Floor Statements

I am sorry.

While he is looking, will the Senator perhaps yield for a question?

The thing that confused me about the Senator's commentary is that the Senator referred to people, through this regulation, being forced into court, but in reality, they would still have a choice of arbitration or court, as opposed to being locked into arbitration.

Are you familiar that under this rule people would still have the option of arbitration, if they thought that was good?

I could possibly clarify that. My understanding is that, currently, when you have an arbitration clause, you have one option, and that is to go into arbitration.

In this rule you have the ability to go to court or the ability to go to arbitration.

Mr. President, I couldn't disagree more with my colleague from Idaho. He gave a very studious presentation that missed all the key facts. He made a big point out of the fact that we would lose a dispute resolution tool, but, in fact, access to small claims and access to arbitration remain in place, so it is simply wrong.

He noted that small claims is a great option, but, of course, what we are talking about are provisions in which credit card companies and cell phone companies and broadband companies put charges on your bill that are unjustified, but they are small amounts. They are little amounts. It is $5 here, slammed there; it is $10 there, jammed on your bill there. You discover it, and you call them up, and they say: Well, you can come to arbitration. Of course, arbitration means they choose the decision maker; they pay the decision maker, and that decision maker comes to them for future business. So it is completely rigged.

If anyone wanted to see an example of the swamp at work here in DC, we have it on the floor tonight. This is Big Business taking justice and ripping it out of the hands of consumers across our Nation.

It costs fees to go to small claims; you can't go to small claims for $10 or $5 or $20. This is well understood.

My colleague made a big point about the fact that a lot of companies settle. These companies have the best lawyers that money can buy. They settle only when they have cheated the consumer and they know there is a chance they are going to get a worse verdict if it goes to trial. It is smart for them, and it saves money for them not to continue to adjudicate a case in which, clearly, they are wrong. So, of course, they will settle. This is not an argument against consumer rights; it is an argument for consumer rights.

My colleague made the argument that 25 percent of the fees go to the lawyers, but he didn't point out that means 75 percent goes to the consumers. Why is that a fair deal? Because consumers can't afford to go to court for $10 or $20 or $15, so they are awfully happy to be able to get 75 percent of what they are owed.

Again, he didn't begin to mention the fact that the whole point is deterrence. These companies are given a right to cheat because there is no way for a customer to get a fair adjudication. In arbitration, the company chooses the judge; the company pays the judge. And these judges come back time and again for case after case after case, finding for the companies time after time after time. So if you want a rigged system, if you want an example of a swamp flooding this room right here, this is it, right here, right now.

Deterring companies from cheating individuals makes a lot of sense. It adds a lot of value to our society. Credit card customers, nursing home residents, students with loans, veterans--veterans weigh in heavily against the abusive practice of a rigged system--certainly customers of cell phone companies and broadband.

I have had this experience myself. I looked at a bill, and I said: Wait, what is this charge on here that I have never seen before? I called up the company. Of course, you go through a phone tree, and you spend an hour trying to talk to some real person who is way overseas somewhere. They say: Well, we just added it to your bill 6 months ago, and you should have protested it the first month it was on your bill. Well, I don't look at the details every single month to see if the company tried to cheat me. And if they did it to me, they did it to thousands and thousands of others. They were willing to reimburse 1 month of this, but not the first 5 months. At $10 a month, that is $50. You can't go to small claims for $50. You can't go to court for $50. The only fair thing is to have the full range of options, and that is taken away by arbitration.

I would bet none of my colleagues here, not a one--and if any colleague would like to stand up and say they disagree, I would like to hear it--not a one would agree to have a serious dispute settled in which the opponent chooses the judge, pays the judge, and that judge gets business from them all the time. That is rigged and that is wrong, and that is why I encourage my colleagues to vote against this resolution tonight.

Mr. President, our Nation was founded on a principle encapsulated in the first three and most important words of our Constitution: ``We the People.'' Our Founders wanted to have a nation that didn't work for the benefit of the powerful and the privileged, but for decisions of the people, by the people, and for the people, as President Lincoln so eloquently described our Nation. He did not describe a nation by and for the powerful, not a nation by and for the privileged, but by and for the people.

Tomorrow, a bill is coming to the floor that couldn't be more of a ``by and for the powerful'' bill than we have seen on the floor of the Senate before. It is a bill completely contrary to the fundamental values embedded in our Constitution.

This bill is a budget bill, and at its heart, it says: We are going to do $5 trillion of tax cuts almost completely for the richest Americans, and we are going to do so by gutting programs that make America work for working Americans.

The President said: When it comes to tax reform, I want to help the middle class; I am not going to do anything for the rich and powerful.

Then why, I ask you, is this bill coming to the floor of the Senate completely for the rich and powerful?

President Trump, come before the American people and explain how you can make a promise that you are going to do tax reform for the middle class and then put a bill on the floor of the Senate that is all about benefits--raiding the National Treasury--for the rich and powerful. How do you explain this complete opposite?

What a complete pretense we have, to say this bill is about helping American workers when it is all about the rich and powerful.

