Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, my friend from Kentucky is attacking a bipartisan bill with overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. When I started in the U.S. Congress, one of the main operating principles under which we were able to make progress upon big issues-- and it went back to President Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn--was the Austin-Boston connection working together, Texas and Massachusetts, to make progress where we could. That is what this legislation is today. Senator Cruz and I agree that we have to ensure that, for public safety reasons, AM radio stays in the vehicles that Americans drive. And, as Senator Cruz said, 80 million Americans a month use AM radio. And not only is the Senator from Kentucky proposing to strike our bill but also to actively harm American drivers and American workers. We are going from win-win to lose-lose for American drivers. The electric vehicle tax credit helps Americans drive cheaper cars while driving manufacturing. Electric vehicle sales are soaring. Investments in new manufacturing capacity related to the electric vehicle supply chain also increased by more than 100 percent. It reached $35 billion in a single year since the passage of the tax credit. In total, since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, more than 84,000 new jobs have been announced in the EV sector. In fact, most of the largest single Federal investment in the auto industry is going to Senator Paul's State of Kentucky. New Federal loans for three battery manufacturing plants are expected to create 5,000 construction jobs and 7,500 operations jobs--all to build batteries for Ford and Lincoln electric vehicles. My friend, I would hope, would want Kentucky to be the home of those new jobs, new opportunities, and new economic energy driven by the electric vehicle tax credit, and I am sure other States would be interested in stepping in. We have union workers who have secured a historic victory over the Big Three with their recent strike. They have been clear that the electric vehicle revolution, which is kick-started by the tax credit, can be an engine for good-paying union jobs. So let's not pump the brakes on giving drivers the freedom to buy cheaper, cleaner vehicles. Let's not pump the brakes on new jobs in States across the country, including Kentucky. And let's not pump the brakes on ensuring that drivers and passengers can receive alerts during emergencies. AM radio is the backbone of FEMA's emergency response system. It allows emergency responders and, if necessary, the President of the United States to communicate with the public during the most dire of circumstances. In just the past 5 years, FEMA has invested more than $150 million to harden 77 radio stations across the country to withstand natural disasters, emergencies, and even a nuclear electromagnetic pulse. These stations are equipped with backup generators and other tools to stay online in the worst conditions, and FEMA has specifically chosen stations that would allow the President to communicate with more than 90 percent of the public. Those stations include WBZ-AM in Boston, MA, which beams all across New England. From Superstorm Sandy to the recent wildfires in Maui, when self-service and other communications channels went down, broadcast AM radio stations, especially those 77 hardened stations, remained on the air. Despite its immense importance to our emergency response system, broadcast AM radio is under attack from automakers. Over the past few years, car manufacturers have increasingly removed broadcast AM radio from their vehicles, arguing that AM radio is outdated and unnecessary during emergencies. Well, Senator Cruz and I know that is not accurate. That is why, a year ago, I sent letters to 20 automakers requesting additional information about their plans for broadcast AM radio. When I learned that eight companies had removed broadcast AM radio from their vehicles, Senator Cruz and I teamed up to introduce the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act, which would direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to require automakers to maintain broadcast AM radio in their vehicles. We now have 44 cosponsors from across the political spectrum, split evenly between Democrats and Republicans. We have built this broad coalition because this issue of access to AM radio is about public safety. And don't take our word for it. All year the emergency response community has been sounding the alarm about the removal of broadcast AM radio from vehicles and urging lawmakers to pass our bill. In fact, every former FEMA Administrator since the Clinton administration has endorsed the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act and so have groups representing the local emergency response communities, including the National Emergency Management Association, the International Association of Emergency Managers, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and Big City Emergency Managers. Earlier this year, FEMA warned that ``millions of people could be prevented from receiving critical, lifesaving information if AM radios are not included in automobiles'' and called the removal of AM radio stations a ``public safety crisis'' for the United States. The current FEMA Administrator has warned that the removal of AM radio would have a significant impact on the emergency alert system. So while automakers may argue that cell phones or streaming services can replace broadcast AM radio during emergencies, the emergency response community--the experts actually responsible for responding to emergencies--are universally saying just the opposite. They are saying that AM radio is important; that cell service often goes down, as we saw in Hawaii; that the key to an effective emergency alert system is redundancy. Whom do you want to listen to--the automakers with a financial interest in removing AM from their vehicles or the experts warning that this is a crisis? Every single day that passes is another day in which automakers put cars on the road without broadcast AM capabilities, putting their drivers and their passengers and their families in jeopardy. In matters of safety, we can't compromise. We have to listen to the experts when it comes to our national security. I urge my colleagues to stand with the tens of millions of AM radio listeners and the emergency response experts and support the AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act, which Senator Cruz and I have introduced. With that, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, across the country, parents and caregivers are