Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in support of the confirmation of Julie Rikelman to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

In just a few minutes, the Senate will vote to invoke cloture on Julie Rikelman's nomination, and, soon after, we will vote on her confirmation.

Julie Rikelman has a distinctively American story. In 1979, her family emigrated to the United States from the Soviet Union--Ukraine, to be specific--settling in Massachusetts. Like so many Soviet immigrants in the 1970s, her family sought freedom, and especially, as Soviet Jews, they sought religious freedom.

As a child, Ms. Rikelman and her family left behind the only home they knew. They endured the challenges of beginning anew in an unfamiliar country, as refugees, mastering a new language and a new culture. They embraced their new home and became naturalized U.S. citizens. Ms. Rikelman's experience as a Soviet political refugee shaped her lifelong commitment to the American legal system as well as her commitment to true ``justice for all'' and to the fundamental principles of the rule of law.

With 25 years of experience, her legal career has been nothing short of stellar. Julie attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School. She clerked for Justice Dana Fabe on the Alaska Supreme Court and for Judge Morton Greenberg on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

She has worked in private practice and in public interest law, litigating a range of issues, from reproductive rights cases across the country to civil and criminal cases at both the trial and appellate levels. She has experience in securities law, antitrust law, election law, and constitutional law. Ms. Rikelman's Federal and State court cases have involved defamation, intellectual property, and employment discrimination claims. She is a brilliant legal mind and brings deep experience to issues commonly before the First Circuit.

Julie Rikelman has dedicated her career to the protection of Americans' fundamental rights, including the rights to liberty and privacy, distinguishing herself as one of our Nation's leading reproductive rights attorneys. In 2021, she argued the Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a seminal case in the history of our highest Court's considering that issue.

I have complete confidence that Ms. Rikelman will bring a broadened perspective, steadfast integrity, and deep knowledge to the bench. And I am not alone in my enthusiasm. My office has received letters in support of Ms. Rikelman's nomination from dozens of individuals and organizations, including members of the Alaska State Bar, current and former prosecutors, law enforcement officials, the National Council of Jewish Women, and many of her former colleagues.

Colleagues describe Julie Rikelman as ``brilliant, committed to the rule of law, and deeply devoted to honoring the Constitution and protecting our civil rights and civil liberties.''

These are precisely the qualities we are looking for in a nominee to a Federal appeals court. We have them in Julie Rikelman.

It is essential that our Nation's courts reflect the diversity of our country, and Ms. Rikelman, when confirmed, would be the first immigrant woman and the first Jewish woman to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. That is what this Nation is all about.

Senator Warren and I are proud and enthusiastically recommend Julie Rikelman's nomination to President Biden and are proud to speak in favor of her nomination before the full Senate today. She will make an exceptional addition to the First Circuit.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on cloture and then on her confirmation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, last week, the Senate confirmed Dilawar Syed to be the Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration with a bipartisan vote. Mr. Syed was the longest pending nomination in the Biden administration, waiting 827 days to be confirmed.

The Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration should not have been a controversial nomination. Mr. Syed has served our Nation admirably as Special Representative for Commercial Diplomacy at the State Department, where he has helped American companies compete in international markets throughout the world. He has extensive background as an entrepreneur and business leader with an inspiring immigrant success story that is only possible in America. Now that he has been confirmed, he is the highest ranking Muslim American in the Biden administration.

Mr. Syed should have been confirmed unanimously years ago. But regrettably, Senate Republicans chose to play politics with changing excuses designed to obstruct the nomination. Obstruction and delay resulted in the position being vacant for over 5 years. With record numbers of entrepreneurs starting new small businesses, we need a fully staffed SBA.

Senate Republicans criticized pandemic loans that were taken out by Mr. Syed's company, Lumiata, and accused Mr. Syed of being slow to disclose the loans. Mr. Syed testified before the committee that the board of his company had taken out Paycheck Protection Program--PPP-- loans from SBA, funds that they were legally eligible to receive. And to his credit, Mr. Syed and his company repaid those PPP loans when they secured an additional round of venture funding. All of this funding was disclosed to the White House during the vetting process, and Mr. Syed was transparent about his financials, even beyond the information asked by the Senate committee questionnaire. Critics tried to claim that he had misled Congress or outright lied. That is simply not true.

