Edward J. Markey

Let me just begin by saying I agree with Senator Budd about the importance of transparency and of accountability in our disaster programs.

But I cannot support this legislation while the Trump administration politicizes and withholds aid from disaster victims in blue States, including my own home State of Massachusetts.

Recent reporting revealed that Trump overrode the recommendation of his own Agency and prevented four Democratic States--including Massachusetts--from receiving disaster assistance related to blizzards earlier this year. So parts of my own home State got nearly 41 inches of snow in 24 hours, costing our State over $45 million in blizzard- related expenses.

And according to this report, the States easily met FEMA's internal qualifications for disaster aid. But for Trump, the only qualification is blind loyalty.

And this is not an isolated incident. While red States' FEMA disaster applications have been approved 89 percent of the time, those from blue States receive signoff from the Trump administration only 23 percent of the time.

But don't think you are safe just because you are in a State that voted for the President. Earlier this month, at a rally in North Carolina for Michael Whatley--Trump's hand-picked MAGA Senate candidate--President Trump told a community devastated by Hurricane Helene--here's what the President said this month in North Carolina: You know you're waiting for some additional funding. Now, if Michael loses, I'm not sending it to North Carolina.

What? The people of North Carolina should get the help. It shouldn't depend upon whether the Senator is a Democrat or Republican, whether it is blue or red. It is about Americans who have suffered a disaster.

And the numbers are incredible. This is the history, since Ronald Reagan, of disaster relief in the United States. And you can see that it tracks pretty much red and blue the whole way--Reagan, George Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama, Trump 1--stayed the same. Money went out in equal amounts to red and blue States, Democrat and Republican States.

But then Trump won again, and you can see what is happening. In the blue States, it looks like the 1929 stock market crash. We go from being equal with Republican States to falling off the table, and you can't really treat disasters that way. They are Americans. It could be a flood; it could be a hurricane, a tornado. It doesn't make any difference. They are all our American neighbors. They deserve the Federal assistance.

The President, again as recently as this month, is saying in North Carolina: If you elect a Democratic Senator, you won't get the help.

That is just not right, and we all know that is not right. So that has to get rectified because that is really not cooperation; that is just corruption, right? That is just saying: We're going to take this Federal program and turn it into something where he gets arbitrarily to determine whether or not he dishes out the money.

And it doesn't really make any difference to me if it is Oklahoma or North Carolina or Massachusetts or California; everyone who suffers a disaster should get the Federal help they need.

The President just cannot be allowed to use essential disaster aid as a tool for political extortion. Yet there he is, he is making it plain as day that if you don't vote for a Republican Senator, you don't get any money in your State for a disaster which has devastated your people.

We just have to make sure that we stand up and, if we are serious about transparency and accountability in the disaster recovery process, we should hold hearings, demand answers from this administration about why blue States are denied help at such a disproportionate rate.

And if the Trump administration insists on putting MAGA before the many, Congress must force the administration to treat disaster victims fairly, regardless of the State where they live or who they voted for.

I want to work with the Senator from North Carolina to address the administration's unacceptable treatment of disaster victims in Massachusetts and other blue States. We just have to get it back to the historic norm. The Senator has identified a problem, and I have worked with him in the committee to help to move that legislation.

But this is in many ways an even bigger problem. We cannot have this disparate treatment to continue any longer. So because of that, but with my request that I work with the gentleman as we head into the lameduck session, that we can work to talk to the Trump administration about rectifying this historic injustice.

So, at this time, as a result, I must object to the Senator's request.

Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Blackburn's resolution.

Make no mistake, the Senator's resolution is not about celebrating the impact of women and girls in sports. This resolution is yet another salvo in the relentless, escalating attacks on Americans' freedom that MAGA Republicans are waging at every level of government.

While families are facing the affordability crisis, the Trump administration and my Republican colleagues care more about limiting Americans' access to vaccines and healthcare, dictating school curriculum and banning books, overruling the judgment of experts when the facts do not align with their extremist agenda, and even policing what sports kids can play.

You know, we should be having a big debate out here right now on the fact that healthcare costs are skyrocketing, gasoline prices are skyrocketing, diesel prices are skyrocketing, food prices are skyrocketing--everything is skyrocketing--and it is all cascading down onto the kitchen tables of families trying to pay their bills. And it is all because of this war in Iran.

And the price of fuel is going through everything in our society. The price of diesel is skyrocketing. That is what farmers use to do their farming. That is what farmers use once they finish their farming to put it in trucks and travel it across the country to put it on people's kitchen tables.

The prices are going up and up and up. We are not having a hearing on that.

Yesterday, the President met with all of the trillionaires and the billionaires in the White House who are the AI giants. And, of course, people are scared in our country. They are wondering: Is the government going to do anything to control AI and these billionaires and millionaires?

