Floor Statements

Mr. President, for all of the Senate's vaunted traditions about grand debates, we very rarely practice the actual art--the real back and forth, the exchange of ideas. For weeks now, we have heard our Republican colleagues come to the floor and rail against the Green New Deal, as the leader just did. Democrats have simply been trying to get a few honest answers out of the Republican leadership about their position on climate change so that we might have a real debate.

Yesterday, as Republican after Republican lined up to give speeches against taking bold action on climate change, several Democrats tried to steer the conversation in a more positive direction by asking our Republican colleagues simple questions--and I ask this again of every Republican, particularly of Leader McConnell: Do you, Leader McConnell, and our Republican friends believe climate change is real? Yes or no? Do you believe that climate change is caused by human activity? Yes or no? Most importantly, do you believe Congress should do something about it? Yes or no?

If our colleagues believe it is a problem and agree to that, what is their plan to deal with climate change? We know they don't like the Green New Deal. They have made that clear. It doesn't forward the debate. But what is their plan?

We might have ruffled some feathers on the other side. I think my colleagues just wanted to give speeches on the Green New Deal and then leave the floor. It is a sad state of affairs when even a little debate, even heated debate, is something unsettling here in the Senate. But I have to give credit to the few Republicans who did engage us.

A few said they did believe in climate change and offered some examples of minor legislation where our parties could work together to begin tackling this crisis. I give them credit for that. But here is the problem: When is Leader McConnell going to schedule time for consideration of this and other climate change legislation? We Democrats are ready to work. Will Leader McConnell bring his own Members' clean energy legislation to the floor?

Others have said that climate change is happening, but the free market could take care of it through ``innovation.'' With all due respect, that doesn't mean much. Most of us would agree we live in an incredible time of innovation and technology, yet we continue to pour even more carbon into the atmosphere than in previous years, not less. Left alone, the market has proved incapable of curing climate change for the simple reason of what economists call externalities. You run a coal plant; you make the profits from selling the electricity that the coal plant produces, but you don't pay the price for the carbon you put in the air. So it is not going to happen through the free market alone because of what even Adam Smith recognized: There are externalities that have to be captured, and it is government's job to at least make sure they are captured.

Another block of Republicans took a different tack. A few of our Republican colleagues said yesterday that climate change was real but only because the climate has always been changing and all flora and fauna contribute to it. ``What are we to do,'' they say, as they throw up their hands and look to the sky, ``ban volcanoes?''

Unbelievable. What an amazing canard that is. Those who said it--and there were a few right here yesterday--would get an F in middle school Earth science with that kind of reasoning. We all know--at least we all ought to know--that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, has pushed the amount of carbon in our atmosphere to record levels, trapping more heat than ever before and changing the climate in ways not seen before in our history.

Maybe denying or misleading about climate change is considered acceptable in the modern Republican Party, where it has come to be expected, and we wonder why that is so. Some argue it is because people don't believe in science. Some argue it is because they just are stuck in the status quo. And some argue it is because there is a lot of oil money cascading into the Republican Party, when you read about all these multimillionaire and billionaire new oil magnates who send tons of money there. Some argue that. You can't prove which one is true, but we do know it leads to terrible, terrible inaction.

So I would like to see my colleagues who don't admit the severity of climate change go talk to the farmers in Iowa dealing with drought, the fishermen in Alaska and North Carolina, the homeowners in Florida and the Mountain West. See if denying recent climate change works there. It sure doesn't work on the south coast of Long Island, where we had Sandy, which made believers out of many who were skeptical in the past.

Nonetheless, we made some progress yesterday. At the very least, my friends on the other side know they will not able to execute their standard playbook. Democrats are not going to sit around while Republicans come to the floor and yell about socialism as they have the past two decades. We are going to make Republicans answer core questions about real change. That is what America wants.

One of the reasons all of these scare tactics didn't work in 2018 and the House is now Democratic and we kept most of our seats, even in very red States--I suspect many of my more reasonable colleagues would prefer that--a real debate--over ``gotcha'' politics that Leader McConnell is so adept at playing and is playing once again with this cynical Green New Deal ploy.