Despite his unfair treatment, justice ultimately prevailed, and his nomination passed with bipartisan support from five Republican Senators who were able to judge Mr. Syed on his character and business acumen rather than false attacks.

Many nominees would have given up and decided the attacks were not worth it. With his background, Mr. Syed could have taken a lucrative positions in the private sector. But our Nation is fortunate that Mr. Syed did not let this long process deter him from serving the public interest. I join Mr. Syed's family, friends, and colleagues in congratulating him on his perseverance throughout this process and look forward to working with him, Administrator Guzman, and the leadership team at the Small Business Administration.

Mr. President, go outside. It is hard to breathe. The Sun is darkened. The air smells of ash and cinder. Children cannot go to school or even go outside. An unmasked deep breath outside is a risk. On the east coast, it is an ungodly dystopian landscape, the stuff of science fiction, movies set in Martian landscapes, except it is right now, and it is right here.

This week, other than 9/11, New York City registered the worst air quality in the world. Climate change means more heat in the atmosphere, with record high temperatures in Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, and even Burlington, VT. These high temperatures get locked into place by record-setting high-pressure zones--making ``heat domes'' of sunny, hot weather that sits

on top of the landscape, drying it out like an oven. More heat, less water--that is fuel for fire.

And we have seen it coming. Climate change has made this pattern more frequent and more intense. And if you don't believe me, if you don't think that this is a new phenomenon prompted by climate change, then ask yourself, when was the last time that New York or Philadelphia experienced something of this magnitude?

It would be disturbing enough to call this the new normal, but it is not the new normal because every year, it is going to get worse until we tackle this problem head-on.

This isn't just a forest fire. This is a climate fire because our entire climate is on fire. These wildfires are not just an occurrence. They are a condition, and the condition is only getting worse. Over the past 20 years, the area of land consumed annually by wildfires has doubled. In some parts of the West, that area is expected to grow sixfold--six times the fires, six times the smoke--which means harmful and dangerous air quality days for our youngest and our oldest, for those with asthma and respiratory disease and other health conditions.

When trees die in a wildfire, they release the carbon that is stored within them into the atmosphere. In that sense, you could look at each burning tree as being a kind of a massive exhaust pipe, spewing carbon up into the atmosphere and contributing to global warming. These fires aren't just the product of climate change; these fires are producing climate change. Additionally, once a tree fully burns, that particular tree is gone for good and can no longer reclaim atmospheric carbon and sequester it safely.

Those of us who have been fighting the climate crisis for decades take no joy in being right. None of us can take a deep breath outside on the east coast right now and not be at risk. But if we ignore this moment, if we don't take advantage of the searing example right in front of us, then we ignore a duty to act. Our public health is at risk. Our very lungs are at risk. There might be a veil of smoke outside, but let's not veil our sight to the need for climate solutions.

There is no mystery here. When you superheat the planet and create searing heat over densely wooded forests, fires are not a surprise. They are the logical outcome of your actions. The future is here right now. Today, we talk about fires. In September, we will talk about hurricanes. In the winter, we will talk about a polar vortex. And in the spring, we will talk about flood and drought before next summer, when we will talk about fires all over again, until we finally talk about the thing we should be talking about, which is how we reduce the emissions, end of this cycle of self-destruction, and secure a safe and stable planet once and for all for everyone.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to unmask one of the major players behind the Republican debt limit brinksmanship.

With renewable energy outcompeting fossil fuels, Big Oil is worried that its oil well has run dry and wants to keep pumping the American people dry for all that they are worth. So the oil and the gas industry is running its tried and true playbook with Speaker Kevin McCarthy taking the snap as their quarterback.

