seeking reproductive health care will occur. With reproductive rights under attack across the country like never before, it is imperative that we ensure the basic safety of all women and staff at Planned Parenthood and other health facilities. We should be expanding access to safe reproductive health care for women, not restricting it. That is unfortunately what today is going to represent in the history of health care for women in our country. The Presiding Officer is a national leader on these issues, fighting for the rights of women. I stand with her and with the other Members of the Senate but, more importantly, also with ordinary families across this country and Planned Parenthood and all the women in Massachusetts and this country who believe every woman seeking reproductive health care should be safe and protected. I am proud that all Massachusetts law enforcement officials will continue to use every legal tool available to ensure the safety and privacy of women and clinic staff. Today is a historic day. Unfortunately, it is one of which our country should not be proud. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, Massachusetts is the Bay State, but we are also the ``Brave State.'' But being first in freedom is not enough if we don't put our veterans, their families, and the families of the fallen first as well. There are more than 388,000 veterans in Massachusetts. But too many of our bravest return home unable to find a job. They suffer from homelessness, mental health, and substance abuse. Too often, they end their lives in suicide. Twenty-two veterans kill themselves every day. This March, not one servicemember died in action in Afghanistan or Iraq, but almost 700 veterans took their own lives. Of the 8,500 Massachusetts National Guard, six of them have committed suicide in the last year and a half. We need to treat these unseen wounds, and give our veterans a better life, where they are employed, appreciated, and supported. We have a sacred obligation to honor and care for our service men and women for their bravery and sacrifice. On the battlefield, the military pledges to leave no soldier behind. As a nation, we must ensure that when warriors return home, we leave no veteran behind. In recent years, we have provided historic budget increases for veterans, expanded access to VA health care, improved health services for all veterans, and modernized benefits earned by America's servicemembers. But what is clear today is that hasn't been enough. The problems at the VA are unacceptable and they dishonor our veterans and their families who have sacrificed so much. Anyone who contributed to the careless treatment of our veterans should be held fully accountable, and I mean anyone. And so our work must continue. We must address the emerging needs of veterans, as well as those needs that have lingered for years. Our returning veterans, and those who served in previous wars, always should get the best services, including medical care. Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, is facing a crisis. The Department of Veterans Affairs inspector general reports showed that thousands of veterans have been trying to see a doctor but were never on the VA list to see a doctor. These veterans were forgotten and lost in the scheduling process. VA leadership significantly understated the time new patients waited for their primary care appointment in their performance appraisals in part because that affected their bonuses and salary increases. Mr. President, 57,000 veterans have been waiting 90 days or more for their first VA appointment. Mr. President, 64,000 veterans have fallen through the cracks and have never received an appointment after enrollment. These deficiencies at the VA are unacceptable. What is clear is that we need a full-scale reform of how the VA does business. Too many men and women are falling through the cracks. We need to fully fund the VA and modernize the agency and its facilities to appropriately address the new needs of returning soldiers and their families. All veterans are heroes, but sometimes heroes need help. The Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act of 2014 allows the immediate firing of incompetent high-level officials who broke the trust of our veterans by leaving them behind. It also includes appropriate provisions to prevent the abuse of these new powers. The bill allows VA to lease 26 new medical facilities that would expand access to care, including $4.8 million for the VA Worcester community-based Outpatient Clinic. It authorizes the hiring of new medical personnel for hospitals and clinics that are facing a shortage of doctors and other health professionals. It would allow veterans living more than 40 miles from a VA hospital or clinic to go to a private doctor. It develops an independent commission to update the VA's scheduling appointments process and another to help spur the construction of new VA facilities. It would allow all recently separated veterans taking advantage of the post-9/11 GI bill to get instate tuition at public colleges and universities. Finally, it would extend post-9/11 GI bill education benefits to surviving spouses of veterans who have died in the line of duty. This bill is an important first step to dealing with the crisis at the VA. However, more needs to be done. We need to make sure the Massachusetts VA hospitals in Brockton, West Roxbury, Jamaica Plain, Bedford, and Northampton can continue to provide the care that our veterans deserve, including the latest in health care for traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other injuries.