Mr. President, on another matter, voting rights, today marks the 54th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, the protest march in Selma, AL, that led ultimately to the passage of the Voting Rights Act.

It was one of the most noble acts in American history. The courage of those who marched across that bridge, including our colleague, John Lewis, will be remembered centuries from now. It is a reminder that one thread of the American story is about how, despite our founding, our democratic principles, there has been a long march toward achieving the franchise.

We had democratic principles in the beginning. It was brand new. It was great, but remember, in 1789, in almost every State, the only people who could vote were White, male, Protestant property owners. I would imagine that would probably leave out even a majority in this Chamber who would be able to vote.

We have to keep improving that democracy. No one says we should only have White, male, Protestant property owners vote today because it was true in 1789. We have to move forward. We have to make voting more available and easier because the right to vote, without barriers, is what our soldiers, for centuries, have died for and what the people on that bridge marched for.

The march is still not over. In the wake of the disaster that was the Supreme Court's Shelby decision, 19 States rushed to pass discriminatory voter restrictions.

In North Carolina, the Republican State legislature drew up laws that ``targeted African Americans with almost surgical precision.'' How despicable. How despicable that the Republican legislature did that. Those are not my words; those are the court's words after looking at the evidence.

Fifty million Americans are now not registered to vote. Even though we don't talk about it enough, we have a population larger than two States living here in Washington, DC, without full congressional representation. We Democrats are ready to work.

Again, Leader McConnell gets up, and he talks about all of this negativity, exaggeration, hyping, and scaring just like Donald Trump. Why doesn't Leader McConnell put some legislation on the floor? Today, on the anniversary of Bloody Sunday, I want to mention three things we could do right now to bolster voting rights: one, undo the damage of the Shelby County decision by restoring the formula for preclearance; two, automatic voter registration; three, DC statehood.

Anyone who has been observing the floor of the Senate will have noticed by now just how vociferously our Republican leader opposes H.R. 1, which, among other things, would make election day a Federal holiday and attempt to get Big Money out of politics. Leader McConnell has gone on to call these ideas a power grab, labeling the bill the Democratic politician protection Act.

Leader McConnell, we are proud that we want more people to vote. Why are you ashamed of it? Why do you run away from it?

Leader McConnell, we are proud that we want to get the influence of big, special interest money out of politics. Why do you say that is partisan? It is the wrong thing to do, and 90 percent of all Americans, Democratic and Republican, don't like to see Big Money cascading into politics. Argue the merits, Leader.

When you think doing those things are democratic things, we are proud, and the Republican Party should be ashamed that they are not for them and have to call them names. To say that allowing more Americans to vote and getting Big Money out of politics is bad for Republicans and good for Democrats, that says a lot right there.

It is a dark day--a dark day--for the Republican Party if their leader in the Senate has to argue against more Americans voting because it would hurt their party at the polls. Maybe we should go back to the old days and have fewer people vote, like in 1789, when only White, male, Protestant property owners could vote. Come on. This idea that having more people vote is a Democratic power grab, when it is part of the fundamental root of our democracy--it is an act of desperation by the Republican leader.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the Republican leader has pledged to bring up his version of the Green New Deal for a vote but not H.R. 1. He is happy to twist words against it himself, but he knows voting rights are a hard thing to argue about.

If he wants to try to bring it up on the floor, we welcome it. We welcome a

discussion. Make no mistake, Democrats are going to fight to make the ballot access easier, challenge all attempts to disenfranchise American citizens, and get the influence of big special interest money out of politics.

Mr. President, finally, on China, news reports continue to suggest that President Trump is close to cementing an agreement with Beijing that, unfortunately for America and for American workers, would fall far right of expectations.

Earlier this week, the New York Times reported that China is drafting new laws on foreign investments to pacify the United States, but those new laws do not include any changes to how China forces American businesses to transfer technology and know-how as the cost of doing business.

If our best companies were allowed to sell to China unfettered, they would have huge amounts of profit, and they would employ huge amounts of people in America more. China doesn't let that happen, but they can sell freely here.