The Republican budget plan not only has $5-plus trillion, virtually all in tax giveaways, a raid on the National Treasury for the rich and powerful, but it proceeds to cut healthcare for older Americans, a cut of $1 trillion in Medicaid for working Americans. There will be a lot of damage done to ordinary Americans who just want peace of mind that when their loved one gets sick, when their loved one gets injured, they will get the care they need. Is peace of mind too much to ask of our national healthcare system? Are my colleagues so callous, so out of touch, so cruel that they want to fund tax cuts for the richest Americans by destroying healthcare and diminishing healthcare for our seniors?

It is not just our seniors, it is our citizens on Medicaid. In Oregon, it is the Oregon Health Plan. It serves the poorest among us, many of them working part-time jobs that have no healthcare plan, many of them working shifts that are determined at the last second. Some of the most stressful jobs in America are at the very bottom, some of the most stressful work schedules are at the very bottom, and we are going to cut not just $1 trillion from Medicaid but half a trillion from Medicare. Wow.

Let's look at the other programs that would be devastated by this Republican budget in order to fund that $5 trillion in tax cuts, almost all for the wealthiest Americans.

The Senate Budget Committee Democratic staff said that if those cuts in the Republican budget are extended evenly, distributed reductions, it would have the following impact: It would eliminate housing assistance for more than 1 million families. It would eliminate heating assistance for nearly 700,000 seniors on fixed incomes. It would eliminate nutrition assistance by more than $100 billion--a 33-percent cut. In other words, to translate that, there would be a lot more hunger in an already hungry America. It would slash Pell grant funding by more than $100 million, eliminate Head Start services for 25,000 children in an average year, cut mandatory transportation funding by $200 billion, cut funding for the National Institutes of Health by $37 billion--all to give a massive tax giveaway to the richest Americans.

If the President is proceeding to say that this is a plan for the middle class, then we would expect virtually all the benefit to go to the middle class, but what do we actually have? Four out of five dollars of benefits go to the top 1 percent, and 40 percent of that goes to the top one-tenth of 1 percent. Why should there be one single penny going to the very richest Americans in a nation in which we should be striving for a foundation for every family to thrive?

We know that to thrive, our children have to have food to eat, we need to have healthcare programs that create peace of mind, and we need to make sure our seniors have a strong foundation in their retirement, but instead we see all those programs--including the opportunity for college and Pell grants--being raided for this massive giveaway to the top 1 percent.

President Trump, come before the American people and explain how it is possible that you can claim you are doing a plan for middle-class America, and you are sending virtually the entire benefit to the top 1 percent of Americans.

This budget resolution's associated tax plan is one of the most egregious examples of rigging the system of America for the powerful and privileged rather than a government of, by, and for the people.

I am here today to stand up and say: Not one penny to the top 1 percent. If you want a fair plan for America, it would be not one penny to the top 1 percent. If you want a plan that strengthens the middle class, there would be not one penny to the top 1 percent. Not one penny for billionaires while we gut Medicare and Medicaid. Not one penny for billionaires when middle-class families' taxes will go up under this plan. Not one penny for our billionaires while we destroy programs, safety nets, and opportunities for education, from Head Start to Pell grants to attend college.

We could do a great deal of good to invest in America. We could invest in transportation. We have an incredible number of bridges and roads that need repairs. We can put an incredible number of people to work building middle-class jobs and middle-class incomes through building infrastructure instead of a giveaway of the National Treasury to the top 1 percent. By investing more than $1 trillion, we can create millions of good-paying American jobs.

There are more than 56,000 bridges in America. One out of eleven is structurally deficient. Engineers estimate that we could easily spend $123 billion on repairing bridges and $420 billion modernizing highways and that we would get a return back to our economy, with lower vehicle maintenance, decreased delays, lower fuel consumption, improved safety, lower long-term maintenance costs, lower emissions--all benefits of investing in transportation, in addition to the fact that it will strengthen our economy.

We can think about the investment we need to make in our water infrastructure, the water supply systems and certainly wastewater treatment--a problem in virtually every town across America. What about all those lead pipes that need to be replaced? Two thousand years ago, the Romans were poisoned by their own water because they lined their aqueducts with lead, and here we are, 20 centuries later, poisoning our citizens with lead pipes. Why aren't we spending money to take care of that problem? It is not just a problem in Flint; it is a problem in hundreds of cities across this country.

If we want America to thrive, why not invest in rural broadband? Why not create high-speed broadband in every rural town and village across this Nation, which would strengthen that economy, which would give people the ability to build their businesses in smalltown, rural America, instead of spending trillions of dollars in tax giveaways to the very richest Americans?

How about an investment in our students--not decreasing Pell grants but strengthening Pell grants to make it possible for more people to attend college without ending up with a debt the

size of a home mortgage? It is a real possibility to create debt-free college in our public universities. Why don't we do that? That will strengthen the foundation for every family to thrive.

Good jobs, good education, good infrastructure, not a theft from the American Treasury of $4 trillion to $5 trillion for the very richest Americans--that is what is being proposed here. Has there ever been a train robbery as audacious as this theft of the National Treasury for the richest Americans? Has there ever been a bank robbery as audacious and outrageous as this theft of the American Treasury for the richest 1 percent of Americans?