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, I was the first in my family to go to college. I drove an ice cream truck to work my way through Boston College as a commuter. I did the same thing to go to law school. I lived at home all the way through college and law school in order to be able to afford to go to college. As a result, I had to take out Federal loans like so many millions of American students have to do today. But here is the thing. If the owner of the ice cream truck company I worked for wanted to refinance the loan he had for the trucking fleet, he could do that. If my parents wanted to refinance the mortgage on their house, they could do that. But if I wanted to refinance my student loans as would every single student today, I was out of luck, and that is not right, that is not fair, and that needs to change. In Massachusetts, as the Presiding Officer knows better than anyone, we recognize that education is a ladder of opportunity that allows every child to maximize their God-given abilities. It is the best path to middle class success and economic opportunity. The big dreams of college should never be thwarted by the small print of student loan agreements. The economic opportunities that students have because they graduate should not be accompanied by the hopelessness from overwhelming debt--almost like the mythical Sisyphus with a boulder on his shoulders, trying to go up the side of a mountain. That is how students feel with their student debt as they graduate from colleges and universities across this country. So in the same way that mortgage refinancing helps mortgage holders who are underwater, students drowning in debt should benefit from refinancing their student loans at a lower rate. Today more than 70 percent of America's students borrow money to attend college. The average student graduates from college owing nearly $30,000. Americans today owe almost $1.2 trillion in student loans, more than is owed on credit cards. Almost 1 million people in Massachusetts currently owe more than $24 billion in student debt. Thirty percent of young borrowers nationwide are unable to keep up with their payments and are in default, forbearance or deferment. That kind of debt makes it difficult to start a family, buy a home or save for retirement. Reports show that high student loan debt deters our promising minds from enrolling in graduate programs. That means fewer highly skilled workers, which harms our economy now and makes us less competitive in the world economy in the future. There is a way to make it easier for those of us who have student loan debts and to put more money in their pockets every single month. That is to listen to the wisdom of our Presiding Officer, to make sure that people here in this Chamber and across our country listen to this guiding light that you are creating for our country to be able to move from this present world where debt so saddles young people that they really cannot ever plan to realize all of their dreams, to a new vision of what might be possible in lowering this burden on young people across our country. Last year the Congress passed legislation that lowered Federal student loan interest rates for new borrowers but did nothing for existing borrowers. So today interest rates for new borrowers are just under 4 percent while rates for older borrowers are around 7 percent for recent undergraduates and even higher for some older borrowers. The bill which you have introduced as the senior Senator from Massachusetts simply allows 25 million eligible student loan borrowers the option of refinancing down to the rates offered to new Federal student loan borrowers this year. The bill allows eligible student loan borrowers to refinance their private loans into the Federal program. Many parents cosigned the private loans for their children and are on the hook if their children default on these loans. Your legislation will save existing student loan borrowers thousands of dollars to help them get ahead, not fall behind. This money can be used to help pay for the downpayment on a new home, to start a new business or to start a family. This is one more way to give Americans a fair shot at the American dream. So we thank you for your leadership on this issue. We thank you for laying out a pathway to make it a slightly easier place for young people to be as they leave college, as they have this debt on their shoulders. When I was in school the interest rate was 3 percent. Those loans were called national defense student loans. Emblazoned over the Boston Public Library it reads: ``The education of its people is the best defense of a nation.'' That is what it says across the Boston Public Library. That is what we have to once again understand, that the first generation that was the beneficiary had 3 percent loans. This generation--in a much more wealthy country--has loans at 6, 7, 8, 9 percent and more, and that just makes it very difficult for them to maximize their God-given abilities in the same way that the Members of the Senate were able to maximize theirs. We have a responsibility to this generation to go back to that original message, to go back to that incredible plan that was put together after World War II to finally democratize access to education for every family, for every child who wanted to work towards improving themselves. Those national defense student loans understood that the best defense of a Nation is the education of its people. That is how we preserve order and liberty within our society, and that is what your proposal does. By using the Buffett rule, by using the offset which says to billionaires and millionaires in our country that you are just going to pay the same taxes as the middle class, well, then we finance something that is really critical. We finance the dreams and the hopes of young people in our country, so that the debt they have to shoulder after they leave college is not so burdensome that they never really can fully realize their dreams. So I ask all my colleagues to support Senator Warren's legislation. I think it is going to be without question at the top of the list of the most important work we do in this Chamber this year, and I call upon my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to respond in the kind of bipartisan way that the American people want, those 40 million families that need relief from this oppressive burden of student loan debt. With that, I thank the Presiding Officer for her leadership. I yield back the remainder of my time, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. MARKEY. I will yield to the Senator.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. President. We are at a very important historical juncture, where the science is now conclusive that in fact the planet is dangerously warming. Since we last met on this floor a lot has happened. The global temperature for April 2014 tied with 2010 for the warmest April ever recorded in the history of the planet. This goes back to 1880. In May, the third National Climate Assessment presented the scientific evidence that climate change is already impacting the United States. The good news. The good news is that the President last week promulgated new rules to control greenhouse gases coming out of powerplants in the United States of America. Here is the very good news--the Senator from Rhode Island, the Senator from Vermont, the States across the Northeast--nine States have already had a regional greenhouse gas initiative over the last 9 years. In Massachusetts, we are already 40 percent lower now in 2014 than we were in 2005--40 percent lower. We know a flexible system such as this can and will work across the country. It is absolutely necessary for the United States to be the leader. We cannot preach temperance from a bar stool. The United States cannot tell the rest of the world they should reduce their greenhouse gases when we are still continuing on our historic path. The good news is we are going to create a green energy revolution. We can save creation while engaging in massive job creation in the United States. We can unleash this green energy revolution. We can reduce greenhouse gases. We can give the leadership to the rest of the world. We need to have a big debate here on the Senate floor. This is the place where the United States of America expects us to have this debate and where the rest of the world is watching. I yield the floor.