The President was right to target China. The President was right to impose tariffs on China. The President will have taken defeat out of the jaws of an almost victory if he now backs off for the sake of a photo op or some brief changes in what China purchases and forsakes American wealth and American workers, while China is stealing our wealth and jobs from our workers every single day.

If President Trump accepts a short-term purchase of American goods in exchange for a reduction in our tariffs without structural reform to China's predatory trade practices, shame on him. If he thinks that photo op will help him; it will not. If he thinks a temporary, little bump in China buying more soybeans or more steel products will help; it will not. He will lose because one of the best things he has done-- something I, many other Democrats, and many other Americans have praised him for--will be gone. I have publicly given the President credit when he has taken on China.

As I said, Americans have lost millions--trillions--of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs to Chinese IP theft. The President has been right to challenge China on those issues. His tariffs have brought China to the negotiating table, but now that China is at the table, President Trump must not walk away without achieving what he set out to achieve.

In short, to cut an unacceptable deal--a weak deal, a photo-op deal-- at this stage would be to squander the historic moment to put American businesses, workers, and inventors on a level playing field at long last, and it would be viewed as a capitulation by the President on one of his signature issues. It would be the inverse of what he did on North Korea.

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.

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

Mr. President, now on Readler, later this afternoon, the Senate will vote on the confirmation of Chad Readler to the Sixth Circuit. As this Chamber by now is no doubt aware, Mr. Readler was the chief cook and bottle washer of the Trump administration's decision not to defend the healthcare law in court. In a brief submitted to the court on behalf of the Department of Justice, Mr. Readler said that protections for the 130 million Americans with preexisting conditions are unconstitutional.

I say to my Republican friends: Do you want to vote for a judge who says that protecting preexisting conditions, which affect 130 million Americans, is unconstitutional?

Well, that is what you are going to do if you vote for Readler.

Even my Republican colleague Senator Alexander, who oversees the committee that created these protections, calls his arguments ``as farfetched as I have ever heard.''

Can you imagine the lack of compassion it takes to argue that 130 million Americans with cancers, respiratory ailments, and all the way down to asthma don't deserve the guarantee of affordable healthcare? Can you imagine voting for a man who is so cold-hearted that he doesn't protect a mother who has a daughter or a son with cancer and the insurance company cuts them off, and they have to watch their child suffer?

Can our Republican colleagues actually vote for a nominee who feels that way not just in his words but in his action? This vote is going to be remembered for a long time--a long, long time.

Can you imagine sitting at your desk on an average workday and arguing for a policy with such catastrophic consequences for a third of our country? I, for one, cannot. That is what Readler did.

The very next day, after he wrote that brief, he was nominated for this lifetime appointment on the bench. Go figure. Only in the Trump administration could a person be rewarded for efforts to take healthcare away from average Americans. That is exactly what happened.

Yesterday, regrettably, the Senate proceeded to Readler's nomination over the objections of one of his home State Senators, Senator Sherrod Brown. Republican leaders are so eager to confirm judges that they are willing to break the blue-slip tradition even when the nominee is the literal encapsulation of their party's most heartless policy, I might add--a policy that helped them lose the House and could help them lose future elections, if they only care about that.

Republican Senators still have a chance to reject the cynicism behind Mr. Readler's nomination. They have a chance to stand up for healthcare. I would ask my colleagues, is the confirmation of one circuit judge really worth endorsing the position that our healthcare law should be repealed and Americans with preexisting conditions should not be protected? The answer to that question ought to be obvious.

I urge my Republican colleagues to vote no on Mr. Readler's nomination this afternoon.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Will my colleague from Texas yield for a question instead of just filibustering what he says?

I simply want to ask the Senator--

--if he believes climate change is real--

--or caused by humans.

We know what he is not for. What is he for?

Will the Senator yield for a question and say what he is for?

Will he yield for a question stating what he is for, not what he's against but what he is for?

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, my colleague said he would yield to a question after he finished debating. I would like to ask him a question.

Mr. President, I would like to ask my colleague a question. I appreciate that.

