Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this is a very sad day for the Senate. At a time when Leader McConnell brags about confirming more judges than anyone has done in a very long time, he feels the need to invoke the terribly destructive and disproportionate procedure of the nuclear option in order to fast-track even more of President Trump's ultraconservative nominees to the Federal bench.

Before I discuss that in greater detail, I want to note for the record that Democrats were prepared to confirm the nomination of Mr. Kessler by unanimous consent, so the cloture vote we had was unnecessary.

If you have been listening to Senators debate this issue in recent days, you have heard a lot of claims and

counterclaims about cloture votes, about rates of confirmation for circuit and district courts in different Congresses, about judicial vacancies and other arcane things that may not sound very illuminating. So I want to start by making clear what this debate is really all about. I want to issue a warning about what is at stake in this fight. Underneath all of the statistics, what Leader McConnell, President Trump, and Republicans in the Senate are trying to do is use the courts to adopt the far-right agenda that Republicans know they cannot enact through the legislative process.

Why can't they? Because it is an agenda the American people reject, an agenda set by the far right, which Republicans in the Senate follow.

Senator McConnell and Republicans in Washington understand that they will never persuade enough Americans to support backward goals like ending women's reproductive freedom, taking away healthcare, rolling back civil rights, making it more difficult to vote, or abolishing safeguards for clean air and clean water.

Instead, they decided there was another route to achieving their policy goals, one that requires neither public support nor legislation: the courts. So Republicans, pressured by the hard right and by wealthy, special interest donors, launched a sustained effort to pack the courts with very conservative judges, preferably young ones, who would sit on the bench for decades. These prospective judges were identified as early as law school, having signaled their hard-right leanings through their writings or membership in conservative groups like the Federalist Society.

Nominees like these started to appear during the George W. Bush administration. Take Miguel Estrada, a Bush nominee with no judicial experience, who held membership in the Federalist Society but had no writings and claimed he had never even thought about Roe v. Wade.

Or take William Pryor, another Bush nominee, who called Roe ``the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law'' and who argued that States should have the right to criminalize homosexuality.

Or take Charles Pickering, who advocated a reduced sentence for a man convicted of burning a cross in the front yard of an interracial couple.

Before the Republicans launched their campaign to remake the courts, neither party would have dared put forward such radical nominees.

Starting with his campaign and into his Presidency, President Donald Trump has been captive--totally captive--to the conservative campaign to take over the courts. Before he was a Presidential candidate, Mr. Trump had been a Democrat and a person with no fixed judicial philosophy, so conservatives didn't trust him. He and his advisers came up with a solution: Ask the Federalist Society to produce a list of far-right Supreme Court nominees, and then have candidate Trump pledge to only nominate people on that list. And not just the Supreme Court-- the Federalist Society is and continues to be a huge influence on nominees to the circuit courts.

No other Presidential candidate had so willingly and openly outsourced judicial nominations this way, but it mollified the hard right, and the President has dutifully nominated people from the list to the Supreme Court. He has made similarly ideological choices for the circuit and district courts.

This is an alarming strategy because, over the last 2 years, President Trump has nominated and Senate Republicans have advanced the most unqualified and radical nominees in modern times.

Consider the nomination of Ryan Bounds, who misled the Oregon Senators' bipartisan judicial selection committee about his controversial writings in the past, writings in which he dismissed efforts to increase diversity as mere ``race-think,'' criticized Stanford University's suggested punishment for students who defaced an LGBT pride statue, criticized a student group for protesting against a hotel company that had fired workers trying to unionize, and disregarded the value of university disciplinary actions against students accused of sexual violence. Five of the seven members of Oregon's in-State screening committee, including the committee's chair, said they would not have recommended Bounds had they known of his college writings when they first interviewed him. Fortunately, it became clear that a few Republicans would not support Mr. Bounds on the floor, and the nomination was withdrawn.

Consider the nomination of Thomas Farr, who has an extensive record defending discriminatory voting laws and racial gerrymandering in North Carolina. He is also credibly alleged to have played a role in the voter suppression efforts of the Jesse Helms campaign, including sending over 100,000 postcards to heavily African-American precincts that ``falsely told voters they could be found ineligible to vote based on several conditions involving place and length of residence.'' Amazingly, after something as despicable as that, President Trump and Leader McConnell pushed hard for his nomination, but it could not withstand scrutiny by the Senate and was ultimately withdrawn due to the united Democratic opposition and a few conscientious Republican Senators.

I would note that in the cases of both Mr. Farr and Mr. Bounds, the Republican concerns emerged only at the end of postcloture debate time, which Republicans now propose to limit. Had we had only 2 hours, horrible nominees--way beyond the bounds of normal nomination and discourse, even from conservatives--like Farr, like Bounds would be sitting on the courts today.

I agree with what my colleague Senator Klobuchar has said:

Two hours for a lifetime appointment . . . is unacceptable.

She said:

Two hours for a lifetime appointment, with huge influence

on people's lives, is unacceptable. It's ridiculous. It's a

mockery of how this institution should work.

It is not just the courts. There are many examples in the executive branch as well. Ann Marie Buerkle, nominated to chair the CPSC--just today the Post reported that this nominee blocked action at the Commission to recall hundreds of thousands of potentially defective baby strollers, even in the face of reports that they caused ``potentially life-threatening injuries.'' She even kept Democratic Commissioners in the dark about the investigation.

Of course, there is Chad Readler, who led the charge to end preexisting condition protections. President Trump and Senate Republicans, the self-declared ``party of healthcare,'' rewarded him by overwhelmingly confirming him to a lifetime position as a circuit court judge. Despite Mr. Readler's conspicuous role in trying to curtail Americans' healthcare, no Republicans were willing to stand up to President Trump and vote against his confirmation.

At this point, people listening to these proceedings might be asking themselves: What happened when a Democratic President occupied the White House?

The answer is that Republicans, led by Senator McConnell, remained undeterred. In such times, they chose to employ the extraordinary tactic of denying confirmation to a Democratic President's nominees in order to hold vacancies open until a Republican could regain the Presidency. It was an audacious and insidious gambit, a way to nullify a Democratic President's power to fill judicial vacancies.

We saw this tactic during the Clinton administration, when Republicans on the Judiciary Committee killed a number of President Clinton's quite moderate judicial nominees, even without the basic courtesy of a hearing.

We saw it again during the Obama administration, when Republicans used the filibuster and other forms of delay to more than double the number of circuit and district court vacancies. During Obama's last 2 years in office, the Republican Senate confirmed fewer circuit court nominees than any Congress in 70 years.

Then, in March of 2016, Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans took this maneuver to a new Machiavellian low. They refused to even consider President Obama's nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States, Circuit Judge Merrick Garland, one of the most respected jurists in the Nation, a man known not only for his judicial excellence and perfect judicial temperament but his moderation. In fact, Senator Orrin Hatch, a conservative's conservative and the former chairman of Judiciary Committee, had previously endorsed Judge Garland for the Supreme Court.