The Republicans all voted against the Inflation Reduction Act. They turned away from its provisions to create a livable future, its millions of new, clean energy jobs, its investments in environmental justice communities. The only thing Republicans haven't turned away is the billions of dollars in new investments unleashed in their States and districts from this landmark legislation, with $150 billion in investments already announced across the country because of the IRA, because of the largest climate bill in American history.

I have seen Republicans on TV fearmongering about the Inflation Reduction Act, but I haven't seen a single Republican turn down any of those $150 billion or any of those jobs, or all those benefits for those communities in red States.

But the fossil fuel industry itself is actually scared that something might happen to their season of record-shattering profits. They are scared that utilities will finally wake up and realize that installing new renewables is cheaper and more cost effective than running existing coal plants.

Natural gas plants are also set up to go the way of the dinosaur. In fact, we won't have to dig up any more dinosaurs in order to create the fuel. Building new solar and wind, instead of new natural gas, could save American energy customers nearly $30 billion on their energy bills.

Renewables are outcompeting fossil fuels. The average levelized cost of energy for coal and gas is much higher than wind and solar. How much? Well, coal is nearly double the cost of solar. Natural gas is almost 1.5 times more costly than wind. And this is not accounting for the new IRA subsidies, the new climate bill subsidies from last year.

These statistics are the real fear of fossil fuel executives. These clean energy gains threaten Big Oil's massive bonus and even bigger profit margin.

Big Oil more than doubled its profits in 2022, making nearly $220 billion in that year alone and paying out $110 billion to their investors. Those are windfalls made on the backs of American family budgets. Republicans say they care about budgets, but the only budget they are committed to protecting is the one of the big oil and big gas industry across our country.

That is why attacks on clean energy and climate action are on the Republicans' debt limit and budget agendas. That is why Republicans are attacking tax credits for the American-made clean energy that makes us more secure, saves money, and protects our health and our climate. That is why Republicans are reportedly trying to jam a Big Oil and Natural Gas wish list masquerading as a so-called permitting package through debt limit negotiations, instead of going through regular order on the floor of the United States Senate.

The Republican permitting package would give fossil fuels even more of a leg up while their repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act's clean energy provisions would hold our clean energy future hostage. Republicans don't want to use the budget to give students and children a head start. They want to give Big Oil a headstart over clean energy.

So just as we cannot default on our national debt, we cannot default on our debt to society. That means we cannot default on climate action for a livable future.

Climate should be off the table in debt limit negotiations--no repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act, no provisions to fast-track fossil fuel permitting in our country.

We know we need to build a clean energy future, but the Republicans' permitting proposal wouldn't help build on the IRA. It would bury the IRA. The Republicans' permitting priorities are a carbon bomb designed to unleash fossil fuels to push renewable energy off the grid, to stall the progress that was made.

Their priorities, apparently, don't include fixes for the electric transmission issues in this country, when transmission is what could improve reliability and deliver affordable energy to all Americans. In other words, they want to have permitting for more oil and gas drilling, but they don't want to fix the transmission issues. None of that is on the table that the Republicans are asking for in order to solve the problem of moving renewable energy across the country.

Permitting should be about transmission lines, not pipelines.

And combined with their attacks on the Inflation Reduction Act, their priorities will devastate our climate, take away good-paying jobs, and cost Americans billions of dollars.

The Inflation Reduction Act is projected to save households more than $1,000 every year by 2030. It is projected to create 550,000 clean energy jobs, and it is projected to give us a fighting chance at meeting our climate targets. We cannot throw that away.

We have a climate test for success--jobs, justice, and emissions reductions. That is our climate test. If we negotiate on the Inflation Reduction Act and permitting as part of debt limit conversations, we will fail that climate test, and the end result will be an environmental and climate catastrophe.

Climate action and clean energy progress can't be held hostage in this debate. Fast-tracking fossil fuels while attacking renewables is and always has been and always will be the Big Oil game plan. We can't play their game. We can't play with our future.

We cannot default on our debt, and we also cannot allow the destructive Republican budget to be implemented. That is why I have joined some of my Democratic colleagues in calling on President Biden to utilize his authority under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which clearly states:

The validity of the public debt of the United States . . .

shall not be questioned.