Just three: No. 1, does he believe that climate change is real? Does he believe it is caused by humans? And does he believe this body ought to do something about it?

I would appreciate an answer.

Will the Senator--Mr. President, will he yield? He didn't really answer my question.

What will he do about climate change? I ask my colleague to please answer not what he is against but what he is for. We have not heard from the other side of the aisle anything they are for about climate change or whether they believe it is real and caused by humans.

I would ask my colleague, once again, not what he is against. We know what he is against. What is he for?

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, we thank our friends on the other side of the aisle for helping to make our case.

Yes, I am asking a question.

If the Senator from Massachusetts has the floor, I ask a question of the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, we have been making the case for the last several weeks that our Republican colleagues love to get up and rant about what they are against even though they exaggerate and tell mistruths about the bill Senator Markey has sponsored. Yet we have been asking repeatedly, haven't we, three questions: Do you believe climate change is real? Do you believe it is caused by human activity? Most importantly, what would you do about it?

Here we have had an hour of debate, haven't we, with our Republican colleagues, and there have been a lot of mistruths and a lot of ``here is what we are against'' but not one single thing they are for.

So isn't it true, my friend from Massachusetts, that they have helped to make our case? We are glad they are finally talking about climate change, but we have to do something about it. Isn't it true we haven't heard a single positive response about what they would do?

Mr. President, I pose a second question.

Isn't it true that our Republican colleagues have been in the majority for 5 years and that during that time, more and more Americans believe global warming is a serious problem? I think it is above two- thirds. It is at 70 percent. It is a significant percentage of Republicans and a majority of Democrats and Independents. Isn't it true that in those 5 years, the Republican leader, our friend, hasn't brought a single piece of legislation to the floor that would deal with climate change in any way? Is that correct?

Finally, we have not heard a single answer from any of the Senators on the floor or any who spoke about what their plan is.

So I would ask you to repeat and ask them three questions that they still haven't answered--simple questions with no predisposed answers.

A, do any of our Republican colleagues--this is a question--believe climate change is real?

Second, do any of our Republican colleagues over there believe it is caused by human activity?

And C, do they have any plan, proposal, suggestion as to how we deal with the issue?

And I would ask my colleague to ask our Republican friends--if they have an answer to any of those questions, to yield the floor to them.

Can you ask them to not repeat the same talking points about what they are against and finally say something about what they are for?

Mr. President, maybe Leader McConnell doesn't realize this, but because of the political stunt vote he is planning on his version of the Green New Deal, for the first time in a long time, the Senate is finally debating the issue of climate change, and if you ask me, it is about time.

Climate change is an urgent crisis and an existential threat to our country and to our planet. The last 4 years have been the warmest 4 years on record. Sea levels are rising. Marine life and fishing communities are being destroyed. Wildfires have roared against the West. More powerful hurricanes have buffeted our coastlines.

Over the next few decades, climate change will affect every part of American life--our health, our economy, our national security, and even our geography. So if there were ever an issue that demanded particular focus from this Chamber, it is climate change. That is why today I am introducing a resolution to create a select committee on climate change to correspond with the House committee that was created this year for the same purpose.

For the same reason that we dedicate groups of Senators to focus on health, national security, judiciary, agriculture, and banking, we should have a bipartisan group of Senators who meet to focus on climate change, to hold hearings, to debate the issue, and to craft, refine, and enact legislation to address this problem.

I understand that my friends on the other side of the aisle don't like the Green New Deal. OK, that is fine. What is your plan?

Maybe a lot of Members think they can get away without having to answer the question. They will not. They will not. That is why we need a committee focused on this to bring Democrats and Republicans together on an issue that demands progress. So I will introduce a resolution to create a new committee on climate.

Democrats believe this is an issue of surpassing importance. What do our Republican colleagues believe? We sincerely hope that our Republican friends will come around and view it the same way. Yet we are still trying to get the Republican leadership, and Republicans in the Senate in general, to answer three key questions. I ask once again. I have asked them every day.

One, Leader McConnell, do you believe climate change is real?

Two, Leader McConnell, does human activity contribute to it?