But the merits didn't concern Senator McConnell. His cynical strategy required Republicans to block the Garland nomination for almost a year until after President Obama's second term ended, and that is exactly what they did. It was widely condemned as a naked power grab that nullified the President's constitutional authority. It was a terrible, deeply lamentable moment for our democracy and our Constitution. Yet, as the New York Times reported, Senator McConnell said it was one of his ``proudest achievements.''

After President Trump took office, Republicans sensed an opportunity to grease the conveyer belt even more. Senator McConnell ordered the Judiciary Committee chairman to do away with the longstanding practice that Senators be consulted about district court nominees in their home States. The blue-slip tradition ensured that judicial nominees reflected the ideology and values of the State to which they were nominated. It provided some healthy counterbalance against nominees who were outside the mainstream from either party or were lacking in proper qualifications. Thanks to Senate Republicans, led by Senator McConnell, that protection is now history.

So when Republicans complain about Democratic handling of nominees, there is no other word for it but hypocrisy. You don't have to take my word for it. According to the Congressional Research Service, more circuit judges have been confirmed in the first 2 years of the Trump administration than in the first 2 years of any Presidency since at least the Truman administration.

The majority leader himself has celebrated the pace of confirmations. He bragged about it to the Heritage Foundation. He said this to them a few months ago:

We confirmed every circuit judge. We've now done 29 circuit

judges. That is a record for this quick in any administration

in history.

Those are Leader McConnell's words, not mine.

Now we have to change the rules, even though you have confirmed more circuit court judges than anyone in history. That is a shame. That is a disgrace. That is not the Senate we want. For Leader McConnell to brag about confirming more judges than ever before and then to complain about Democratic obstruction and say that the process is broken so you have to change the rules is the height of hypocrisy.

Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans also complain about the pace of confirmation for President Trump's executive branch and independent Agency choices. They conveniently omit Republicans' sorry record of obstruction of nominees to Democratic seats at important agencies like the NLRB, the FDIC, and the SEC, which have suffered as Republicans caused dedicated public servants like former NLRB Chair Mark Pearce to languish for months or even years.

It is actually a little surprising that Leader McConnell and his Republican colleagues would draw attention to the subject of executive nominees now, given the appalling history of incompetence, corruption, and venality among President Trump's so-called ``best people,'' not to mention the fact that there are hundreds of vacancies the President can't even be bothered to fill.

Staffing the government is serious business and so is the system of justice assigned to the courts by our Constitution. They both deserve better than the Senate Republicans' cynical, partisan efforts to turn the Senate into a conveyer belt for ideological conservatives.

The notion that President Trump's judicial nominees have been treated unfairly is simply false. There is no truth to it, as all of these statistics that I have talked about have shown. What Republicans really want to see is the elimination of yet another norm of the Senate so they can automate and expedite the nomination process without a modicum of debate. They are all for ``consent'' with no ``advice.'' With all undue haste, they want to pack the courts with partisan warriors, not impartial jurists. It is outrageous.

Democrats have a different view of who should sit on the Federal bench. We have a different view of the role of this Chamber. Our judicial system works best when we hold nominees to three simple standards: excellence, moderation, and diversity. These are not ideological litmus tests. They are the pillars of a healthy system of justice. They are the benchmarks by which we can rest assured that the men and women who are appointed to the Federal bench will respect the rule of law and execute their duties impartially.

It cuts both ways. When Republicans are prepared to act in good faith and advance nominees of high caliber, we are ready to give them the consideration they deserve. For generations, the Senate has done the work of the American people through consensus, through compromise, and through cooperation. It has been a place where seemingly impossible disagreements have found sensible solutions. Indeed, the legacy of the Senate is the story of debate--ample debate--followed by compromise. It is in large part thanks to the rules that govern how this Chamber works. It is crucial that those rules not be twisted or abused for partisan advantage.

The majority, by taking yet another step to erode that legacy, risks turning this body into a colosseum of zero-sum infighting--a place where the brute power of the majority rules, with little or no regard for the concerns of the minority party, and where longstanding rules have little or no meaning.

I am so sorry my Republican colleagues have gone along with Senator McConnell's debasement of the Senate. To do this for such blatantly political ends is simply unworthy of this institution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate failed to pass emergency relief funding yesterday to help the American families recovering from natural disasters. It failed for one reason--the Republicans removed critical aid for Puerto Rico and other territories from the House bill after President Trump told them to do it. Under this administration and with Leader McConnell's blessing, even disaster relief has now become political.

I don't need to litigate why we are here. Over the last 2 years, the American people have endured staggering natural disasters that have devastated communities across the country. These Americans need help. They need help now. I would parenthetically add, if there were ever evidence of global warming or of climate change, this would be it despite the fact that just about every Republican has his head or her head in the sand and will not admit it.

Regardless of what you think the causes were, Americans have always stood together when American citizens have been hit by disaster. We band together and say we are going to help one another--all American citizens, all. Yet one part of America is not being treated like the others, and why not? It is because President Trump, for reasons that defy decency, harbors an apparent contempt for the people of Puerto Rico. He tweeted again last night and erroneously claimed that $91 billion has been afforded the people of Puerto Rico. He ridiculed the leadership that has desperately tried to rebuild the island in the wake of these megastorms.

Let's get the facts straight.

The Republicans know the storms that hit Puerto Rico over a year ago were not ordinary storms; they know these were historic catastrophes. We are talking about the deadliest disasters to hit American soil in over a century. We are talking about the worst power outage in American history. We are talking about 3,000 lives lost. Yet here we are, 18 months later, and the island hasn't recovered.

It is surreal that a disaster so awful has been met with a Presidential response that is so tepid and so heartless. It is surreal that our Republican colleagues go along with this and say we are not going to help Puerto Rico in the way that is needed. Billions in funding for recovery and mitigation efforts right now remain locked in the Treasury. Congress already appropriated $20 billion that the administration has not allocated. All we want to do is make sure the money is allocated. That is one of the things we want to do.

Are our Republican colleagues opposed to that? That is what it sounds like. Some of them say it is political. What is political is President Trump's saying no aid for Puerto Rico and having the Republicans jump in line, even those with many Puerto Ricans in their States. Make no mistake, we have reached this impasse because the President has said himself he opposes help for Puerto Rico, and the Republicans follow along.

Some of my colleagues from the other side came up with another shibboleth; that we opposed the House bill because it didn't provide funding for the Midwest. First of all, the House bill was aimed at disasters in 2018, not in 2019. Second, Senator Leahy offered an amendment that would have added funding for the Middle West and funding for Puerto Rico. What did the Republicans do? They blocked it anyway. So this undoes their fantasy that the Democrats are opposed to aid for the Middle West. Senator Leahy and I will be offering an amendment that will give aid to the Midwest and to Puerto Rico. Let's see where our Republican colleagues stand. Will they block that too?