It is in the U.S. Constitution. Using that authority would allow the President and the United States to continue to pay the country's bills on time and without delay. It will ensure that we prevent a potential global economic catastrophe.

But let's not forget that it is the Bush and Trump tax cuts for the wealthy that are the driving force behind the debt that the Republicans are now crying crocodile tears over.

Speaker McCarthy says he wants to limit, save, and grow. What he and the Republicans really want to do is to cut, gut, and slow: cut taxes even more for the wealthy and corporations; gut programs like Medicaid, Head Start, Meals on Wheels, Pell grants, and community health centers; and slow the pace of clean energy and climate action--wind, solar, all- electric vehicles, and battery storage technologies that will revolutionize energy consumption in our country--all to protect Big Oil buddies, gas buddies, all across the country.

A livable future and affordable clean energy are budget realities. We can save money for American families and save our planet at the same time.

The IRA's climate provisions and fossil fuel permitting should be off the table during this negotiation.

We cannot allow the well-being of American families or our planet to be held hostage to a radical, rightwing, conservative House of Representatives that is out of control in terms of its relationship with reality.

I appreciate the attention of the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, the award for excellence in STEM and contributions to the well-being of the U.S. was presented by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman to Aaron Seth Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, at a luncheon for guests of the Center for Excellence in Education. The center celebrated its upcoming 40th anniversary of the organization, started by Admiral H.G. Rickover and Joann DiGennaro in 1982. The celebratory event took place in the U.S. Capitol Kennedy Caucus Room on April 25, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Aaron Kesselheim attended CEE's Research Science Institute in 1991. He is professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, and a faculty member in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics in the department of medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital.

Dr. Kesselheim developed and leads the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law, one of the largest nonindustry funded academic research centers in the country that focuses on pharmaceutical policy and evidence-based use of medicines. Author of over 600 publications in peer-reviewed medical and health policy literatures, Dr. Kesselheim was recognized as one of the top three most cited health law scholars in the U.S. from 2013-2020 in Web of Science, Westlaw, and Google Scholar. Dr. Kesselheim has testified before Congress on pharmaceutical policy, medical device regulation, generic drugs, and modernizing clinical trials. He is the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics. In 2020, he was elected to the National Academy of Medicine.

Dr. Kesselheim earned his medical degree from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, his law degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and his master's degree from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. He earned an AB degree from Harvard University.

The Senator Lieberman Award is given every 2 years on behalf of CEE's Board of Trustees. The Senator was an honorary member of the board of trustees of the center for 17 years and continues to champion the organization's programs in science and technology.

Madam President, over the past several weeks, I have heard my colleagues on both sides of the aisle voice concerns about an issue I have been raising for years--protecting children and teens from online dangers. Recently, much of that conversation has focused on the social media app TikTok.

I want to be clear. TikTok poses serious and specific privacy problems. We are talking about a company that could expose American users', including young users', personal and sensitive information to the Chinese Government. The intelligence community has raised grave concerns that Beijing could potentially influence millions of American TikTok users with the platform's algorithms, spread malware to our smartphones, force the company to amass troves of data on users, and then demand that the information be handed over to the Chinese Communist Party.

In other words, TikTok could collect your personal data without your consent and then target you with information that the Chinese Government wants you to see or potentially, even worse, monitor where you go and what you do.

We already know that TikTok is currently on privacy probation with a Federal Trade Commission consent decree. They had to pay a $5 million fine for violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. That is my law. We should listen to those warnings, and we should do our job to legislate and regulate in response to these warnings.

I am pleased to hear so much concern for the experiences of our young people online. This is the kind of formidable bipartisan movement to rein in the overreach of Big Tech that we needed in this Chamber 3 months ago when lobbyists flooded to the Capitol to kill my Children and Teens' Online Privacy and Protection Act--COPPA 2.0--to raise protections up to age 16 for young people in our country in terms of the protection of their privacy.