And, three, should Congress take immediate action to address it?

Our Republican friends are silent--silent. Some have argued that it is because they get so much money from the oil industry. Some have argued that it is because they don't believe in science. It is amazing that they can't even answer a simple question that is one of the leading questions of our time when two-thirds of all Americans believe that climate change is real and urgent.

We are not trying to lock our Republican friends into any one or two solutions. We are not saying: Let's do it our way or the highway.

As a first step, we want Republicans, particularly their leader, to agree with us that climate change is a problem that must be addressed. And what do we get from our Republican friends? Either silence or a stunt--putting on the floor a bill they will not vote for. That doesn't say anything. That doesn't address the problem. It is a stunt. That is all they can do. They can't come forward with a single positive thing to say or do. So they put a bill on the floor that they will not vote for--what a ruse. What a mocking of the way the Founding Fathers wanted democracy to work--it is a disgrace.

That is why we need a committee. At least let them go forward with a committee, where Democrats and Republicans can discuss the issue, debate the issue, and perhaps come up with some bipartisan solutions. That is what we hope to achieve when we come to the floor and ask our friends, sincerely, if they agree with those three items, because climate change will not wait for the partisanship, which so often defines this Chamber, to ebb. It will not pause while one party is in power. Its impacts will not discriminate between red States and blue States.

It is time to put our party affiliations aside and agree that we face a major crisis that is caused by humans and that we have an immediate and glaring need to address it.

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

Madam President, just briefly, I heard my good friend, the Republican leader, decry H.R. 1. He called it the Democratic protection act. Well, if making it easier for people to vote and getting Big Money out of politics hurt the Republican Party and is good for Democrats, what a sad commentary on the Republican Party that they don't want to see people vote, make it easier to vote, and that they don't want Big Money out of politics--a sad commentary on the Republican Party to be afraid of H.R. 1.

Madam President, later this afternoon, the Senate will vote to take up the nomination of Chad Readler to be a judge on the Sixth Circuit. Mr. Readler was the man behind the curtain last year when the Trump administration decided to side with Texas and 19 other States with Republican attorneys general in suing to repeal our healthcare law. Mr. Readler didn't merely work on the case; he was the lead lawyer who filed the Justice Department brief declaring the administration would refuse to defend the laws of our country.

His recommendations were so outrageous that many career Justice Department attorneys refused to sign it. Mr. Readler argued that protections for Americans with preexisting conditions should be eliminated. Let me repeat that. The nominee up for a vote later this afternoon argued that protections for Americans with preexisting conditions should be eliminated. Then, a day after Mr. Readler filed this awful brief hurting average Americans--hurting tens of millions of average Americans--he was nominated for a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench. Coincidence? I think not. You see, in the Trump administration, depriving people of protections for preexisting conditions is actually something to be rewarded. Shame. Shame on the Trump administration. Shame on anybody who votes for Mr. Readler, particularly those who claim they want to protect preexisting conditions. Those who say they want to protect them and vote for the chief cook and bottle washer who pulled them away and was given this nomination the next day, shame on them.

During the past campaign, as I said, many Republicans stood up and said, rightly, that they supported keeping protections for Americans with preexisting conditions. That is all well and good, but that is what is so typical of our Republican friends in the Senate. They talk the game that we do--they are for more healthcare, they are for protecting Americans with preexisting conditions--but their votes on the floor of the Senate are exactly the opposite. It is all well and good to say you want to protect them, but those promises and pronouncements mean next to nothing if they will not vote to reject a lifetime appointment for the man who played the starring role in the legal effort to take these conditions away.

Republicans who vote yes on Mr. Readler, I believe, will regret that vote in future years. A vote to confirm Mr. Readler is an endorsement of the Republican lawsuit to eliminate protections for preexisting conditions and repeal healthcare for millions of Americans.