Yesterday's vote boiled down to a simple question: Do the Republicans believe the people of Puerto Rico deserve relief for their natural disasters as do all Americans? Do they believe the families of Puerto Rico--whatever you think of this elected official in Puerto Rico-- deserve to be helped just like the families of the Midwest and California?

Do they believe the statement of the Governor of Puerto Rico, Rossello, that the House bill is much preferable to Puerto Rico than what the Senate has proposed or do they make their own judgment based on what President Trump said and then call it political?

What a shame.

Let me be clear as day: Without objection, the Democrats support funding for all regions of the United States that have been affected by natural disasters, which is any State or territory that needs to rebuild. That list should include the Middle West, and it should

include Puerto Rico because our fellow citizens on that island have yet to recover from the deadliest of storms in our recent history.

I will let this Chamber know that Senator Leahy and I will be offering a new amendment to the disaster bill in order to provide billions of new additional dollars for the Midwest's 2019 disasters.

The Senate Republicans say they care about Iowa and Nebraska, but they didn't put an additional penny in for that aid. They said to let them compete with the 2018 disasters and the same amount of money. We are going a step further. We are going to say we need additional aid for the Middle West--for Iowa and Nebraska--as well as aid for Puerto Rico. It is not an either-or.

If we get into an either-or, the next time, it will be your State, my Republican colleagues, when people will not want to vote for aid or it will be for mine or another's. I experienced it, incidentally, with Sandy, when a lot of Republicans didn't want to vote for aid after Sandy because it was for New York. That was so wrong.

So I say to all who are suggesting that the Democrats aren't willing to help the people of Iowa and Nebraska and other States that we are calling their bluff.

Are you ready to actually appropriate new money--more money--for what the people in the Midwest who are struggling need? The Democrats are. Let's see where you stand.

Healthcare

Mr. President, on healthcare, the Republicans have failed to advance any of their healthcare plans through Congress, so they are trying to repeal healthcare through the courts. This reeks of desperation, for they do not have a backup plan.

Last night, the President tweeted that the Republicans will come up with their plan in 2021. Translation: The Republicans have no healthcare plan. Translation: President Trump has no healthcare plan. It is the same old song the Republicans and the President have been singing. They are for repeal, but they have no replacement. President Trump confirmed he will hold Americans hostage through the 2020 election when it comes to healthcare. He promises with ``re-elect me, and maybe you can take a peek at my backup plan after that,'' which he doesn't have. What a ruse. What a shame. What a disgrace.

People are suffering. When their children have cancer, people need protection so the insurance companies will not pull away the healthcare. Seniors need protection from the rising costs of prescription drugs. Women need protection so they will not be treated differently than men when they have healthcare needs that are particular to women. Young people need protection to be allowed to continue to stay on their parents' plans until they are 26 if they start new lives after high school or college. All of these folks need protection.

President Trump and our Republican friends say: Rip all of those things away, and trust us. Maybe in 2021, we will have a plan.

With a stubbornness that would impress a mule, President Trump has waged a manic war on the American healthcare system that shows no sign of stopping. Now we are asked to believe that President Trump has a wonderful but secret healthcare plan but will, for some reason, not reveal it until the next election. What a transparent ruse.

Snake oil salesmen, take notes.

Here is why we can't believe the President's punt and promise.

In May 2017, after the Republicans voted to repeal the healthcare law, on national television, the President celebrated in the Rose Garden with House Republicans. He celebrated the passage of a bill that would result in 23 million fewer people having health insurance and would result in gutting the protections for Americans who have preexisting conditions. He celebrated his own broken promise to never cut Medicaid and to always protect people with preexisting conditions, and he did it on national TV. So don't tell me this time will be different. Don't tell me there is a secret plan, when we know what the Republicans' healthcare plan will be--increased premiums, a loss of coverage, and the elimination of protection for preexisting conditions. The markets will be stabilized, but families will be tossed into an abyss of inferior care.

President Trump's lawsuit seeks to wholly undo the progress we have made, but he wants the American people to just wait for a magic plan to appear 2 years from now?

If successful, the President's lawsuit will mean skyrocketing costs for families. The President wants the American people to just wait and see.

President Trump's lawsuit will mean massive increases in prescription drug spending for seniors who are on Medicare. The President wants the American people to just wait and see.

President Trump's lawsuit will mean women will be charged more because they are women. The President wants the American people to just wait and see.

So, when President Trump insists he has a silver bullet plan that we will only be able to see if the American people reelect him, we know what a sham that is. For a President who has perpetrated lots of shams, this one takes the cake.

I am asking: Which one of our Republican colleagues will stand up for healthcare for the American people?

Senator Shaheen has a resolution that simply reads to the Justice Department: Withdraw your suit that would do all of these awful things.

How many of our Republican colleagues will go on that proposal? Let's see. Are they going to say it is politics too? With regard to the healthcare of millions of Americans, any time the President does something horrible and the Democrats resist, are they going to say it is politics? Oh, no. That is what we are supposed to do whether it comes to Puerto Rico or whether it comes to healthcare.

China

Mr. President, I have one final word on China.

The New York Times reported yesterday that a trade agreement with the United States and China is nearly 90 percent complete, with a deal being potentially finalized later this month. Yet it alarms me that the President, for all his bluster, will likely settle on a deal that will be devoid of any meaningful reform to China's economy and trade practices. Instead, he will settle for the purchases of American goods by the Chinese state. This move will only strengthen China's leverage while it will do little to help us long term.

We want to protect our farmers, but we don't want a soybean sellout where, in exchange for soybeans, we trade away America's family jewels--our intellectual property, our industrial know-how, our hard- working labor force being able to compete in a reciprocal way in China the way China can compete here. If it is just the purchases of product, the Chinese Government can always turn off the tap. So we are entering treacherous territory.

I have a simple message for President Trump and praise him for standing up to China more than President Bush or President Obama did on this issue. I say to him: We have made progress in making China see it has abusive practices. Stand firm. Don't back out. I cannot think of a worse end for us than to say ``uncle'' at the last minute. Skip the political photo op and make good on your promise to stand up for American business and workers when China takes advantage.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I will be speaking about rules changes in a minute, but I heard my friend from Tennessee when he said we will be faced with a terrible choice.

I would simply say that that choice is being foisted on us by Leader McConnell and none other. You can't brag about passing more judges than ever before and then say the process is broken, and we have to change the rules. There is a total, total--there is a word that begins with ``h'' that I will not quite say. It ends in ``y.''

Will my colleague yield for a brief comment?

I have every confidence that if my friend from Georgia were running the Senate, we wouldn't be in this pickle.

I yield to him.