bending over backward to try to get their children in early education. They are paying tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket, relying on family, friends, and neighbors, or are simply giving up work or their own educations because they can't find a childcare program with an opening. At the same time, overworked and underpaid providers are struggling to prop up childcare programs, burning themselves out, and leaving empty, shuttered classrooms behind them. The system is broken, and if we leave it broken, we are failing multiple generations of people who are relying upon us to fix it--to fix the broken system. As Marian Wright Edelman said, investing in children is not a national luxury or a national choice; it is a national necessity--a national necessity for our future. If we want the 21st century to be better than the 20th century, we don't have a choice--it is a necessity. When the pandemic began, Congress stepped up and provided the largest ever onetime investment in the childcare sector through the American Rescue Plan, and it worked. In Massachusetts, childcare providers received higher pay; programs stayed safe and open in more places and for more hours through the day. We kept classrooms open and prevented families from trying to decide how to continue working and finding a safe place for their children to learn, to grow, and to thrive. But the pandemic-era money is drying up, and those cracks that ruptured in 2020 were from years of underinvestment long before we had ever heard of COVID-19. If we fail to maintain this investment--if we fail 3.2 million children who would lose their care and the 232,000 childcare workers who would lose their jobs--then it would be a tragedy for our country. It would ultimately be an economic catastrophe for our country that we did not invest in those children in the same way that we were invested in by preceding generations. One of the reasons that they called an earlier generation the ``greatest generation,'' they weren't as wealthy as us, but they were wiser than us. They knew that every child had to be invested in. And that is why we are the country that we are today. The challenge for this generation is, are we as wise as preceding generations? Do we understand that it is only out of selfishness that we would not make the same decision that those earlier generations made in children to whom they were not related either, who did not come from the same ethnic group as they did either, but they did it because it would help our country? I am so proud that Massachusetts is a leader in childcare. State- level investments have saved almost 1,000 programs and 18,000 seats across the State from closure. But we can't expect States to keep plugging the holes of a failing system. We can't keep letting early educators and childcare providers bear the weight of underinvestment. We can't let generations of families fall behind because of a broken system. And we cannot let our childcare system--and all of the children, all of the families, all of the workers and providers in it-- fall off a cliff because there isn't enough funding for the children in our country to get the care that they need. We need to give States the financial freedom to invest, to improve quality, to reduce costs, and to expand access. We need to guarantee children and families have high-quality childcare. We need a national, permanent solution to the childcare crisis. If we want kids to thrive when they start school, if we want families to move out of poverty, we need to fund stabilization, support children and families, and build a childcare system that works. So I thank Senator Murray for her great historic leadership on this issue, for fighting for all of those children in our country to make sure they get the help that they deserve, because they are the ones who are going to make America better in the 21st century. Young people are only 20 percent of our population, but they are 100 percent of our future. That is all Senator Murray is talking about. Let us invest in them in the same way that we were invested in by previous generations.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 314, the Motion to Invoke Cloture on Jeffrey M. Bryan, of Minnesota, to be United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 315, confirmation of Jeffrey M. Bryan, of Minnesota, to be United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 316, the Motion to Invoke Cloture on Margaret M. Garnett, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 317, confirmation of Margaret M. Garnett, of New York, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 318, the Motion to Invoke Cloture on Jose Javier Rodriguez to be an Assistant Secretary of Labor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in support of the nomination of Ms. Julia Kobick to the United States Court for the District of Massachusetts. Today, the Senate voted to invoke cloture on Ms. Kobick's nomination, and, soon, we will vote on her confirmation. With a successful vote, Ms. Kobick will become the 150th Biden nominee to be confirmed as a judge. Julia Kobick is a rising star in Massachusetts legal circles. A Massachusetts native, she earned her bachelor's degree in government, with honors, from Harvard College. She began her career as a public schoolteacher to New York City's second and third graders. While teaching, she earned a master's in elementary education at Pace University. She went on to obtain her law degree, magna cum laude, at Harvard Law School. Ms. Kobick then clerked at every level of the Federal judiciary-- first, with Judge Dennis Saylor on the District Court of Massachusetts, then for Chief Judge Michael Chagares on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and, finally, for the great Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2013, following her clerkships, Ms. Kobick joined the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office. She worked there until 2021 as an assistant attorney general in the constitutional and administrative law division. Her practice spanned a range of substantive areas, including healthcare, child welfare, administrative law, and constitutional issues. Since the summer of 2021, Ms. Kobick has served as deputy State solicitor, where she has primarily handled civil and criminal appellate litigation. Ms. Kobick has received support from a number of groups, including from Massachusetts trial and appellate judges, former Massachusetts attorneys general, and her clerk colleagues at the U.S. Supreme Court-- clerks who worked for Justices nominated by Presidents of both parties. Many of Ms. Kobick's supporters cite her