Here on the floor, we should be wrestling with how to create a foundation for every family in America to thrive, not considering a bill that wipes out healthcare, wipes out Pell grants, does damage to every conceivable thing that would make this Nation stronger in order to give the billionaires more zeroes in their bank accounts.

This bill is destructive, it is shameful, and it is contrary to the very principle of our Constitution of government of, by, and for the people. This bill is government of, by, and for the 1 percent. It must not stand.

Mr. President, I want to recognize the articulate, thoughtful, and passionate comments that have just been delivered by the Senator from Nevada. She has already served so effectively on committees and effectively on legislation, and now she brings her voice here to this Senate Chamber, where, over the history of our country, so many important conversations and dialogues have taken place, wrestling with the challenges we have and looking for the path to build the future we desire. So I welcome her. Of course, she has been here for some time now, but I welcome her now, being a part of the dialogue in this Chamber, which is an honor and something that is granted to only a few people in our Nation to come and to voice the concerns of our fellow Americans, of our home State constituents, striving to persuade colleagues to join in the effort to make our Nation and this world a better place.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my intern, Kassamira Carter-Howard, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. President, 4 weeks ago, I stood here on the floor of the Senate and called for increased funding to fight the wildfires. This is just one of the dramatic pictures of Oregon ablaze. It is thousands and thousands of acres.

I had the experience of driving roughly 350 miles in my State and never escaping the smoke from the fires that were in every single corner and in every quadrant of the State of Oregon. We have seen the challenge of Mother Nature at work this year with Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria hitting in Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico. But let's not forget the incredible damage being done in Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington by these extraordinary fires.

Over the last decade, we have seen an average of 50,000 fires in America each year. They destroy and burn up more than 5 million acres, but this year the count is well over 8 million acres and counting. In Oregon, we normally have fires that burn, on average, about 500,000 acres, but this year we are well over 600,000 acres and counting.

As a result of these raging fires, we have many communities that have been so powerfully impacted and so many forests destructively impacted. We should stop and ask: What can we do better in terms of our forests and our communities? That is why I am taking to the floor right now.

The first thing we need to do is to end fire borrowing. This is where the U.S. Forest Service, in order to pay for fighting these fires, proceeds to borrow from every other account. This has become all too common. What are those other accounts? They are the hazardous fuels funds, forest management funds, forest restoration funds, forest conservation funds, road maintenance funds, and funds that are designed to prepare for future timber sales.

All of that does a lot of damage to the preparation. So the fires are more resilient and aren't susceptible to this type of firefighting. We have seen, on average in the last decade, a cost of fighting fires across the country of about $1.6 billion. But this year, we are over $3 billion--almost double. So even though the Appropriations Committee had wisely put in a buffer of several hundred million dollars to prevent fire borrowing, those funds were long ago wiped out.

So there we were 4 weeks ago. I was working to say that now that we are over the allotted funds for the year, let's immediately get more funds that can be used to backfill this shortage in September. I thank all of my colleagues for the fact that those funds were included in the continuing resolution. We successfully provided a bridge so that firefighting could continue and so that the fire borrowing was quickly repaid.

But that is not a permanent solution--to try to legislate or to backfill on a rapid basis. Indeed, when we have these kinds of fire seasons, it is like other natural disasters. It is like tornadoes and hurricanes and floods. So we need to have a FEMA-style backup for those worst ever fire seasons. That is what my colleagues Senator Wyden and Senator Crapo--bipartisan teamwork--have been putting forth. It is called the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2017. It says that when we reach a certain level of funding for fighting fires, the balance will go to a FEMA-style fund. That is exactly the way it should be done.

It has been estimated in the past that if just the top 1 percent or 2 percent of the worst fires were funded in FEMA-style fund, we would never have had fire borrowing in the past. But the most relevant kind of crisp and clean way to do that would be to adopt this bill Senator Wyden and Senator Crapo have put so much work into and which I am certainly pleased to cosponsor. That would be very useful, and we should do that now.

We should respond while the memory is fresh and, actually, while fires are still burning in State after State--certainly burning in my home State of Oregon. Then we should recognize, too, that this terrible fire year has done so much damage to so many communities. We have communities where the roads have been cut off. We have communities where the tourists disappeared because of the smoke, or other economic enterprises had to shut down for an extended period.

So as we assist those communities hit by Harvey and hit by Irma and hit by Maria, let's also help those communities that were hit by this year's extraordinary fires. That would mean strengthening the Small Business Disaster Loan Program. That would mean taking the additional funding for the USDA Emergency Community Water Assistance Program, and, certainly, it would mean making additional community development block grants available to the communities impacted by these fires. Let's not forget those communities as we provide assistance in funding to the communities affected by the hurricanes.

Then we also need to address the fact that many assets in our forests were scorched by these fires. There are trails that have to be repaired, roads that have to be repaired, watershed repairs to avoid landslides, facilities that were scorched and burned, and wildlife and fish management restoration, including critical sage grouse areas.