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

Madam President, on Monday the Trump administration doubled down on their assault on American healthcare by supporting an effort to completely eliminate the healthcare law through the courts. People scratched their heads, saying: Are they really doing this after trying for 2 years unsuccessfully and after losing the election?

Yes, they are. The action is no small matter. The Trump administration's radical support for the wholesale elimination of the healthcare law would send our healthcare system into certain chaos. If the Trump administration has its way, it would send premiums soaring for millions of Americans. It would revoke coverage for tens of millions more who gained coverage through medical expansions. It would strike protections for an estimated 133 million adults in America who have preexisting medical conditions, even people who get coverage from their employer.

Let me say that again. There are 133 million Americans who have preexisting medical conditions. If the Trump administration has its way, the insurance company could just tell those 133 million and their families: We cut you off. We don't want to pay for your insurance anymore because it is too expensive. Your daughter has cancer. Your wife has severe diabetes.

It is a disgrace. Let's not forget that the system would impose billions of dollars in new prescription drug costs on seniors in Medicare. The consequences are dire. That is why we are introducing an amendment to ensure that not a dime of the American people's money goes to the Trump administration's fight to destroy the entire healthcare system. Not one cent of the Department of Justice should be used to hurt Americans like this.

Donald Trump campaigned on ``End ObamaCare.'' Then, the Republican Party--and even we thought Trump himself--saw they had no replacement. This repeal and replace had no replacement. They couldn't come up with one.

What is the Republican Party now standing for? Here it is. ``The Republican Party will become the party of healthcare,'' says Donald Trump. Absolutely not. Here is what his tweet should say if he is being honest and telling the truth to the American people: The Republican Party will become the party that ended your healthcare.

You cannot have a situation in the Trump administration where President Trump says one thing and their Attorney General goes to court to do the opposite. You cannot or should not have a situation where Republican Senators get up and say we need to expand healthcare for people, and then they say not a peep when their own President tries to strip it away from them.

President Trump says the Republican Party wants to be the party of healthcare. Well, I say, God help the middle class if Republicans are the party of healthcare. What, dare I ask, is their plan? Let me ask Leader McConnell and every Republican Senator, and I hope their constituents will ask them, too, because this is the No. 1 issue across the country.

We should ask our Republican friends and the President: What is your plan to deal with prescription drug costs?

Costs are at an alltime high. Instead, they are supporting this lawsuit that would impose billions of dollars in prescription drug costs on seniors.

We should ask President Trump and Leader McConnell: What is your plan to get more people covered on high-quality health insurance that they can actually afford at a time when premiums are still rising because of sabotage by the Trump administration? How will they bring relief?

Instead, our Republican colleagues, by their silence, are assenting to a lawsuit that would kick tens of millions of people off insurance.

I ask President Trump, Senator McConnell, and our Republican colleagues: What is your plan to protect people with preexisting conditions?

Over and over again, the Republicans say they support keeping safeguards for preexisting conditions. Instead, they are supporting this lawsuit or, by their silence, assenting to their party's President's lawsuit that completely wipes away the protections for preexisting conditions.

The American people deserve answers because President Trump insisted yesterday that he has a ``plan that is far better than ObamaCare.'' We all know that that is not true. He just talks off the top of his head. He said it at the lunch.

President Trump, what is your plan that is better than ObamaCare? You may not have all of the details, but give us the main points.

When you are President, you have a responsibility, as people's lives are at stake. They need healthcare. It is not for you to simply say ``we have a better plan,'' file a lawsuit that gets rid of the existing plan, and then give people no inclination--no clue--as to what that plan is.

Why is this happening?

One, we know that President Trump has no fidelity issues. He talks off the top of his head. He doesn't know what the issues are all about. Regarding issues, he is the least informed President we have ever had in American history. He just says what he thinks sounds nice at the moment, and then his administration does the hard-right thing all of the time--the extreme thing--that has a narrow special interest but is not in the interest of the American people.

Mick Mulvaney

Madam President, President Trump's actual administration seems to be far to the right of even the mainstream of the Republican Party. Why does that happen? Well, here is one reason.

Mick Mulvaney is now Chief of Staff and was the head of the OMB, but he still has a lot of say over that Agency. It was reported last night that it was Mick Mulvaney, against the advice of others, who convinced President Trump to take this radical position on healthcare. So we all know who is holding the strings, who is putting in President Trump's head these hard-right ideas that his administration continually effectuates and of which he almost never backs off. We now seem to be living in the Mick Mulvaney administration.

He is the same person who said we need to end Medicare as we know it. That should send a chill down every American's spine. Let me repeat that. The Mick Mulvaney administration, of which President Trump is a willing follower, if you will, says: We should end Medicare as we know it.

Do Americans believe that? No. Do Republicans believe that? Most of them do not. Yet this man, Mulvaney--not elected--puts ideas in President Trump's head, and that is what President Trump does. Make no mistake about it--the ultimate responsibility is President Trump's, but when you wonder why the words the President says differ from so many administration policies--and it is the policies that are hurting Americans--the reason is Mulvaney.

Here is what the Mulvaney administration looks like: extreme budget cuts to the programs that the middle-class families depend on--cuts to the Departments of Education and Transportation; severe cuts to the Office of Science; severe cuts to the EPA; cuts to programs that are most in need, SNAP; faster cuts to Medicare; and repeated government shutdowns. It was reported yesterday that the administration is considering no more Fannie and Freddie--no more help for the middle class to buy a home. This is another great Mulvaney idea.

Mick Mulvaney was one of the five most hard-right people in the House of Representatives. He was one of the authors of the previous shutdown. His views are far, far away from the average American's. Donald Trump, who gets full blame for Mulvaney's ideas because he is enacting them, seems to be following him lock, stock, and barrel. If the President had actually campaigned on these Mulvaney ideas in 2016, he would have been roundly defeated.

If he goes to Michigan tonight and talks about these Mulvaney ideas, he will get booed even by his own supporters, for he enacts the Mulvaney ideas. His Justice Department is now suing to get rid of healthcare, which is something Mulvaney has always advocated for.

President Trump, your administration is now the Mulvaney administration.

That should terrify every single American, and it should terrify any thoughtful Republican Senator.

Make no mistake about it--Donald Trump's hard-right administration, which so hurts the middle class and so helps the narrow, wealthy, special, and corporate interests--the brain child of many of these ideas--comes from Mr. Mulvaney. He puts it into the cipher of Donald Trump. Donald Trump enacts it, and the American people suffer.

Puerto Rico

Madam President, on Puerto Rico, it has been 18 months since Hurricane Maria and Hurricane Irma devastated the people of Puerto Rico and the surrounding islands.

These were extraordinary disasters that required an extraordinary response, but President Trump has hardheartedly said that the island of Puerto Rico has received too much aid. He complained that the U.S. Government had already given $91 billion in relief.