Madam President, on another matter, the national emergency. It seems with each passing day, another Republican comes out to oppose the President's declaration of a national emergency at the border. Over the weekend, Senator Rand Paul, who often speaks his own mind, became the fourth Republican to officially announce his support for terminating the President's emergency declaration, apparently guaranteeing enough votes for passage in the Senate. I hope and expect that Senator Paul will not be the last Republican to announce their support because this should be an issue that transcends party. The President's emergency declaration gnaws at our very fabric, particularly the separation of powers. The President--this President--is trying to bend the law to his will, to accrue powers that are not his.

There is no evidence that some new emergency exists at the border. The President himself has said he ``didn't need to do this.'' An emergency, by definition, is something that you need to do. Everyone here knows the truth. The President didn't declare an emergency because there is one. He declared an emergency because he lost in Congress, threw another temper tantrum, and wanted to go around it. That, my friends, is a gross abuse of our constitutional system.

Article I--not article II, the executive branch article, not article III, the judiciary branch article, but article I, Congress--gives Congress the power of the purse, not the President. Were we to permit an Executive--any Executive--to declare an emergency every time they lost in Congress, what would be the point of Congress? We would be trading our democracy for a monarchy, the very thing our Framers abhorred and that our Constitution guards against. Remember, back then, why did the colonists--the brave colonists--rebel? It was against the overreaching power of King George. They said: We need a government that is going to protect us from the overreaching power of any individual, particularly one empowered to lead a nation. That is why they did it. It is relevant today. Donald Trump has shown more desire to overreach than any President. Some people may like that, but it goes against 200 years of wisdom in this country, and I hope people will reject it.

Whatever you think of the policy at the southern border--I suppose Senator Paul is very much for the wall--no President should be allowed to discard the Constitution on a whim and do an end run around a coequal branch of government.

This vote on the resolution to terminate this emergency is not a vote about policy, it is not a vote about party. It is a vote about Presidential power and the precedent it will set, which will reach far beyond the current debate about the border. The debate about the border will be forgotten, but the fact that this Congress, this Senate, allows a President to so overreach and rearrange singlehandedly the balancing blocks in our democracy will be regarded by historians as a bleak day.

I say to my colleagues, that doesn't just apply to how you vote. It applies to whether we have enough votes to override the President should he veto this resolution when it passes.

Madam President, on climate, Leader McConnell has spent a great deal of time talking about bringing his version of the Green New Deal to the floor. Everybody knows it is nothing more than a political stunt. Everybody knows the same Republican leader decried bringing bills to reopen the government because the President wouldn't sign them, and he said those were stunts. Now he is doing the same thing. It is amazing sometimes that there can be a 180-degree turn so quickly.

So let's talk about some of the things Leader McConnell could actually do to move the ball forward on climate change, which now more and more people--two thirds of Americans, if you believe in polling-- believe is a real threat to our planet that demands the Senate's action, not stunts, not games.

All 47 Democrats have introduced a resolution that affirms three simple things; one, climate change is real;

two, climate change is caused by human activity; and, three, Congress must immediately act to address the problem. Leader McConnell could bring that resolution to the floor. He could say he believes climate change is real and deserves our time and attention. Given the rampant denialism from some wings of the Republican Party, including so many in the White House, that would be notable progress, but I don't think it will happen.

You scratch your head and wonder why. Why would they be so afraid to even say climate change is real? One possible answer many people think is the cause, one of the main causes, is oil money--oil money. The oil industry has such power around here--and much of that money is dark, by the way--that Republicans are afraid to admit the candid truth and say climate change is real.

Our resolution doesn't talk about how you propose to deal with this very real issue. We are not locking people into this proposal or that proposal. We are simply saying, let's start talking about it. Actually, the one good thing about Leader McConnell's stunt is we are talking about it, and that is a good thing. I have news for the leader. We will keep talking about it throughout this whole Congress, and we will keep trying to use our leverage to make it easier to resist the bad forces of carbon dioxide entering our atmosphere.

So we are going to keep at this. We are going to keep at this, Leader McConnell. No stunt that you put on the floor is going to deter us. We are preparing legislation to defund President Trump's attempt to create a fake climate panel within the executive branch. Leader McConnell can bring that legislation to the floor once it is ready so Congress can tell the President that we do not tolerate the intentional dissemination of disinformation to the American public on any issue, especially climate change.