Here is the reality: Asserting that TikTok stands alone as the one platform that poses a serious surveillance threat to our Nation's young people is deliberately missing the Big Tech forest for the TikTok trees.

It is in this dark, dank forest where even more dangers lurk. TikTok needs to be regulated immediately--we can agree on that--but it is absolutely not the only digital danger kids face today. There is no justification for starting and stopping there, because do you know who else is on privacy probation with the Federal Trade Commission in addition to TikTok? YouTube. Google's video platform also violated my law. The Federal Trade Commission fined it $170 million for invading kids under the age of 12 and their privacy. That is just a slap on the wrist to Google, $170 million. Oh, and Facebook too. The Federal Trade Commission fined Facebook $5 billion for violating users' privacy protections. Remember, TikTok was fined $5 million. Facebook has been fined $5 billion for violating privacy in our country.

So, yes, we do have to address the TikTok threat, but what we really need to do is to take on all of Big Tech with a set of commonsense protections to stop the tsunami of privacy invasions kids face today online.

America's children and teens are literally dying because of the impacts of social media platforms, and we must save them from drowning. In other words, I agree with my colleagues. Let's make sure kids are protected from Chinese surveillance; but at the end of the day, our moral obligation is to protect our youngest people from an entire industry that poses a direct and existential threat to their generation's well-being.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just announced that 1 in 3 high school girls in the United States of America had seriously considered suicide in the last year--1 in 3 teenage girls seriously considered suicide in the last year. And over half of all teenage girls say that they are ``persistently sad or hopeless.'' Banning TikTok will not solve that problem.

At least 1 in 10 girls in the United States attempted suicide in the past year. Can I say that again? At least 1 in 10 girls in the United States attempted suicide last year. Among LGBTQ+ youth, the number was 1 in 5 who attempted suicide in the past year. Banning TikTok will not solve that problem.

Thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel even worse. Banning TikTok will not solve that problem.

And do you know where that latest statistic comes from? Instagram's parent company, Facebook. Just remember, about 22 million teens log into Instagram each and every day in America.

Our children and our teenagers--they are sick, and Big Tech is the parasite preying upon them every single day in our country. These aren't Republican

children. These aren't Democratic children. These are America's children.

The truth is that a myopic focus on a single app is a major missed opportunity. Why would we act on only one company when we should and can act on all of these companies that are preying upon the children and teenagers in our country as we debate here on the Senate floor?

Taking on TikTok alone will not solve the sinister surveillance that kids and teens face online every single day. Here is an example.

Let's say Congress does ban TikTok in the United States or, perhaps, the Federal Government simply forces the app's Chinese parent company to sell or to divest. Would that stop China from tracking teens online? No, it wouldn't. We would still have no rules and no laws stopping the Chinese Government from simply buying sensitive information about young users, which data brokers already traffic during their normal course of business in the United States of America, because, right now, a 14- year-old girl with bulimia or anorexia in our country has zero privacy rights online. Are we going to do something about that? Do we want to let that young girl continue to be made vulnerable by unscrupulous American or Chinese companies?

If we are going to debate this issue, let's talk about it. Let's get right down to what this whole thing should be about: Big Tech should not control the agenda in terms of our protections for young teenage girls or boys in our Nation.

She, that 14-year-old girl, cannot tell Instagram or Snapchat or YouTube: You may not collect, share, or sell my personal information. By the way, her parents can't tell those companies either. Banning TikTok will not change that. Banning TikTok does not stop the Chinese Government or its partners from simply buying the data we are afraid the company will hand over willingly.

Is this threat somehow lessened if it is a transaction as opposed to part of a takeover? Of course not.

Here is the truth: Right now, an entire generation is growing up with some of the most powerful companies in history that are tracking, targeting, and traumatizing them every single day in our country. Big Tech is knowingly and willfully fueling a youth mental health crisis in our Nation.

You don't have to take my word for it. Listen to the President of the United States. Listen to the Surgeon General of the United States. Listen to the American Academy of Pediatrics in our country. Experts all over our Nation are drawing a straight line from Big Tech's business model to the devastating impacts on young Americans' well- being.