Mr. President, stop making up your own facts, for $90 billion is the amount of damage these storms caused. The people of Puerto Rico are suffering. They have received a sliver of the funding they need.

It is hard to fathom the depths of cruelty that it takes for the President to treat the people of Puerto Rico this way. They are American citizens.

The Democrats have taken action. The House passed a comprehensive disaster bill 2 months ago. It would have provided aid to Puerto Rico and to the other States that are hurt. We want to help all of those States, as that is what Americans do, but Donald Trump has told our Senate Republicans: No aid for Puerto Rico. Instead of standing up and saying that it is wrong, that it is not fair, they seem to be going along. This is shameful. We have an opportunity to change that by fixing the disaster bill that is currently on the floor.

I would tell our Republican friends that we want to help people in the States where there is flooding in the Midwest, where there are wildfires in the West, where there are droughts, but the bill they are trying to pass here is never going to pass the House. They know that. To get disaster aid for the country, which is well needed in so many places, our Republican friends are going to have to tell Donald Trump his cold, cruel-hearted, and divisive policy must fall, his policy of not letting any of the already allocated aid be distributed to Puerto Rico.

Mueller Report

Madam President, on one final matter--Mueller--yesterday and for the second time this week, Leader McConnell blocked our request that was made by the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein, to make public the full report authored by Special Counsel Mueller.

I thank Senator Feinstein for making the request and for standing up for transparency. As Senator Feinstein said, a four-page summary from a political appointee is hardly a sufficient substitute for Special Counsel Mueller's 2-year investigation. There were reports this morning that the Mueller report is over 300 pages. All we have gotten is a four-page summary by someone who was appointed by the administration and who, before he took office, felt the President could never--almost never--be called for obstruction of justice, which is one of the main parts of the Mueller investigation.

For Mr. Barr to quickly issue a four-page report in his attempt to try to exonerate President Trump and now to delay the release of an over 300-page report that has been written by Mueller so that the American people and we Senators and Congressmen cannot see what was written has too much of the odor of political expediency to help the man who appointed him, President Trump.

The American people have a right to know the full scope of the facts behind Russia's interference in our election. The American people have a right to come to their own conclusions about actions taken by this administration. The American people deserve to have full confidence in the integrity of our system and in the impartiality of the rule of law, and only the full release of the report can affirm that.

What I am saying here shouldn't be controversial. In the House, it passed 420 to nothing--the resolution to make the full report public-- voted for by such partisan defenders of the President's, like Representative Jordan and Representative Meadows.

Transparency, we all know, is all the more important because the Attorney General has made no secret of his antipathy toward this investigation and appears intent on holding the report secret for as long as possible. I guess his hope is to let the dust settle, and then no one will pay attention. Well, he is wrong about that. He is prolonging this. Remember, this Attorney General made clear that he was hostile to the special counsel and was opposed to Mueller's inquiry into obstruction of justice. Then he opines about it 2 days later without showing anybody any backing? That is so wrong.

According to press reports, in his phone call yesterday with Mr. Nadler, Mr. Barr would not even commit to releasing the whole report at any time. He wouldn't commit to a date. He was not even willing to disclose how many pages were in the special counsel's report, as if that were some kind of state secret.

As I said, since that conversation, there have been reports that it is over 300 pages. If it is, it is just disgraceful for Mr. Barr, who was able to read through it and summarize it in 48 hours, to now say he can't release it because he is busy culling it.

The Attorney General must end the stalling and the secrecy. It is not going to be a happy opening chapter for the Attorney General when history looks back on what he has done. We should make the report public now.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, there is so much going on. So I will be addressing several topics today: healthcare, climate change, Mr. Mueller's report, and Puerto Rico.

Healthcare

Mr. President, two nights ago, President Donald Trump and Attorney General Barr decided to escalate their 2-year war against healthcare to a whole new level. They declared that the entire Affordable Care Act, and the healthcare for tens of millions of Americans and protections for more than 100 million, is unconstitutional and ought to be eliminated.

Now, the President wants to go back to repeal and replace again? Make our day. The Republicans here in the Senate tried over and over to deal with repeal and replace. They couldn't because they have no replacement. The American people spoke loud and clear in the November 2018 elections and addressed the Republican antics by defeating them resoundingly. The American people resoundingly rejected the Republican plan of repeal and replace for healthcare. In fact, very few Republican Senators would embrace it when they were running as candidates.

Indeed, if the Republican Party wants to be, in Donald Trump's words, ``the Party of healthcare,'' God help the middle class. God save the middle class. God save people with disabilities. God save the hundreds of millions with preexisting conditions.

If the administration had its way, the elimination of the Affordable Care Act would send premiums soaring for millions of Americans. It would revoke coverage for tens of millions more who gained coverage through Medicaid expansions. It would strike protections for hundreds of millions, even people who get coverage through their employer. It would tell college students and graduates aged 21 to 26 that they could no longer be on their parents' healthcare.

Let's not forget that this decision would impose billions of dollars in new prescription drug costs for seniors on Medicare. Does the Republican Party really want to raise the price for senior citizens when they buy drugs? That is what they are doing. That is what President Trump is doing. I wasn't at the lunch where the President talked about this, but I didn't hear any reports of any Republican in that room rejecting what the President said when he said repeal and replace. This Republican Party is the Party of healthcare? Come on, now.

You can't undo all the healthcare for tens of millions, the protections for preexisting conditions for hundreds of millions, the drug costs for tens of millions of seniors, the protections for millions of young college graduates,

and say you are for healthcare. You just can't.

Compounding the injury, the President's latest budget wants to cut more than $1 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid. In doing so, the President is breaking his promise, blatantly and uncaringly. He doesn't care about what he promised people. He is breaking his promise to the American people that he would do no such thing. This is the party of healthcare? The Department of Justice's decision is a moral and institutional outrage. Not only would it harm Americans, but it would undermine the rule of law.

Today I am announcing a new plan--a new way for my colleagues to show that they mean what they say. I am introducing a simple amendment to the pending appropriations bill we are considering here in the Senate. It will very simply prohibit the Department of Justice from using any funding to litigate the downfall of ACA in the circuit court. Let's see how all of our Republican colleagues who said they don't want to take away protections for preexisting conditions, who said they don't want to take away healthcare for millions, and who said they want to lower seniors' drug costs vote on this.

Will the leader do what he has been so characteristic of doing in the majority and block a chance for this amendment? Will any Republican on the other side stand up and say: Don't block it, Mr. Leader; we have to protect the American people's healthcare.

We shall see.

My Republican friends, you are going to have the chance this afternoon or when they vote on this bill to show us which side you are on.

Climate Change

Mr. President, the Senate finally held the Republican leader's promised political stunt vote on the issue of climate change and the results did not make the Republicans happy. The stunt was exposed for what it was. The whole issue of climate change--for the first time, really--was debated here and turned on our Republican colleagues. It became clear to the American people that our Republican colleagues have no plan for climate change.