dedication and character, alongside her superior skill and judgment. Unsurprisingly, the American Bar Association has given her its highest rating of ``well qualified.'' Perhaps the best evidence of Ms. Kobick's fitness to serve on the district court is the enthusiastic support her nomination has received from her own opposing counsel. A cadre of attorneys who has litigated cases against parties Ms. Kobick represented has praised her ``meticulous advocacy'' across a variety of legal proceedings. From oral arguments before State and Federal trial court judges to appellate arguments before the First Circuit Court of Appeals and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the very lawyers who faced off against her in court have said that ``her legal abilities and intellect are first-rate as shown through the clarity and persuasiveness of her written and oral advocacy.'' They have lauded her preparedness and performance under pressure, her thoughtfulness as a colleague, and her skill in diffusing ``any contentious situation.'' Over the course of her career, Ms. Kobick has embodied the highest standards of the legal profession. True to her roots as a public schoolteacher, Ms. Kobick has mentored public interest-oriented law students at my alma mater, Boston College Law School, and has served as a mentor with The Appellate Project, an organization that matches attorneys with law students of color who are interested in appellate advocacy. Senator Warren and I are proud to have recommended Julie Kobick's nomination to President Biden, and we proudly speak in favor of her nomination before the full Senate today. She is a dedicated public servant of the highest caliber, and she will bring a rare level of legal talent to the bench. Her unquestionable integrity, her impeccable reputation, and her depth in both humility and skill make her uniquely suited for service as a Federal district court judge. I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on cloture and then on confirmation. This will be a judge all of you will be proud you have voted for. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I have six requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 7, 2023, to conduct a hearing on nominations. commttee on commerce, science, and transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 7, 2023, at 10 a.m., to conduct a subcommittee hearing. committee on commerce, science, and transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 7, 2023, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on nominations. committee on the judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 7, 2023, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing. select committee on intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, November 7, 2023, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing. subcommittee on transportation and infrastructure

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote No. 291, confirmation of Lt. Gen. Christopher J. Mahoney for appointment as Asst. Commandant of the Marine Corps, and to be General.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, today I recognize Charlie Owen, as he concludes his remarkable tenure as president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees--AFSCME--Council 93. Charles C. Owen, Jr., was born on January 29, 1950, a son of the tightly knit Irish community in South Boston, MA. In 1968, he joined the U.S. Army and was stationed in Germany before heading to Vietnam, where he fought for his country. He returned to the United States with an honorable discharge in 1971. In 1975, he went into the public service, securing a job working as a mechanic in the city of Boston Police Department, repairing police cars. He went on to serve the city of Boston for 46 years. Charlie almost never worked just one job. Like many people in this country, he had to work multiple jobs to support his family. He worked as an emergency medical technician, and for 20 years, he was a day-of- game employee for his beloved Boston Red Sox. He was a part of the Red Sox operation not just for the storied--and curse-breaking--2004 championship season, but also for the 2007, 2013, and 2018 World Series winning seasons. And, typical of Charlie, he didn't just work the games. For over a decade, he ran his own charitable golf tournament, raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Jimmy Fund, the Red Sox charitable foundation that fights both childhood and adult cancer. But it was as a city of Boston employee that Charlie really found his niche as a union activist. He got involved in his local and eventually became the president of AFSCME Local 804, which represents supervisors and managers across the city of Boston. To this day, he remains a loyal, dues-paying member of Local 804. Across decades of union activism, Charlie learned to negotiate contracts, to stand up for his members at work, to work with management to solve complicated workplace problems, to figure out which political candidates would stand up for workers, to help elect those candidates to office, and to persuade elected officials to pass laws that would help working families. In 2011, he ran for the vice presidency of AFSCME Council 93, the umbrella organization for all AFSCME Locals in Northern New England. He won his election and, in 2012, ascended to the presidency of the council. He has travelled all over New England, and indeed all over the country, talking to workers in Tennessee, Texas, Colorado, and elsewhere about standing together to have a voice at work. He has spoken with elected officials at every level about the concerns of workers--the need for a living wage, decent health insurance, and a dignified retirement. This includes three American Presidents-- President Bill Clinton, President Barack Obama, and President Joe Biden--as well as any number of Presidential candidates. In short, Charlie Owen is a great American. He has served his country from almost the moment he turned 18, as a member of the armed services, in public service, and as a union activist. Everywhere he went, everything he did, he looked for ways to serve others, whether those others be his coworkers, children with cancer, or simply his fellow Americans. In January 2021, Charlie retired from his job at the city of Boston, and in November of this year, his term as president of AFSCME Council 93 will end. He has dedicated over 40 years of his life in service to his coworkers. As he ends his professional career and steps down from decades of service to his union, we salute him. He will spend time with his seven children, his many grandchildren, and great-grandchild, and he will continue to travel around the country talking to people seeking a voice at work. I thank Charlie for his unending dedication and look forward to seeing what great things he will do next.