I was up visiting the incredible waterfall, the Multnomah Falls. They were explaining that several of the trails have bridges--there are so many bridges on the trails in Oregon--and that the fire had burned some of the understructure. So from above it looked like the bridges were safe, but they weren't safe. They can't reopen those trails until they get support to do all these repairs. The Forest Service has estimated that it will take $150 million to restore the damage done to the Forest Service's infrastructure.

So we should make that happen as part of this bill. Then, we should turn to forest fire resilience. We have 2 million acres in need of fire prevention efforts in Oregon. Actually, we have far more of that in need of fire prevention, but we have nearly 2 million that have already passed through environmental approval for work to reduce the hazardous fuels that are on the floor of the forest, and we need to thin these forests.

You can imagine that when you have clearcuts and those clearcuts are replanted, the trees grow back very close together. In a short amount of time, those forests are very good for fires and very good for disease, but they are neither good for ecosystems nor for timber stands. So they have to be thinned, and that thinning can be done, in Oregon alone, on nearly 2 million acres already approved through the environmental process. The challenge is to get more funds into that effort.

That, too, should be part of this because, whether you talk to an environmentalist or talk to somebody who wants sawlogs for the mills, they both know that if you thin these forests, you make them more resistant to fire. With better timber stands, you have better ecosystems, and you supply a steady supply of sawlogs to the mill.

Let's not reopen the timber wars of the past. Let's work together with a win-win.

I want to show this chart because it indicates the dramatic change of what has happened to the Forest Service budget. We can go back to 1995 and compare it to the year 2015. I want to focus particularly on the orange. The orange is the amount of money that was spent fighting forest fires, and 20 years ago, it was 16 percent of the Forest Service budget. But in 2015--2 years ago--it broke 50 percent. It was 52 percent of their budget. This year, it has certainly gone up much higher than that. So as the amount of funds spent on fighting fires has increased, it has dramatically reduced the amount of funds that support our maintenance and improvement of the forest. That is what is getting squeezed out.

Let me put it differently. The more you spend fighting fires out of a single pot of money, the less money you have to prevent the fires. Everywhere I go they say: Can't we do more on the front end so these forests are more resilient? If you think about how fire works, it really gets going if the trees are close together because one tree lights the next tree on fire. If you thin them, you slow that down. The fire goes from the ground, where there is brush, to the canopy, where there are branches, very easily if the branches are close to the ground. So you trim off those branches, separate the trees, thin them out, shave off the branches, cut off the branches, and suddenly you have a forest that is much more resilient.

There are those folks who have said: Let's just get rid of the environmental rules. Let's just clearcut everything. Let's do 10,000 acres at a time. That is, by the way, 15 square miles. Let's set those 15 square miles next to each other. Let's just shave the Earth and wipe out the forests. That way, there will not be forest fires. Those are the timber wars of the past.

What we have seen is that we can bridge the divide between a good ecosystem and a good timber stand by thinning the forest, by making them more like a natural forest, which is much more fire resilient. In the process of thinning, which has to be done periodically over time, we are also providing a steady foundation for sawlogs for our mills.

There is a mill in John Day, OR. I met with the folks there who were very worried. The workers there were very worried about that mill getting shut down. I was determined to do everything I could to save that mill. What ended up happening is that we found we couldn't save that mill with a timber sale because a timber sale can't commit to a load of logs over a 10-year period. The owner of the mill couldn't commit to the cost of new machinery if he didn't know he would get logs for an extended period of time. So we discovered that we could, though, through a forest health contract--through a stewardship contract-- enable a steady supply of thinned logs to make it to that mill and make sure that mill stayed open. Not only did it keep it open, but it added workers to that mill. That is the type of win-win solution that we need.

There is another way of looking at the cost of fighting fires. Here we see, in 1995, 16 percent of the budget going to fight fires; in 2017, 56 percent. Let's look into the future. An original estimate was that we would reach 67 percent by 2025; now the new estimate, based on the changing dynamics in the forest, is that we will get to over two- thirds of the budget fighting fires by the year 2021--four fire seasons from today. That is how big the issue is. That is why we need funds from the front end to be able to thin these forests. This is simply common sense.

If you are the private owner of a private forest, you wouldn't dare let this forest retain this high propensity for fires and disease. You would thin the forest. You would make it a better timber stand; you would make it a better ecosystem. And that is what we need to do.

We have also seen that another way of looking at the changes is how the staffing levels have changed over the last two decades. If we look at just two decades ago, we can see that in 1998 there were about 18,000 individuals dedicated to managing the forest lands and just 5,700 dedicated to going out and fighting blazes. Now we have come into the future, and we see now that the number of people fighting fires is larger than the number working on all of the other forest programs. We have to commit to doing far more on the prevention end. If we let this summer's crisis go without securing funding to thin those forests that have already gone through the environmental process, we are making a huge mistake, and it is going to cost us more because there are going to be even more fires in the future. So not only do we spend more out of the National Treasury to fight them, but we will have less healthy timber stands to fuel our economy.