We have heard what they are against. We haven't heard a peep about a comprehensive plan that they are for. The attempt by the Republicans to make a mockery of the issue completely backfired. Leader McConnell was forced to answer some questions that he has ducked for a very long time. Whether or not Leader McConnell intended it, the fact is, at the very least, that this Chamber is doing something it hasn't done in years. It held an actual debate on the topic of climate change.

McConnell's stunt, again, boomeranged on him and his colleagues, and they finally had to discuss this issue rather than do what they have liked to do for the last 5 years and sweep it under the rug.

Yesterday, the day before, today, and continuing in the future, we ask our Republican colleagues three simple questions to which they owe an answer to their constituents. First, do you believe climate change is real? Second, do you believe climate change is caused by human activity? And third, do you believe Congress has to act immediately to deal with this problem?

We are finally getting some answers, thanks to McConnell's trick that he eventually played on himself. No less than Leader McConnell was asked by the press yesterday afternoon at his Ohio Clock press camp if he believes in climate change, and he said he believes it is real and he believes it is caused by human activity. Well, there is one more step if you believe all that: What is your answer--not what you are against but what you are for?

I want to commend Senators Roberts, Alexander, and Murkowski. They came to the floor and stated unequivocally and clearly that climate change is real and caused by humans. Make no mistake, in this glacial atmosphere controlled by the Republicans, when it comes to climate change, this is real progress, but, of course, it is not close to enough.

As to the third question, Leader McConnell offered no solution. All we got was a sham vote that he voted against. So I ask Leader McConnell: What is your plan? Some Republicans now seem to admit the challenges of climate change. OK, that is good. Now, what is your solution?

Turning the Senate floor into a campaign ad studio is not a solution to climate change, nor is it very effective even for their own purposes. Several Senators seemed to suggest that this problem can simply be solved by funding for more research. I support funding for research. It should be part of any climate plan. Yet I say to my friends--particularly, those from coal States--that is not going to solve the problem. Dealing with coal sequestration and coal technology will, at best, solve 1 percent of the problem. So I say to my friends: What about the other 99 percent, because 1 percent isn't enough? Temperatures will still go up. The oceans will still rise. The terrible kinds of disaster--flooding, tornadoes, and wildfires--that we have had will continue. To simply say that you are doing some research into how to deal with coal is not close to solving the problem.

Yesterday was a golden opportunity for this Chamber to come together and show the American people that Republicans are serious about tackling the threat. I asked to create a bipartisan select committee on climate change. Let's get some of the people who are most interested in this issue from different ideological stripes and from different places in the country to come together and come up with a solution. Of course, once again, the Republican leader blocked that genuine attempt. Unfortunately, my good friend, the junior Senator from Wyoming, objected when we asked for this. Instead, the Senate wasted the American people's time on a ridiculous charade featuring a sham vote that fooled no one.

Read the press today. Read the Wall Street Journal. Yesterday's vote on the Republican version of the Green New Deal was not just a cynical ploy--although it was--it was the ultimate ``tell'' that Republicans, for all their talk, have no real plan to combat climate change, no real plan on healthcare, and no real plan on climate change--just a lot of political stunts.

I am glad that finally, though--this is the good news here--some of my colleagues are starting to see the light and admit that it is real and admit that it is caused by human activity. Now, they need to put their money where their mouth is and work with us to take action that matches the scale of the problem. If our colleagues refuse to join us on a bipartisan basis in creating this select committee, we Democrats aren't going to wait. We will take action on our own.

Later today, we will be announcing our own path. We are going on offense on climate change, keeping a spotlight on this issue and making sure that this Chamber keeps debating this most urgent issue of our day.

We cannot play politics with our children's future any longer. I have a new grandson. By the time he grows up, I don't want the waters to be rising, the climate to be changing, and the whole world totally discombobulated so he can't live a good and happy life. We should all feel that way.

Avoiding the problem, whether it is because special interests are saying to avoid it--the Koch brothers, coal industry, oil industry, and everyone else--is not serving our country well.

Puerto Rico

Mr. President, the Republicans and the White House are refusing to make several minor changes to the disaster bill under consideration today--changes that will help Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Puerto Rico was devastated by Hurricane Maria a year and a half ago-- devastation we haven't probably seen in any other part of our country. It is reported that nearly $91 billion of damage was done by the hurricane.

Puerto Rico is still struggling to recover. These are American citizens. Let's not forget that. These are not people from some foreign land. Yet it has been publicly reported that the President has told his staff to find ways to limit Federal dollars from going to Puerto Rico. It was even reported that at yesterday's lunch with Republicans, the President complained that Puerto Rico has been getting too much aid. He said he ``doesn't want another single dollar going to the island,'' even though he has held up the dollars that Democrats and Republicans voted for.

We help Americans when there is a disaster. We don't pick and choose because they may not vote for us--or

vote at all--or because we don't like the elected official. These are people who are hurting.

What the President is doing with Puerto Rico is disgraceful but typical of his view to divide and pick winners and losers. What the President is doing is unacceptable and un-American.

I urge my Republican colleagues to come to the table, to accept the commonsense changes we have proposed to help the territories recover-- the same proposals that passed the House--and to help us pass a disaster package that addresses the needs not of some but of all disaster survivors and that addresses the needs of all Americans who are affected, not just those he happens to like. That is not what any President before has done. That is not what America does.

Mueller Report

Mr. President, finally, I want to say a few words on the report by Special Counsel Mueller.

From the start, the Democrats have argued that nothing short of full transparency will satisfy the American people's right to know what happened during Russia's attack on our election. That is why it is unacceptable that Mr. Barr, who reached his initial conclusions quickly--in 48 hours--now needs several weeks, he says, to review the report, and there are reports that he may now only release a summary of that finding.

First, let me talk about the time.

Attorney General Barr moved like a hare to get out the summary he wrote with the purpose of exonerating the President. He is now moving like a tortoise to issue Mueller's full report. People are going to ask: What the heck is going on? Is there some political motivation here? Americans are entitled to see the full report, not a summary.

We all know the intelligence community can redact parts of the report--small they will be--to protect secret sources, but we also expect the rest of the report to be issued, not a summary. Mr. Barr has issued one brief summary already, and many Americans don't trust that summary because they want to see the whole report before jumping to a conclusion. So we need the report now, without delay. We can't have political considerations enter into it. ``Oh, we will delay it for several weeks to let things cool off.'' I hope that is not what is happening.

In any case, we need the report now. This is too important for Mr. Barr to be playing politics. He can remove any cloud of suspicion by releasing the full report as the President and members of his party call for. When we read reports that Barr only wants to release a summary and that Leader McConnell is unsupportive of transparency, something doesn't smell right.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, last night, President Trump's Justice Department issued a letter to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals calling for the elimination of healthcare coverage for tens of millions of Americans.