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, earlier this year, we lost a treasured consumer, public health and safety advocate. Allison Kennedy passed away on May 10, 2023, after suffering a brain aneurysm. She was 36 years old. A devoted mother, beloved wife, and cherished daughter, Allison was full of life and love. Allison was born in Visalia, CA in February 1987. Although Allison was an only child, she grew up surrounded and supported by her large and loving extended family in Washington, anchored by her Nana and major role model Nita King. Life for Allison revolved around her family. She loved her grandfather Jim beyond words. She especially loved the precious time she spent with her father outdoors or working on household projects together, even FaceTiming her dad 3,000 miles away to help her put a table together. She loved traveling with her family, including to the off-road races in Baja, especially with her Uncle David. She attended Washington State University, graduating in 2010, and received her master's degree from American University in Washington, DC, in 2014. After starting her graduate studies at Washington State University, she began a 3-month internship in Washington, DC. Within weeks of moving to DC, she fell in love with the city, the politics, and a man named Brian. Their love started on their first date as they sat talking in her apartment until 3 in the morning. Allison and Brian were engaged in December 2014 and married in November 2015. They first lived in Northeast Washington, D.C., then moved to Maryland in 2019, and finally found their dream home in Burke, VA, in 2022. Allison longed to be a mother. Allison and Brian tried for nearly 5 years. In 2021, they received the gift of Christopher ``Kit'' Colm, through adoption, who blessed their home with the fullness of love and joy. Allison thrived as a mother. In every way, she knew how to care for Kit and help him blossom. In 2022, Brian and Allison found out they were pregnant. Callahan ``Cal'' was welcomed into the world in January 2023. The final months of Allison's life were filled with happiness and contentment as she thrived as a mother of two. Allison also served as the director of government relations for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. She was well known and well respected on Capitol Hill as an ardent champion for safe roads, safe vehicles and safe road users. During her more than 10 years with Advocates, she cultivated a safety legacy that will continue to prevent crashes and save lives for years to come. Under the leadership of her professional mentors, Cathy Chase and Jackie Gillian, Allison grew into a fierce and successful advocate whose work led to the adoption of critical safety-minded policies, including many of the key safety provisions of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. For generations to come, Allison's legacy will be measured in the countless lives of children, teen drivers, pedestrians, and motorists that her work helped to save. She loved and was adored by all her colleagues at Advocates. Allison's untimely passing is a monumental personal and professional loss for the Advocates' team and for all those who work closely with the organization. She will be remembered as a dedicated public health and safety activist, wonderful colleague, caring friend, cherished daughter, devoted wife, and dedicated mother. I send my condolences to her husband Brian, their two young sons Christopher ``Kit'' and Callahan ``Cal,'' her parents Erin and Michael, her entire family, and all her loved ones.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yea on rollcall vote No. 224, confirmation of Tanya J. Bradsher, to be Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs. I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yea on rollcall vote No. 225, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Jeffrey Irvine Cummings to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois. I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yea on rollcall vote No. 226, confirmation of Jeffrey Irvine Cummings to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois. I was necessarily absent, but had I been present, I would have voted yea on rollcall vote No. 227, the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 4366, a bill making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, this bill would undermine the ability of States, cities, and towns across this country to make decisions about what is best for their communities. It would silence and hamstring public health experts who have guided our Nation out of the darkest days of a pandemic that has killed 1,139,000 people in our country in 3 years. Let me repeat that. This disease has killed 1,139,000 people already, and doctors and experts are saying that COVID is coming back. It is on the rise, once again. This provision would violate a long-held belief in the Republican Party that States and localities should not be told what to do by a Federal Government removed from the realities that they are seeing on the ground in their neighborhoods. This bill is little more than an attempt by Republicans to dismantle a public health infrastructure that had to be built in order to deal with this greatest of pandemics since 1918. What public health experts and the medical professionals are talking about is an upcoming COVID and flu and RSV season and preparing for it. These healthcare heroes are the same ones who risked their lives to save lives, and we should continue to protect that right to make decisions on the health of their patients, of their communities, and that is what locally focused healthcare is all about. Here is what we do know. Last year, the combined forces of this ``tripledemic'' of flu, RSV, and COVID strained healthcare centers to a breaking point. Healthcare providers tried to keep up as emergency departments overflowed with sick children, adults, and seniors. And people are still getting sick. This year, healthcare providers, health centers, public health departments, transportation workers, and school districts are, once again, preparing to protect students and seniors and disabled and immunocompromised people all across our country. Millions of Americans will be doing what we can to protect ourselves and our loved ones, and our communities must be able to take steps to save lives and keep people from getting sick or getting sicker, including the tools of vaccines and