Do you know what will help solve this problem? Data privacy protections for children and teenagers in our country if we want to really deal with the threat to our Nation when one in three teenage girls considered suicide last year. That is a threat to our Nation. When 1 in 10 teenage girls actually attempted suicide last year, that is a danger to our Nation. A lot of it is as a result of social media.

Let's get down to this issue. Let's debate TikTok. Let's debate all of it in terms of threats to our country, because the data these tech companies collect about young users is the raw material--the inputs-- for powerful artificial intelligence systems. These algorithms take information about kids and teens and use it to push toxic content to those young people that they know will grab their attention and keep them scrolling on the app so they can sell more ads and make more money, and banning TikTok will not solve that problem.

On the topic of algorithms, if we are worried about the Chinese Government using TikTok's algorithm to influence our elections and our democracy, we should also be worrying about how China uses Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and YouTube, as well, to undermine our democracy.

Let's get at this. If we are going to debate all of this, let's put it out here finally. Let's just get Big Tech out of this debate and have 100 Senators talk about the real threats to teenagers and to our democracy. Let's have that debate. We already saw Russia manipulate Facebook in 2016. If we want to protect democracy, let's do it for every single social media platform in our country.

Young people are particularly vulnerable to Big Tech's algorithmic practices. That is why, for more than a decade, I have been introducing legislation that would solve that problem. My update to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act for kids under 12 and their parents online would give them a bill of rights for kids 16 and under in our Nation. The parents could just tell those companies: Stop tracking my child. Stop tracking my 14-year-old girl. Stop tracking my 15-year-old girl. If she goes online because she has bulimia or anorexia to get more information, you can't sell that information now to companies so that they can target that girl with more products or information when the parents are only talking to the family's physician.

Let's give those families some rights. Let's stand up for those families against these tech companies that are monetizing the mental health of the children in our country. Let's stop those companies from putting profits over people, over teenagers.

We came very close to passing key provisions from that legislation at the end of last year. My bill almost made it. Unfortunately, industry lobbyists--they stood in our way. They made it impossible for it to pass, because it destroys their business model of preying upon, making money off of, young people in our Nation. But we just can't be deterred.

We have to be more determined than ever to get this done on behalf of the parents, the pediatricians, and young people who are demanding action. I know we can do it, and there are leaders in the House, in the Senate, in both parties, who want to get this done.

So, yes, we must be clear-eyed about threats of Chinese surveillance. Yes, we must be clear-eyed about TikTok's national security risks. And, yes, we must be clear-eyed about the unique threats to young people in our country who are on that app.

I would urge my colleagues: Lift your gaze. Take off your blinders. Be honest about what legislative proposals to ban TikTok can and cannot accomplish on behalf of our youngest and most vulnerable in our country.

Our obligation, in this moment, is to end the sinister surveillance across all of the big tech behemoths that are fueling a youth mental health crisis in this country.

TikTok poses a serious and unique problem, but we know the problem is much bigger and much more pernicious than just one single app, as bad as it is.

We have a responsibility to take action, and I call on my colleagues to join, in a bipartisan fashion. As we debate TikTok, let's debate all of it. Let's pass the bill that protects the imminent threat to the mental health of the children and teenagers in our country every single day.

We want to talk about TikTok and its longer term threats? Let's talk about the threat right now. Let's talk about how young people are being harmed.

Let's pass that legislation at the same time. That is going to be my goal as this debate unfolds. It is to have votes on the floor of the Senate on the protection of the children and teenagers in our country from Chinese and American companies that are exploiting them every single day.

I close with that number that I started with: One in three teenage girls in the United States contemplated suicide last year. One in 10 teenage girls attempted suicide last year. We all know the role social media is playing in this. This is our moment to take on this entire industry globally to make sure that we protect the most precious resource we have, to protect the future of our country, and that is young people. They may be only 20 percent of our population, but they are 100 percent of our future. And, right now, they are being exploited by a single industry. Let's take on that industry.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have 14 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:

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in support of the nomination of Judge Margaret Guzman to serve as a U.S. district judge for the District of Massachusetts. Yesterday, the Senate invoked cloture on Judge Guzman's nomination, and in a few minutes, we will vote on her confirmation.