Let's end the fire burn. Let's provide the funding to restore the fire service assets that were burned, the scourged assets. Let's provide assistance through community development block grants and small business loans to assist the communities that were scourged by these fires. Let's pass Senator Wyden and Senator Crapo's bill, which proceeds to create a FEMA-like structure to back up the worst fire seasons, and certainly, certainly, absolutely, let's invest in prevention on the front end by thinning these forests and getting the flammable buildup of forest branches off the floor of the forests. Those are positive things we can do.

At this moment in Houston, in Miami, in Puerto Rico, people are thinking, what can we do to better prepare for the next storm surge? What can we do to be better prepared for the next hurricane? Well, we know for sure that we are going to have fires across the Northwest in Montana, in Idaho, in Oregon, in Washington every summer, and they are simply getting worse. We must ask ourselves the same question: How do we change this rhythm? How do we operate this differently and better? That is our responsibility in this Chamber, and that is the set of things we can do to have a far better outcome in the future.

I urge all of my colleagues to support these five efforts as we support funding for Texas and Florida and Puerto Rico.

Thank you.

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

Mr. President, The most powerful words in our Constitution are the first three words: ``We the People.'' It sets out the mission statement for our Nation, or, as President Lincoln put it, a nation ``of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' Our Founders did not start out our Constitution with ``we the powerful'' or ``we the powerful and privileged.'' They didn't proceed to say that our form of government is all about the powerful and privileged ruling for themselves to make themselves richer at the expense of everyone else.

Thus, going back to the foundation, the vision of our Nation is appropriate because our Republican colleagues have put forward a document--a budget--with a tax plan that is all about government for the powerful. It is all about self-serving government for the privileged. There is nothing about fighting for a foundation for ordinary people to be able to thrive here in the United States of America.

Indeed, the plan put forward by my Republican colleagues is a plan fit for a king living in a gilded castle--maybe

fit for King Trump living in Trump Tower, but certainly not for working Americans living and striving to build the wealth of America. No, this is not a plan for them. This is a plan for the King Trumps of our Nation, who believe they can deceive the country again and again by putting forward an argument that they are going to do something to help the people while writing it for themselves.

We can take a look at this and realize that the President himself leads that effort to do the sales pitch when he unveiled his tax plan at the National Association of Manufacturers last week. President Trump said: ``My plan is for the working people.'' He said: ``There's very little benefit for people of wealth.'' And he went on to say: ``I don't benefit. I don't benefit.'' He repeated it twice.

Well, as soon as you look at the tax plan, you see that this is wrong. He sent out his other Secretaries to reinforce his message. Secretary Mnuchin showed up on the shows and said: ``The objective of the President is that rich people don't get tax cuts.'' Well, that is a little bit of lawyerly work there. He didn't want to confront the reality that this plan is all about tax cuts for the wealthy. So he said the objective wasn't to do that.

Well, let's talk about the reality. The bottom third economically here in America get zero help from the tax provisions in this plan-- none whatsoever. Plus, the broader budget slashes Medicaid by about $473 billion--you know, the one thing that has improved for working people. It has been tougher in a blue-collar communities to get a full- time job. It has been tougher to get a living wage. It has been tougher to save for retirement, with pensions disappearing and employer- supported retirement and savings plans disappearing.

One thing got better, and that is access to healthcare, thanks to ObamaCare. In my State, over half a million Oregonians gained access to healthcare. It didn't just help them; it helped everyone. The uncompensated care rate went way down in hospitals and way down in clinics, which meant stronger clinics and stronger hospital services for everybody in the State. Everyone benefited.

So the one thing that has improved for working America the Republicans in this Chamber wanted to rip it away--stomp on it, destroy it, shred it. They couldn't bear the thought that working Americans might finally have affordable, quality healthcare. They couldn't stand the vision of healthcare as a right. They wanted to return it to healthcare being only for the wealthy and the healthy, but not for ordinary working people.

Well, the bottom third is totally unhelped--in fact, hurt by this plan. How about the middle third? For the middle third--25 percent of the middle third--taxes go up, not down. The tax bracket goes from 10 percent to 12 percent. For the seniors in middle America, this plan takes a trillion dollars away from Medicare. Not only do my Republican friends hate having healthcare for working people, but they want to destroy healthcare for older Americans at the same time.

So if the bottom third doesn't benefit and the middle third has taxes going up, who benefits here? Simple answer: It is the billionaires. The millionaires and billionaires of America are those whom this plan is written for.

Well, let's just look at the provisions that cost so much money to the Treasury. The alternative minimum tax is wiped out. Remember how the rich and powerful rigged the system so they were paying no taxes at all? We here in America established an alternative minimum tax, saying that, if you are wealthy, with a ton of money coming in the door, you should pay at least a little. The one tax return we have for President Trump shows he paid taxes because of the alternative minimum tax. That is the only reason he paid taxes.

So when President Trump says he doesn't benefit, clearly that is wrong. If he knows it is wrong, it is a lie. Let's just say he is either incredibly ignorant or trying to be incredibly misleading about the fact that this would benefit him enormously to get rid of the alternative minimum tax.