masks. But the only thing that the Republicans seem willing to mask is their antipathy for making healthcare affordable and acceptable for millions of Americans. Republicans already fought this year to throw people off of Medicare and their health coverage. Not a single Republican voted to make insulin and other medications more affordable for seniors. Republicans have blocked legislation to protect the right of individuals to make healthcare decisions with their doctors. It makes no sense to put limits on how communities and individuals can protect themselves. This bill is a red herring. It is a false debate. We should have an aquarium down in the well of the Senate to capture all of the red herrings that are being introduced into this public health debate. It is a distraction; it is misleading; and it is meant to deflect from what the GOP really stands for right now, ``Gimmicks Over People.'' Republicans have to understand that we have to provide the options for our healthcare heroes to save lives. They will make us less safe because they will be tying the hands of healthcare professionals in order to implement policies that protect against an addition to the 1.139 million people who have already died. You argue that this bill is about freedom, but it is not. Freedom is parents and students knowing their school can take every step possible to keep them from getting sick or taking home an illness that could hurt their siblings, their parents, or their grandparents. Freedom is workers who know their workplace on a plane, train, or even in a classroom is safe. Freedom is knowing that when people travel, either on their way to work by way of public transportation or across the country to visit family for the holidays, they will know that every safety measure is available to keep them and their families safe. We must protect the freedom for communities to have every public health tool available, if it is needed in the opinion of the public health officials in that community, in that State. They should be the ones making the decision, at the local level, looking at the dangers to their population. Again, these numbers are historic: 1,139,000 people have already died, and there is more coming. And if in the opinion of public health officials, strategies can be adopted using masks that reduce the likelihood that more will die, we should give them that freedom to make those decisions. With that, I object.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Anna Gomez, President Joe Biden's nominee to serve on the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC is one of the premier, expert Agencies in the Federal Government, responsible for overseeing the wires and the radio waves that have become the backbone of our economy and our communities. But since the beginning of the Biden administration nearly 1,000 days ago, the Agency has been hamstrung in implementing critical communications priorities due to the absence of a fifth Commissioner. With Ms. Gomez as a Commissioner, that will finally change. The Federal Communications Commission will have the power to take on the big-dollar interests that seek to block critical consumer protections at every turn. I support Ms. Gomez's nomination because I know she is ready for these fights. She knows that today broadband is not a luxury. Like running water or heat, broadband is an essential utility. Without high- quality and affordable broadband, students cannot learn, small businesses cannot reach new customers, entrepreneurs cannot innovate, and seniors cannot access telemedicine. The FCC's authority must reflect the essential nature of the internet in American life, and that is exactly what Ms. Gomez will provide. With three Democratic Commissioners, the FCC can act swiftly to restore net neutrality and protect a free and open internet. My Republican colleagues will say that Congress should act on net neutrality instead of the Federal Communications Commission, but their Big Cable and Big Tech industry allies will be in their ear with crocodile-tear arguments about an out-of-control Agency usurping the will of Congress. Well, if Republicans really want to take on this problem through legislation and not administrative action, then they should be prepared to join me when I reintroduce my net neutrality legislation in the coming weeks. They can be on record supporting internet freedom or siding with the broadband behemoths. It has been nearly 6 years since the Trump FCC repealed net neutrality. We cannot wait any longer for Republicans to come to their senses. We must confirm Ms. Gomez so that the FCC can act without delay. We must also confirm Ms. Gomez because the FCC must address other critical communications issues, including technology accessibility for people with disabilities, protecting local community media, and closing the homework gap. I am particularly concerned about the future of the $7 billion Emergency Connectivity Fund, which I passed during the pandemic. Over the past 2 years, thanks to the Commission's hard work, the Emergency Connectivity Fund has provided laptops, tablets, and internet services to more than 17 million students and teachers. Those resources are particularly critical for Black and Brown and immigrant and low-income populations who often lack access to the internet at home. Unfortunately, this program will soon be out of money, potentially disconnecting millions of students and driving a deeper wedge into the digital divide. We cannot let that happen. I stand ready to work with my colleagues to extend this essential funding, and I know that Ms. Gomez, like Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, will be a fierce advocate for students at the Commission so that we can keep closing the homework gap and provide every child with access to the 21st-century tools they will need. We stand at a critical moment to ensure a just broadband future for everyone. We need Anna Gomez on the Federal Communications Commission. She has the knowledge, the values, and the judgment the Commission needs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, before we begin, I would like to thank Paige Rodrigues, who first came to my office 5 years ago and has been working tirelessly over all of that time, working to protect the people of Massachusetts and the people of our country and our entire planet from the effects of climate change and environmental threats to our country and to our planet. She is heading off to law school, and we will miss her. We will miss her brilliant work and her continual devotion to building a better world for everyone, because this world is under immediate threat. Earlier this