Margaret Guzman currently serves as a Massachusetts State district court judge. She is a Massachusetts native and a graduate of Clark University in Worcester and the Boston University School of Law.

In addition to Judge Guzman's more than 20 years of service on the Massachusetts State judiciary, her three-decade career in the law includes work as a solo practitioner handling civil cases and a public defender representing indigent criminal offenders. Judge Guzman will therefore bring to the Federal bench not only the knowledge and experience of a State court judge who has presided over more than 1,000 cases in her career that have gone to verdict or judgment but the wisdom of a public defender and solo practitioner, joining together precisely the kind of professional legal diversity that the Biden administration has made a priority and that the Federal judiciary badly needs.

But there is more to Margaret Guzman than this impressive legal resume. Her personal story has also shaped her and her outlook from the bench. In 1999, during a challenging time for her family, she became the guardian and custodian to six of her nieces and nephews, then age 3 to 15. During this time, she also took on a caretaker role for her ailing mother. These daunting personal experiences helped Judge Guzman understand and appreciate the difficulties that so many people-- especially those who are involved in the criminal justice system--face in their day-to-day lives.

Her lived experience has led her to always show compassion and understanding to her own clients as a practicing attorney and to the litigants who appear before her as a judge and to ensure that those who must navigate our judicial system--especially the indigent and marginalized--are always treated fairly and with dignity and respect.

Finally, Judge Guzman will be a trailblazer. When confirmed, she will be the first Latina to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts--a long overdue milestone in a State that has nearly 1 million Latinos who call Massachusetts their home. Out of our 7 million residents, 1 million are Latino.

Senator Warren and I are proud to recommend Judge Guzman as a nominee to President Biden and proud to have that nomination before the whole Senate today. Judge Guzman leaves me with no doubt that she will serve the people of Massachusetts with distinction as a Federal district court judge. I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on her confirmation today.

Senator Warren and I give you our assurances that she will be a superior district court judge representing our entire country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I recognize Ms. Diane Portnoy, a renowned educator, advocate, author, and CEO and founder of the Immigrant Learning Center in Malden, MA. As the Immigrant Learning Center celebrates its 30th anniversary, I am honored to acknowledge Ms. Portnoy's extraordinary work.

As the founder and CEO of the Immigrant Learning Center, a nonprofit organization located in Malden, MA, Ms. Portnoy has spent the last three decades supporting the educational goals of thousands of immigrants from more than 122 countries. Under Ms. Portnoy's leadership, the organization has worked to draw attention to the many plights that immigrants and refugees face and has helped to amplify their voices.

Ms. Portnoy's own personal experience as an immigrant inspired her to start the Immigrant Learning Center. She came to the United States as the daughter of Polish Holocaust survivors and witnessed firsthand the many challenges immigrant families face when adjusting to life in the United States.

She began her career in education, receiving her bachelor's degree in elementary education from Boston University, followed by a master's degree in curriculum and instruction from Cornell University. Since the founding of the Immigrant Learning Center, local and national groups have recognized Ms. Portnoy as both a leader and advocate for the many immigrants in Massachusetts. Her dedication, passion, and endless resolve has helped shape the Immigrant Learning Center into an organization that provides immigrants and refugees with scholastic resources, ensures that adults have access to free English language classes, disseminates educational information about immigration, and conducts essential research on the contributions of immigrants to the U.S. economy.

I am honored to take this opportunity to recognize Ms. Portnoy for her tremendous achievements. She has touched many lives, and her work at the Immigrant Learning Center will continue to have a lasting impact on individuals across Massachusetts and beyond. So, on this 30th anniversary of the Immigrant Learning Center, we thank her for her service to her community, the Commonwealth, and the country.