What is the second thing it does? Where it raised the tax rate at the lowest bracket for working Americans, it lowers the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans, from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. That is a huge reduction that benefits people at the very top, wealthy enough to be paying in the top bracket. Certainly, President Trump, by his own description of his own affluence, would be in that category. So clearly, he benefits enormously from that.

The third huge provision is getting a special rate for passthrough entities. Let's say you own a big development, like a shopping complex or a Trump Tower, and it generates a lot of money and you pass it through to pay your personal taxes from your limited liability corporation. Well, instead of being charged 39.6 percent, the current rate, or 35 percent, at the lower rate or at the corporate rate, no, you get this special deal on this passthrough of 25 percent. So you paid an enormous amount less.

Who benefits from this? Well, the people who own LLCs and pass through huge amounts of money are the ones who benefit from this. Who has a lot of LLCs? Who has, by various estimates, hundreds and hundreds? I heard an estimate that the President has over 500 LLCs. So if the President has hundreds and hundreds of LLCs, passing through income that is lowered from a 39.6-percent rate to a 25-percent rate-- basically, a 15-percent reduction--he benefits enormously from this, as do all of his millionaire and billionaire friends.

Finally, there is the estate tax. This one, I have to admit, President Trump doesn't benefit from today because he hasn't died. But when he dies, his estate would benefit massively. If he is taking out insurance to be able to pay his tax bill when he dies, then he has to take out less insurance. In that case, it does benefit him today. Most wealthy individuals do have that kind of insurance investment to pay the estate tax. A very small number of Americans fall into this category, and that very small number have a whole team of financial planners. That means that, yes, even though, technically, he wouldn't pay the tax benefit until he dies, he pays less for the preparation of paying that. As for the AMT, the lower tax bracket, the passthroughs, and the estate tax, the President benefits enormously from every single one.

There you have it. There is nothing for the bottom third. The middle third get hit with Medicare being slashed, and also with an increase in taxes for a good share of them, but the billionaires at the top benefit enormously. Let's be fair. The President understands this. His advisers understand it. His Cabinet is full of the types of individuals at the very top--the 1 percent, the 0.1 percent--full of the richest Americans. They wrote this plan for themselves and to hurt the rest of America. That is shameful.

There is another provision that the President has put in that probably helps himself, and that is cutting the corporate tax rate to 20 percent. It is keeping with the President's demonstrably false statement that the United States is the most taxed nation in the world. That is simply not true, as a percentage of GDP. We have seen the share of tax revenue that companies pay decline.

Here we have the argument that somehow there will be prosperity because we reduce the tax rate. Let's look at those companies that already pay less than 20 percent in corporate taxes because of the big difference between the nominal rate--the stated rate of corporations-- and the reality of what they actually paid. A report from the Institute for Policy Studies analyzed 92 U.S. corporations that paid less than 20 percent in corporate taxes. Did they find that these firms have medium job growth of 20 percent? No. Ten percent? No. Five percent? No. Zero? No. It is negative 1 percent. There is negative job growth even though these companies paid less than 20 percent in corporate taxes, while the private sector job growth over those years as a whole was 6 percent positive. So those paying less than 20 percent had negative 1 percent growth, while the entire private sector grew with job growth at 6 percent. In fact, during that period, these 92 firms that were studied--in fact, just a fraction of them, or 48 of them together-- eliminated basically about half a million jobs. They had very low taxes.

The argument is that they will do more because they don't have to pay as much taxes. They will expand the number of people they hire. But instead,

they slashed half a million jobs--just 48 of these firms that pay less than 20 percent.

What happened to the CEOs of those firms? Their salaries went through the roof. Part of the plan here is that you cut as many people as you can, and you have a net profit increase. Sometimes, even when you don't, you get a big increase.

So if we take this as a model of what the President wants to achieve, he wants to empower other companies to follow this track of having this model of slashing hundreds of thousands of jobs and jacking up the salaries of the already richest CEOs in the country. Who were these companies?

AT&T had an effective tax rate of 8 percent. Wouldn't that be nice for middle-class Americans, to have an effective tax rate of 8 percent? While they had that beneficial 8 percent tax rate, they slashed 80,000 jobs and doubled their CEO's pay to $28.4 million. Think of how many ordinary working people would have a better life if they raised their pay by one dollar an hour. But no, the CEO slashes 80,000 jobs and raises to pay himself $28.4 million.

How about GE, which boosted its CEO's pay nearly $18 million in 2016, while cutting 14,700 jobs over 9 years and achieving a negative tax rate? A negative tax rate--get that. They didn't pay a dollar to the National Treasury--not a dollar. They had a negative tax rate. The company got more money back from the government than it paid in taxes.

How about ExxonMobil? Between 2008 and 2015, they had an effective tax rate of 13.6 percent. That is way below 20 percent. In that time period, did we see a significant growth in the number of people they employed because they got this hugely beneficial 13.6 percent tax rate? No, we did not. In fact, they cut their global workforce by a third. At the same time, the CEO of that company, who just happens to be our Secretary of State at the moment, saw his compensation grow to $27.4 million.

The record shows that these companies that are getting these low tax rates are slashing their employees and boosting their CEO salaries. Is that the model that makes for a prosperous middle-class America, slash jobs and a dramatic increase of inequality in this country?