Up until last night, the Trump administration had said one aspect of the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional, but last night, the Department of Justice declared that the entire law and all of its vital healthcare protections must go.

Make no mistake about it--this is an escalation of the Trump administration's and Republicans' attacks on protections for people with preexisting conditions. All the protestations for keeping preexisting conditions--President Trump said it as recently as this past campaign--out the window. This court case says get rid of preexisting conditions, and the Trump administration is pursuing the case. What are they saying to the 52 million Americans who are dependent on protections for preexisting conditions? What are President Trump and his Justice Department saying to a mom whose son or daughter has cancer and the insurance company says ``We are not covering it'' and they have to watch their child suffer because they can't afford it?

The move by the Trump administration is a slap in the face to American families, a devastating blow to Republicans who promised to protect people with preexisting conditions. How many of our Republican colleagues will go to the floor today and condemn the Trump administration? I will bet, not one. I will bet, not one. I hope I am wrong, but I will bet, not one.

In two short sentences, the Trump administration crystalized its position that the healthcare coverage enjoyed by nearly 20 million people, as well as the protections for tens of millions more with preexisting conditions, should be annihilated. That is now the official position, full stop. And the Trump position ties a 2-year anchor around the neck of every Republican for the next 2 years. Yet again, they will be forced to defend the indefensible. It is a stark reminder of the difference between our two parties. Democrats are fighting to expand and improve healthcare coverage and lower costs, while Republicans are trying to take it all away and raise costs.

The bottom line: From the moment this administration and this Republican majority came to power, they waged a wholesale attack on our healthcare system. They have pushed policies that would rip away people's healthcare coverage, spike their premiums and prescription drugs costs, slap older Americans with an age tax, and reverse protections for people with preexisting conditions like cancer, asthma, and diabetes.

Democrats condemn, in the strongest possible terms, this attack against the American people and demand we take action to protect our healthcare.

I know that the administration is very happy with the Mueller report, and so are our Republican friends. This move by the Trump administration to take away healthcare will prove far more detrimental to the administration and the Republican Party than any gains they might have made by the issuance of Mr. Barr's letter. Mark my words. It is far more important to the American people--far more important to the American people--because it involves their lives and the lives of their families. The Trump administration is hurting them badly.

Madam President, on another matter, today, Leader McConnell will follow through on one of his specialties, ``gotcha'' politics, by forcing a vote of the Republicans' version of the Green New Deal.

Make no mistake--Republicans want to force this political stunt to distract from the fact that they neither have a plan nor a sense of urgency to deal with the threat of climate change. With this exercise, the Republican majority has made a mockery of the legislative process. It is a political act, a political stunt.

Everyone here knows it is a stunt, including the majority leader himself, who will put something on the floor and then vote no. What is the point of that, other than showing how hypocritical this act is?

With this exercise, they have also elevated the issue in a way, I am sure, they never intended, and, for that, I want to thank them because now we are finally talking about climate change.

For 5 years, the leader hasn't brought one bill to the floor that will deal with the issue of climate change. He may not agree with what some people are for. What is his plan? What is his plan?

Leader McConnell and every Republican, with one exception, has refused to sponsor a resolution.

Leader McConnell has refused to answer these questions, which he has been repeatedly asked. One, is climate change real? Do you believe that, Leader McConnell? Do you believe that, Republican Members?

Two, climate change is caused by humans. Do you believe that? Say it. Come to the floor and do something about it.

And this is three: Congress must act on climate change. This is a simple resolution. Every Democrat is for it. Will Leader McConnell sign it? Will any other Republican sign it? No. It shows where the party is.

We are going to continue asking these questions over and over again because our Republican colleagues want to play a stunt and vote no on another bill, but they don't want to say what they are for.

The scientific consensus is clear. Disasters are getting stronger and stronger. The great irony here is that right after this bill goes down and the McConnell stunt bill goes down, we are going to vote on disaster relief.

Do you know what has made disaster relief so much more necessary and so much more expensive? Climate change. The warmer the air, the warmer the globe and the wilder the weather gets, as the people in Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas have just experienced.

So this idea that we are voting for disaster relief after a stunt, a sham vote on climate change--and the Republican leader and the Republican Senators have nothing to say on climate change--reveals in bright lights their ostrichlike behavior, putting their head in the sand, ignoring reality, doing nothing about it, and playing games.

Every single Democrat and a few of our Republican colleagues have joined in the resolution that says these three simple things. We will not rest until we have most every Republican joining because the public is on our side, science is on our side, and the need to help protect America--farmers, urban dwellers, suburban dwellers--from the devastating changes that climate is bringing upon us is very real.

Let's stop the nonsense. Let's get serious. Our children's future depends upon it. Our planet depends upon it.

Madam President, would my friend from Wyoming, who mentioned my name, yield for a question or three?

My friend from Wyoming said I said: ``Bring on the vote on the Green New Deal.'' I did, not because I think it is a smart thing to do--it is a stunt--but it will finally get us to talk about climate change, something the other side has not done.

I would ask my colleague three questions. I was gratified to see Leader McConnell answer them for the first time in his press conference. Does the Senator from Wyoming believe climate change is real? Does he believe it is caused by human activity? And does he believe Congress ought to do something about it? Those are my three questions. I hope I can get a direct answer, since my name was invoked.

Madam President, first, I thank my colleague from Wyoming. Now he knows why I said: ``Bring it on.'' We are finally getting even people like the Senator from Wyoming to admit that climate change is real, that it is caused by human activity, and that we should do something about it.

If we could have an open debate on climate change, that would be great. That is not what is happening today. The Senator from Wyoming talked about the contradiction of the Senator outside. How about the contradictions of the Republican Party and the Senators here putting a bill on the floor that they are going to vote no on.

Let's put the bill that the Senator from Wyoming asked for and let there be an open amendment process and let's see where people fall. All we are asking for is not a sham vote where people who put the bill on the floor are voting no because they don't want to have a debate, but rather a real discussion, a real debate, and real amendments.

I would say this. Earlier today, even better than having the Senator from Wyoming finally admit that climate change is real and caused by human activity, the Republican leader did, when asked by the press at his gathering.

The whole plan of the Republican leader here is backfiring.

We want a discussion on climate. We haven't had one major bill on the real issues of climate come to the floor led by the leader where we can have open debate--not one. So now we are finally beginning to debate. That is great. We are not going to stand for sham bills that the other side is all voting no on. They know what a trick and joke and sham that is. So do all the American people. We are finally talking about the issue, and that is great. Climate change is not a joke. It is not a hoax. It is a crisis. That is why we are doing these things.