month, we experienced what might have been Earth's hottest day in 125,000 years. You heard that right: the hottest day in 125,000 years. And we are living through it right now. In Phoenix, AZ, the temperature has been 110 degrees or higher for nearly 3 weeks in a row. The water off of the coast of Florida is now nearing 100 degrees. The water is boiling in our oceans off of our coastlines. On July 15, nearly one in three Americans was living under an extreme heat alert. We are living under a heat dome right now in our Nation. The forest fires in Canada are sending fumes down across our country. It is like an exhaust pipe from an automobile just sending these toxic fumes down across our country day after day, week after week, from Canada, from their forest fires right above us. This year, we have experienced 17 of the hottest days ever recorded. This is nothing short of a public health crisis in our country. Extreme heat causes heat stroke, pregnancy risk, and thousands of hospitalizations and deaths every year in our country. And this extreme heat isn't a coincidence; it is the climate crisis announcing its arrival. We did this. We did this to ourselves. Humankind's greed and negligence--America's greed and negligence--is creating a literal hell on Earth, right now. We are living through it. We took a first step last year to pass climate and clean energy legislation that will inch us closer to salvation, but it will not save us. We must take bolder action to stop the climate crisis and secure a livable future, and we also need to act with urgency to protect the people who, right now, face extreme heat risk as a result of extreme heat in our country. We have a moral and a planetary obligation to the American people to deliver the resources communities need to combat extreme heat, especially the frontline communities where the effects of heat are worsened by unjust racial and economic divides. We have to listen to the young people in our country. They are warning us. They are saying that they have been let down, that their generation has been left with this crisis, that not enough has been done, and that the preceding generation just enjoyed all the benefits of industrialization. And now this generation of young people who are organizing, who are lifting their voices, who are demanding a change, they understand this issue. They understand this issue better than preceding generations because they are living with the consequences of not dealing with this issue. This generation--this young generation--are the issues-oriented generation. They are the ones who understand this issue. They are the ones who understand the problem and want even greater solutions to be put in place. I am working with my colleagues to reintroduce my legislation, the Preventing HEAT Illness and Deaths Act, which will do just that, while giving our Federal Government the resources and the authority to track and to study and to alert Americans of all the threats posed by extreme heat. We must meet this public health crisis with the urgency that it requires. Workers are collapsing. Wildfires are raging. And this heat isn't going anywhere. The summers are getting hotter. The storms are getting stronger. The seas are rising higher due to human-caused climate change. In Arizona, Texas, California, Nevada, and all around the country, people are dying every single day because of this heat, and the risks of extreme heat having fallen more heavily on low-income communities and communities of color, as well as on our seniors and children in our Nation. While most heat-related deaths and illnesses are preventable through outreach and intervention, extreme heat events have been the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the United States over the past 30 years. And our historic addiction to fossil fuels is what is driving all of this devastation. So let's think about this, like a doctor would. We can name the source of this public health catastrophe: extreme heat. We know what drives the extreme heat: fossil fuels. And we know how to cure it: climate action now. Our planet is sick. Our country is sick. Our country is running a fever right now. And there are no emergency rooms for countries. We have to engage in preventive care. We know how to cure this. It is climate action now. And if we don't, because our country is sick, because our planet is sick, it is killing us along with that planet being slowly but surely burnt to a crisp. This is why, earlier this year, I introduced the Green New Deal for Health, a national treatment plan to build a healthcare system that delivers the care people need in a dangerous world. The Green New Deal for Health brings together the principles of the Green New Deal--good-paying jobs, justice for all, and a livable future--to create a healthcare system where everyone doesn't just survive; they thrive. The sirens are sounding. We are in a climate emergency, and Congress should be the first responders, not holding the matches that continue to exacerbate this crisis. A whole-of-government response is the only way to fight this whole-of-planet threat: climate action that breaks our fossil fuel addiction, a stronger healthcare system that works for workers and patients, and a commitment to a livable future. That is where we are. This is an emergency. This heat is a warning. But it is no longer a warning of the future. It is a warning that right now we are living with the consequences of the future. It is a warning that right now we are living with the consequences of our inaction. So my hope is that this institution can respond. Young people are demanding that we respond. We should listen to the young people of our country and the planet. We have to do more. I see my good friend and the leader of the Environment Committee, Tom Carper, who did just so much last year to pass historic legislation to deal with methane and its impact and to deal with the need for us to move to wind and solar and all-electric vehicles and battery technologies. I can't thank Chairman Carper enough for all of his incredible leadership to make sure that we took that first huge step. But so much more needs to be done. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, due to a regrettable clerical error, Senators Smith and Warren were not added as original cosponsors of S. 1616, the Judiciary Act of 2023, when I introduced the bill on May 16, 2023. I wish to clarify that Senators Smith and Warren are indeed original cosponsors of this important legislation and have been committed partners in this work. I thank them for their leadership and partnership in restoring confidence in the Nation's highest Court.