Democrats have also said any infrastructure bill must include substantial investments in green jobs. That is something Leader McConnell could pursue. We all like jobs. Many Members on his side of the aisle believe in wind and solar power--well, not many but at least some. Let's move forward on that. We need to upgrade our power grids. We need to make energy more available and cheaper and greener. Let's do that.

There are many more things besides, but make no mistake, before and after Leader McConnell's political stunt on climate change, Democrats will continue to focus on the issue, propose solutions, and try to get some of those solutions enacted into law in the places we have some leverage, even as a minority.

There is an enormous energy--enormous energy in this country, particularly among young Americans--to take bold action on climate change. They see the planet on which they live changing before their eyes, not for the better, and they are absolutely right. It is our job to channel the energy of those young people--wonderful energy; I am so glad it is out there--into bold legislation that addresses the climate crisis head on, and that is exactly--exactly--what Democrats will do, even if Republicans continue to play these political games in their efforts to try to keep their heads in the sand and ignore that climate change is real.

Mr. President, this week the Senate will vote on another of President Trump's hard-right judicial nominees, Chad Readler, of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio.

Let me just say, anyone who thinks the Republican Party has abandoned their embrace of eliminating protections for preexisting conditions ought to see how everyone votes on Chad Readler. It will be a surprise to no one that this nomination is proceeding over the objection of Senator Brown, yet another example of Republicans discarding the blue slip. Mr. Readler stands out in his own way. A vote to confirm this nomination is a vote to end protections for Americans with preexisting conditions.

Mr. Readler is behind the Trump administration's decision last year to side with Texas and 19 other States with Republican attorneys general suing to repeal our healthcare law. Mr. Readler was not just somebody who worked on the case; he was the lead lawyer, filing the Department of Justice brief declaring that the administration refused to defend the laws of our country.

In a brief so outlandish that career Justice Department attorneys refused to sign, Mr. Readler argued that protections for people with preexisting conditions should be eliminated. Mark my words. When this vote is cast, we will see how every Republican feels about preexisting conditions, their protestations to the contrary.

Listen to this, folks. On the very next day after the brief was submitted, Mr. Readler was rewarded for his efforts by President Trump with a nomination for a lifetime appointment. On day one, Readler files the lead suit to eliminate protections for those with preexisting conditions, and on day two, he is nominated to the bench--a lifetime appointment.

All 47 of us Senate Democrats are united in opposing this nomination, and we urge our Republican colleagues who claim to support protections for preexisting conditions to join us in voting to reject his nomination.

He is not just some lawyer who participated. He is the chief cook and bottle washer of the case that hurts hundreds of millions of Americans. If you have a daughter with cancer, and you can't get insurance, if you have a wife or a husband who has a serious condition, and the insurance company pulls back, you are losing your protection if Readler has his way. Now he is going to get on the bench with a lifetime appointment unless our Republican colleagues have the sense and the courage to block him.

On this vote, every Republican will be forced to show their constituents and the American people whether they stand for preexisting condition protections, for more Americans having healthcare coverage, protecting Medicaid, and all insurance plans covering maternity care and prescription drugs. Having failed in Congress to repeal these vital healthcare protections that American families count on each day, President Trump has turned to the courts. The decision by Mr. Readler, President Trump, and others in the Trump administration to side with Republican attorneys general who have declared our healthcare law unconstitutional is the latest example of the

President and Republicans trying to repeal our healthcare law.

The Texas lawsuit is working its way through the courts now. If Mr. Readler's legal argument prevails in the courts, access to healthcare for children with asthma, adults with arthritis, and cancer survivors would no longer be guaranteed.

Mr. Readler argues that preexisting condition protections like these are unconstitutional. We Senate Democrats think that is outrageous and extreme, which is why we are calling on Republicans to join us in opposing his nomination.

In short, any Republican Senator who supports Mr. Readler's nomination is supporting the Trump Republican lawsuit to get rid of preexisting condition protections and to take away healthcare from tens of millions--if not hundreds of millions--of Americans.