So right now, here is something else we could do. Let's see where our Republican colleagues are if they want to have a real debate. I am calling for the creation of a Senate select committee on climate change. It is a crisis. Ask the farmers in Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas if they think it is a crisis. Ask the people who have been subjected to so many changes in the weather because the globe is heating up. They believe it is a crisis. The very least we can do is to do what the House did and set up a select committee on climate change that is bipartisan. The committee can be partnering with the House committee. We might actually get something done, not sham votes that everyone knows are a joke--a political joke.

I am hopeful that we can do that. The reason for the select committee is clear. If there ever were an issue that demanded focus from this Chamber, this is it. Climate change is an existential threat to our country and our planet. The last 4 years have been the warmest on record. Sea levels are rising and marine life and fishing communities are being destroyed. Record flooding is inundating parts of the country, most recently the Midwest, and more and more powerful hurricanes have buffeted our coasts. Over the next decade, climate change will continue to negatively impact every part of American life, our health, our economy, our national security, and even our geography, and the threats will only grow.

We can't run into our ideological corners anymore. I am gratified to hear a growing number of Republicans admit it is real, admit it is caused by human activity, and that we should do something about it. That is great news, but let's do something real. Let's do something real.

The Senator mentioned a few bills. I would be happy to look at them. I hope he will look at ours, and I hope he will ask his leader, the Republican leader, to allow an open debate on the floor with amendments. We would welcome that. We would welcome it. Some in the oil and gas industry will not like it. That is for sure. Some in the coal industry will not like it. That is for sure. But most Americans will.

So let's do it. The time for partisanship on this issue is long over. The time for one party to block any change and not offer anything that they believe in is over. We need to act quickly and boldly to confront this challenge before it is too late. It is time to stop the nonsense.

As I said, we welcome this debate because we are talking about climate change for the first time, and the hypocrisy of putting a bill on the floor and then voting against it is becoming so clear to the American people. But, as a byproduct, we are getting a debate and we are getting some of our colleagues for the first time to admit that climate change is real and caused by human activity and that we ought to do something about it. We welcome it. This committee will help bring the kind of bipartisan discussion that my good friend from Wyoming has asked for. So let's do it.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 97, a resolution establishing the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the resolution be agreed to; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we be given 2 minutes so that the Senator from Rhode Island can ask a question of the Senator from Wyoming.

Madam President, first, all of us heard the sad news today--nice for him but sad for us--that Tom Udall will not seek reelection.

He is one of the most principled, hardest working Senators we have. He is bright, he is dedicated, and he has such integrity, which runs in the Udall family. When he gets up to speak, every Senator, Democratic and Republican, always knows how well thought out his remarks will be and how sincere they are. He is not doing this for some angle or political purpose. He is just the kind of person the Founding Fathers wanted to serve in the U.S. Senate.

Tom's leadership on reforming the campaign finance system, on protecting the environment, on advocating on behalf of Native American communities, shepherding legislation to protect America from harmful chemicals, and so much more, has been invaluable.

We will all be saying more about Tom in a little while. We will miss him. He has been a wonderful Senator, a great friend, and a wonderful member of this caucus.

Madam President, I am going to speak briefly on the matter of climate change, and then I will address matters relating to the special counsel's investigation.

During the last month, this Chamber has been the forum for debate on a topic I never thought I would see Republicans raise on their own-- climate change. They have long been the party of climate change denial, with President Trump as the climate change denier-in-chief. It is an awfully difficult position to defend. It becomes more difficult every week and every month, and it is directly at odds with strong consensus views of scientists in the United States and around the globe.

As our weather changes and as we face disasters, the average American is saying more and more: Uh-oh. Climate change. I wonder what the people in Nebraska and Iowa think. They have had these huge floods that have been so devastating to them.

It is long past time for Republicans to take these issues seriously. This Chamber is supposed to debate the most serious issues of our day. Climate change is at the top of the list and shouldn't be an exception. That is why for a month all 47 Democrats have asked our Republican colleagues three simple questions, which none of them will answer. They are going to have to answer them sooner or later. One, do you agree that climate change is real? Two, do you agree that it is caused by human action? Three, do you believe that Congress should take immediate action to combat its effects?

We are not prescribing one part or another; we are saying, let's debate it. Let's not have a sham vote that is meant to embarrass one person or another. This is too serious of an issue for that. Republicans owe the American people some real answers, not games.

As I mentioned, just over the last week in the plains of Iowa, we saw the devastating effects of climate change with devastating clarity. The kind of weather we saw in the Iowa plains has no precedent. It was the equivalent of a category 2 hurricane lambasting the heart of the Midwest. Our hearts are with the people whose homes were destroyed or damaged, whose farms were decimated, and the animals that were lost.

The science is clear: A changing climate and warmer air make these freakish weather incidents more likely and more intense.

Republicans may want to keep their heads in the sand. I think that is a loser for them, especially among younger and younger voters. Like on so many other issues, Republicans are clinging to the past and not looking at what has happened, but Republicans do so at their own peril. With each passing year, their climate change denial is increasingly out of step with the American people. A majority of Americans--two-thirds, including a large percentage of Republicans--believe climate change is real and believe human action has accelerated its pace. They know it for a very simple reason--they can see it themselves.

On the South Shore of Long Island, all of a sudden after Sandy, very Republican areas understood the need to address climate change. That is happening all over the country. The American people see the effects of climate change every time a fire devastates California, another hurricane strikes the Gulf States, or Biblical flooding strikes some part of the country or another. They see them personally, not theoretically. That is what is happening. Indeed, scientists in the United States and Canada now say that the evidence for climate change has reached a ``gold standard'' of certainty.

What have Republicans done about it? Rather than take these warnings seriously, they choose to play games with our planet's future. Rather than get serious about the world our children will inherent, Leader McConnell has elected to push a sham vote on their version of the Green New Deal. They will play that game right before voting on funding for natural disaster relief. Let there be no doubt--these disasters are magnified precisely because of climate change. I cannot fathom the level of cognitive dissonance required to schedule these two votes one right after the other.

No one is fooled by the Republican attempts to posture and politicize climate change. If they really want to debate the issue, let's debate it. Let's bring different views to the floor. Let's see how people vote. Let's not put something on the floor for the first time--a serious proposal on climate change, which the leader has never before put on the floor. Let's debate them all. We are not getting that to happen. Oh no. It is just a game--politics, politics, politics--that the American people, on this issue and so many others, dislike.

Let Republicans come at us with all they have. The facts are on the people who understand that climate change is real. It is no wonder our Republicans colleagues don't want a real debate but a game. But the American people are not going to be fooled by the Republicans' stunt vote.

Democrats are prepared to take bold action to address the climate crisis head-on. That is why we are pushing for the creation of a bipartisan committee on climate change so we can examine this issue with the level of urgency and depth it deserves. I urge my colleagues on the other side who know the truth to speak out and join us as we try to put a halt to the greatest threat of our time.