Mr. MARKEY

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

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

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in support of the confirmation of Judge Myong Joun to the U.S. Court for the District of Massachusetts. In a few minutes, the Senate will vote to invoke cloture on Judge Joun's nomination. And this afternoon, once we have invoked cloture, we will vote on his confirmation. When Judge Joun was a child, his family immigrated to the U.S. from South Korea with only a few dollars in their pockets. He was raised by his single mother who earned a living as a seamstress. He attended New York City Public Schools, served in the Massachusetts National Guard, and graduated from the University of Massachusetts Boston and Suffolk University Law School in Boston. In private practice, including at his own law firm, Judge Joun litigated extensively before the Massachusetts State and Federal courts, eventually earning an appointment as a justice of the Boston Municipal Court. Judge Joun has shown a steadfast commitment to civil rights and access to justice. In private practice, he often took on cases involving police misconduct, wage theft, and housing violations. As one of his many colleagues writing in on his behalf put it, Judge Joun's ``professional life has been devoted to working with people who need legal assistance but are unable to navigate the system because of language, financial, or educational barriers.'' Judge Joun has also consistently and generously given his time to service, holding leadership roles in organizations such as the Asian American Lawyers Association of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Bar Association, and the National Lawyers Guild. For many years, he has taught trial advocacy to law students. Over the course of his career, Judge Joun has exemplified the highest standards of the legal profession. He is a dedicated public servant who will bring knowledge, experience, and compassion to the Massachusetts Federal district court. As the first Asian-American man and first Korean American to serve on the district court of Massachusetts, Judge Joun will be a trailblazer. I have no doubt that he will continue to serve the people of Massachusetts with distinction, and I look forward to his confirmation. Senator Warren and I absolutely endorse his candidacy with the strongest possible recommendation to the full Senate, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on cloture and on his nomination.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I vigorously oppose Putin's illegal and unjust invasion of Ukraine, and I have supported American aid to help Ukraine defend itself. Putin's war of aggression cannot stand. And I am perfectly willing to push back on Russia, but we have to do it the right way. I sincerely respect the Senator from Alaska's concerns about Russian seafood imports. I believe it is unfair and improper that Russia has banned American seafood imports since 2014. And I appreciate the Senator's willingness to work with me on his proposal last year that would have created an immediate disruption to the seafood supply chain and to instead provide more time for our processors who purchase more than 80 percent of their seafood from Alaska to be able to meet demand with supplies from other markets. However, the bill Senator Sullivan is trying to pass through live by unanimous consent today--which has not yet been considered in the Senate Finance Committee to which it was referred--has raised other questions from seafood processors and from my colleagues in New England in terms of workability. The Senator was able to work with my staff to resolve the issues in his proposal last year, and I thank him for that. But this new proposal has new provisions that will need some time for us to work out. We actually succeeded last year, but now we need the time to do the same thing, and we have to make sure that it has workability for New England. The bill would block the import of Russian seafood that has been substantially transformed in another country. It is unclear if U.S. Customs and Border Protection has the full capacity to determine and enforce where seafood comes from before it has been substantially transformed, since this new proposal would go against how seafood origin has been considered under longstanding U.S. law and defined through the U.S. Treasury Department. So, as a result, while Customs and Border Protection attempts this difficult enforcement task, processors could see major disruption. Workers could lose their jobs. Consumer goods costs for Americans could rise significantly. With that in mind, and with a sincere message that I want to send to the Senator from Alaska with regard to not only mine but our entire New England delegation's willingness to work with him, I object to the passage of this bill at this time, and I ask the Senator to continue to have a willingness to work with us so that we can resolve the new issues that are raised in this proposal. So at this time, I object.