That is why this entire tax plan and the budget are so diabolical. It is everything contrary to ``we the people.'' It is a vision of basically hijacking the National Treasury to inflate the wealth of the wealthiest in America, while doing as much harm as possible to working Americans, laying down a model on the corporate side of rewarding companies for slashing hundreds of thousands of jobs and inflating the salaries of their CEOs.

Here is the question every Member of this Chamber should ask: Is your priority adding more zeros to the bank balances of millionaires and billionaires? Is that your mission? Are you at work here not representing the people of your State but just millionaires and billionaires? If you are, then you should be full-throated supporting the Republican tax plan and the Republican budget on the floor of this Senate. But if you believe in the mission of the United States of America, the ``we the people'' mission of providing a foundation for families to thrive across this land, then there is no choice but to take this budget and this tax plan and shred it, destroy it, burn it, put a stake through its heart in every way possible.

I, for one, believe in this mission of ``we the people.''

Thank you.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my intern Nissa Koerner be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

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

Mr. President, anyone who watches the news, reads the newspaper, or goes on social media knows there are a lot of bad things happening in our world. Folks at home and across the globe are confronting devastations from hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, wars, and forest fires, as in my home State. Tensions between the United States and North Korea have never been higher, reaching a dangerous level. The world is watching all of this with bated breath.

In the midst of this deluge of news, a human rights catastrophe is unfolding virtually unnoticed. I am talking about the members of the Burmese military engaging in horrific acts of unthinkable violence against the Rohingya--a Muslim minority population in a predominantly Buddhist nation.

The Burmese military, along with civilian accomplices, have slaughtered more than 3,000 innocent civilians. They have raped thousands of Rohingya women. They have beheaded children as young as 6 years old. They have burned countless villages to the ground. Through these brutal acts, the Burmese military has driven half a million Rohingya refugees to camps in nearby Bangladesh, with Burmese soldiers continuing to shoot at them as they try to cross the border--a border, by the way, along which landmines have been laid by the Burmese military.

The brutality of what is happening in that country is truly beyond comprehension. The Burmese Government calls it a security operation, but we need to call it exactly what it is--ethnic cleansing. So often I have heard the words ``never again,'' that the United States will stand up to ethnic cleansing. This is one of those moments when we must stand up.

What is happening in Burma is a crime against humanity. As a country, we have more responsibility to take a stand and to speak out against it, to make the world take notice of the atrocities, call for their end, and to work toward their end.

The Rohingya are a people trapped in a cycle of violence and persecution by the Burmese Government and military. The Government of Burma has turned them into stateless people--refusing to recognize them, refusing to give them citizenship in spite of the fact that much of the Rohingya community has been there for centuries. They need our help.

The Burma Government has adopted laws that ban the Rohingyas from traveling without official permission, from owning land, from securing a public education, from obtaining employment by either a state or private business.

When the Burmese Government says that it will welcome back the refugees who can prove their citizenship, they are being completely disingenuous and completely treacherous, because they know--and the whole world should know--that the very laws of Burma make it impossible for the Rohingya to prove their citizenship since they have been denied citizenship by the Government of Burma. We cannot sit idly by and let ethnic cleansing continue.

One nation that has stepped up is Bangladesh. As the leaders of Burma have persecuted the Rohingya and burned the villages and shot the refugees as they were fleeing, the Government of Bangladesh has opened its door. It has proceeded to allow humanitarian groups access and the United Nations access. This is commendable, but more needs to be done. These refugee camps are overcrowded. There are not enough supplies, clean toilets, food, or clean water. Doctors Without Borders says that they are on the brink of a ``public health disaster.'' Unlike Bangladesh, other countries have yet to speak up.

Indeed, I am concerned by reports that some factions within India have been explicitly, publicly seeking to expel India's own Rohingya population. It is important for the international community to weigh in with them and to ask them to respect international law and to protect the Rohingya refugees. India knows full well that there is nowhere to send them. If they send them back to Burma, there will just be more persecution of the men, the women, and the children.

It underscores the fact that the Rohingya need help and that the world should answer the call. As we do, we must use what influence we have to put an end to the violence and the persecution of this ethnic minority. We need to call on Burma's leaders to protect these minorities, not to assist in the

persecution. We need to call on the Government of Burma to immediately give humanitarian groups access to the Rohingya who are trapped in Burma, in what some have described as concentration camps. We need to call on Burma's leaders to provide the hundreds of thousands of Rohingya refugees who have been forced to flee their homes and villages with a safe and assisted right of return.

In addition, the Burmese Government--the Burmese nation--needs to figure out how to end the root causes of this conflict--an age-old ethnic and religious conflict--and find a way to embrace the diversity within their nation. Certainly, this is not the first time that the tensions have erupted into violence. It has happened time and time and time again, but this is the worst we have ever seen.

Kofi Annan, the former U.N. Secretary General, is the current chairman of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State. He and his team have called on Burma to take the appropriate actions to end this cycle of violence, this cycle of radicalization.