So Trump met with them, and when it was all finished, Trump said: You don't have to worry about it--he just took care of it, Trump--because all of these trillionaires and billionaires are all agreeing that they are going to voluntarily agree to a morally binding standard.

What? Are we really going to trust these people--by the way, they are all guys--these guys to really protect our people from AI?

Donald Trump is talking about something that is morally binding. We should be having hearings on this. We should be having debates on this out here. But we are not because, in a Republican-controlled Senate, they put all these people in a witness protection program. They don't appear before Congress. We don't debate the issues that are really impacting people, their families, and their kitchen table--the things that they really want to have the Senate do something about.

And that is because MAGA Republicans are obsessed with demonizing a small group of people to distract from the President's disastrous policy agenda.

And Senator Blackburn's resolution is just the latest distraction. This effort is senseless. It is cruel. It is hateful. Politicians in Washington, they don't get to decide who belongs in society and who does not.

I lead the Trans Bill of Rights because it is our moral obligation to defend the rights of trans people. Trans people deserve the right to healthcare, to receive proper identity documents, to safe schools and workplaces, to serve their Nation, to celebrate the same unassailable rights to education and to jobs and to housing as every other American--simply put, to experience the freedom, the joy, the opportunity afforded to every other American.

Earlier this year, I met with Abbott, a constituent of mine from Massachusetts. He is 13 years old, a three-time Little League all-star baseball catcher. Abbott is a successful and beloved student. And with the freedom and dignity to get the healthcare he needs, Abbott is thriving.

Every child deserves that freedom, that safety, that opportunity. Abbott understands this. He came into my office to demand that his rights and the rights of other children like him be protected. And I fully support him.

Today, I stand in opposition to this resolution, and I stand in defense of all children.

Here in America, we know that freedom must be fought for. It is fought for by people who say ``no more'' in the face of discrimination; ``no more'' in the face of invasive laws that seek to limit what healthcare you can get; ``no more'' to restrictions on whom you can love, what books you can read, what fields you can play on. Every transgender and nonbinary person deserves to live freely and without fear of discrimination.

This resolution is not about freedom; this resolution is about fear. And I will stand to object as many times as necessary to stop such fear, such hatred.

Mr. President, I object.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, though this bill is primarily focused on addressing bycatch in the Northern Pacific fisheries, Alaska, we still have questions in Massachusetts about how this bill will affect fisheries that expand beyond the Northern Pacific.

Again, people sometimes don't follow fishing issues that closely. They might be amazed to know that the largest two fishing areas in the United States are Alaska and Massachusetts--New Bedford, Gloucester. You have seen the movies. You saw ``The Perfect Storm.'' You saw all of these incredible stories about Massachusetts and its fishing industry. The same thing is true for Alaska. So we share that designation, and we kind of debate over which one is the No. 1 fishing State in the Union. It is not a debate in Senator Sullivan's mind, I know, but it is important to us.

Reducing bycatch is an important issue in Alaska and in Massachusetts as well, and it is very much worth pursuing, so I hope to continue to work on this topic with my colleague. It is a very important subject.

When you are trying to catch one fish and now you start catching other fish as well, that is what we call bycatch, and you want to minimize that. You want to just focus on the primary fishing objective. So it is a very important subject, and it is something that all of the people in the Alaska delegation understand better than anyone else. It is a fishery issue that is essential in Alaska, but it affects other States, including Massachusetts, as well.

But since this bill includes language that would direct new regulations across fisheries, I owe it to my constituents in Massachusetts to talk directly with the fishermen and fishing organizations in Massachusetts that could be affected by any changes, and they will need the time just to make sure any modifications that are needed would be included in the legislation.

Unfortunately, this bill is moving rapidly. We haven't had enough time to tackle these questions and talk to those folks in Massachusetts, many of whom are out on their boats right now or are on the docks as we speak. We just need to give them the time to be able to fully consider the implications of this legislation just to make sure there is not an implication in the law of unintended consequences.

We have areas of agreement, though--no question about it--to build upon. I support the establishment of a fund for bycatch mitigation and habitat protection, as well as for the reauthorization of the Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program. All of that, I think, we can agree on. I think increased transparency and accountability in fisheries management is a critical goal, and I fundamentally believe in the aim of protecting our fisheries and habitats from unnecessary damage and harm.

I want to continue to work with my colleague on that effort in the weeks ahead. We are still going to be in session for another couple of months. I have to respect, however, the ongoing questions posed by my constituents in Massachusetts regarding what this bill would mean to them.

My staff is here with me--Jeremy D'Aloisio, Hannah Vogel, and Colleen Brown. They are here. They are willing to start talking right now, to work on this issue with Senator Sullivan's staff in ensuring that we hear all of the concerns that come from the fishing communities in Massachusetts but then to come to the table to try to resolve any differences and to ultimately produce legislation.

So that is the reason I come out here, and I do so having reserved my right to object. But having made my statement, I must at this point object to the motion of the Senator from Alaska.