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, again, the Senator from Alaska and I are friends. His father is a Sullivan. My mother is a Sullivan. Sullivans are very intelligent people, by the way. So, last year, Senator Sullivan brought a bill out onto the floor. We had concerns coming from the Massachusetts fishing community--New Bedford, Gloucester, famous fishing ports, still today competing with Alaska for the title in the United States for the largest in the country. And there were some concerns. So I objected. We called a time- out on the field, and we worked out all of those issues. That was round 1. Now, yesterday, the Senator from Alaska has a new bill with new provisions in it. In addition to the provisions from last year that we worked out, there are all new provisions. And it is not a rope-a-dope-- though, obviously, anything that uses a Muhammad Ali-created concept is a great honor to have attached to us, but we don't see this as rope-a- dope. This is more just round 2. We finished round 1. Now we are on round 2. A whole new bill, new language, and, again, the same thing. We are willing to work with you, but we can't solve it in 24 hours. My staff and yours, sitting down with other members of the New England delegation, we can get together and find a commonsense pathway through it. But, right now, Gorton's of Gloucester is very concerned about this bill. One firm has 450 workers, another has 350 workers, and we have dozens of other companies up in Massachusetts with employees that are potentially jeopardized by this bill. So I am objecting. But I am objecting and inviting the Senator from Alaska to, again, engage once again in a good-faith negotiation, and we are willing to do so. Then, at the completion of that, we can again agree and move forward. But I am objecting mainly because of this cascade of concerns that are coming from the food processing industry, the seafood processing industry, in Massachusetts, all across New England, led by Gorton's of Gloucester but many, many others who don't have the same kind of national and international reputation but who feel greatly jeopardized by the language in this bill. And that is the reason that I am objecting while simultaneously saying: It is not a rope-a-dope. Let's sit down. Let's try to work out the differences.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, to my friend, again, from Alaska, we are not engaging in a rope-a-dope at all. At the same time, we don't want to be a punching bag. We don't want the Massachusetts fishing industry, through this processing industry, to get sucker-punched with a bill on only 24 hours' notice. We are more than willing, again, to work with you in order to resolve these issues, and my friend knows that over the years, that is what we have done on issue after issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, 1 year ago, the rightwing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court overturned decades of established precedent and stripped away the right to abortion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. In this decision, the Supreme Court overturned the right of the American people to make decisions about their own bodies and their own health. That is why, 1 year ago, I filed the Right to Contraception Act with my colleagues Senators Duckworth, Hirono, Baldwin, and Murray, and I stood here, much like I am today, to request unanimous consent to pass our legislation. The House of Representatives passed the bill by a bipartisan vote of 220 to 195 at that time. Unfortunately, the Republicans in this Chamber chose to block its passage. Here is just a short list of what has befallen us since that time. District court judges have blocked teens from accessing birth control at federally funded clinics and taken aim at health insurance coverage for contraception. Extremist State legislators have restricted, criminalized, and stigmatized reproductive care, including by suspending payments for emergency contraception for survivors of sexual assault. And people are left paying more, traveling further, and working harder to get essential medication. The threats to contraception are real and happening now. So I stand here today, once again, to invite every Member of the Senate to join me, Senator Duckworth, Senator Hirono, Senator Baldwin, Senator Murray, and the 35 additional cosponsors to pass the Right to Contraception Act. Cosponsoring this bill means that you support codifying the right to obtain and use contraception; enshrining Supreme Court precedent into Federal law, guaranteeing a healthcare provider's right to prescribe these products and services and to share information related to them; preventing the Federal Government and States from interfering with the right to contraception; and authorizing the U.S. Attorney General, healthcare providers, and all Americans harmed by unlawful restrictions to go to court to enforce the rights this bill establishes--because there is no right without a remedy. Passing the Right to Contraception Act means setting the bare minimum standard that the right to contraception should be protected even if the Supreme Court, once again, overturns settled precedent. Nine in ten Americans support the right to contraception. This is not just a moral duty but part of our duty to represent the will of the American people. The right to contraception is central to life, liberty, and freedom. This is for every person who wants to live without politicians in their homes and waiting rooms, especially women, Black, Brown, indigenous, LGBTQ+, rural, immigrant, low-income, and disabled Americans most impacted by the failures of this Supreme Court. With the right to abortion stolen and the right to contraception now threatened, I urge my colleagues to stand with us and to pass today the Right to Contraception Act. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 1999 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. MARKEY. This is an issue that we are going to return to. Justice Thomas, in his comments on the Dobbs decision, said that the decisions made by the Supreme Court that extended privacy rights were an overreach. This Supreme Court began with the Dobbs decision. It is very clear, because he mentioned it specifically, that the Griswold decision--the decision to, in fact, protect the right to contraception--is also now in the crosshairs of the Supreme Court. So it is imperative that we return to this law to begin the process of passing legislation to codify this protection for Americans. I yield the floor.