The entire Rohingya community is counting on us--the world--to notice and to act. We must immediately see an end to the violence, full access for humanitarian organizations, cooperation with and access for the United Nations fact finding mission, the safe return of refugees, and the implementation of the full set of recommendations from Kofi Annan's report.

It is also critical that the United States and the international community continue to shed light on this horrific problem, provide sustained aid and support to the refugees in Burma and in Bangladesh, and take action to show other repressive governments that there will be consequences for pursuing this type of persecution, starting with a strong U.N. Security Council resolution.

International action to end this violence, increase humanitarian assistance, and extend our aid to the Rohingya people is the right thing to do. I pray that together we will answer that call.

I also thank my colleagues who have already been engaged in this issue. There are a number of them, but I am particularly aware of Senator Richard Durbin's, Senator John McCain's, and Senator Ben Cardin's involvement and leadership.

Let's build on that foundation to have the Senate demonstrate attention to this issue through letters, and we should also try to arrange a Senate trip to visit both Burma and Bangladesh in order to draw additional international attention and build momentum for action.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my science fellows Michelle Romo and Beth Wester be granted floor privileges today and for the rest of their fellowship.

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

Mr. President, our Constitution begins with three simple words: ``We the People.'' The Founders wrote that in supersized font to remind us that this is what our Nation is all about. It is not about power by the privileged. It is not the elite. It is not to make the wealthy wealthier. It is not to add more to the abundance of those who already have much. It is to establish government that reflects the will of the people or, as President Lincoln put it, ``of the people, by the people, for the people.''

In this age where vast sums are spent on campaigns by a few billionaires to basically substitute government of, by, and for the people with government of, by, and for the powerful, we have an enormous challenge to maintain the integrity of the mission of our Constitution and the responsibility of this Senate.

We probably haven't seen a challenge to ``we the people'' in years like the equivalent of TrumpCare. Certainly, it is designed to plan for massive tax giveaways to the wealthiest Americans of hundreds of billions of dollars and to rip healthcare away from 20 to 30 million ordinary working families.

What a travesty that is of our responsibility under our Constitution. What amazingly misguided effort to do damage, rather than to assist and provide a foundation for families to thrive.

A few years ago, a woman came up to me at a fundraiser for multiple sclerosis--a walk--and she said: Things are so different this year, Senator, than they were last year.

I asked her: How so?

She said: A year ago, if our loved one was diagnosed with MS and they had

insurance, they were likely to have an annual cap or a lifetime cap and run out of coverage.

That was a terrible situation to be in because MS is a mysterious and expensive disease.

She said: If the individual didn't have insurance, they now had a preexisting condition, and they wouldn't able to get insurance.

She said: Now, we have the peace of mind that if our loved one gets an MS diagnosis, that individual will be able to get the care they need.

Isn't that the summary of what we should be seeking in our healthcare system--the peace of mind that if our child or our loved one becomes ill, if our child or our loved one becomes injured, he or she will get the care they need? Shouldn't that be what we are fighting for?

Instead, we had the opposite. We had the TrumpCare bill that was designed to rip peace of mind away, destroy peace of mind, trample all over peace of mind so the wealthy could have more giveaways from the Federal Treasury.

We had that House bill, and it was estimated that 23 million people would lose healthcare over 10 years and that our hospitals and our clinics would have a lot less funding to be able to provide care to everyone. Yet it passed the House. Then President Trump got briefed on what was in the bill after he held a champagne party at the White House and celebrated its passage. He said: Oh, wait. This bill is mean and heartless.

Over here in the Senate, the Senate's secret 13 went to work to try to produce a bill without holding any public hearings or having any discussions with stakeholders. They were secreted away in a room, and no one could find out where they were in order to be able to offer any insights. They did not hold any townhalls back home, and they had no meetings here. The public was totally blocked out. The secret 13, amazingly, came up with an almost identical bill to the House bill. Oh, the estimate was instead, maybe, of there being 23 million people who would lose insurance, 22 million people would lose insurance. Fortunately, the secret 13 bill was defeated--but just barely--here in this Chamber.

Then came another version of this called the fake insurance bill. This fake insurance version said: Hey, let's let the insurance companies put out policies that are really, really cheap but that do not actually cover anything. Won't that make us feel good that everyone in America will be able to afford a policy that only costs $40 or $50 a month.

Of course, fake insurance is fake; that is, when you go to the emergency room, it does not cover the visit. When you get a blood test, it does not cover the blood test. When you get an x ray or an MRI, it does not pay for it. Oh, don't even begin to think about its covering hospitalization or any other normal medical service because it is fake insurance. The fake insurance bill failed by a few votes on the Senate floor.

Then we had repeal without replacement, and that failed. Then we had the skinny bill, and that failed by a single vote.

How is it possible that we came that close to passing a bill that is completely the opposite of the vision of our Constitution--to legislate for the foundation, for the American people, not the American privileged and not the American powerful. Yet it came within a vote of passing.

This week, we have the block grant version--the block grant version that proceeds to destroy immediately the exchanges, the healthcare marketplaces. Of course, the great irony is, that was the Republican idea: Let's create a marketplace within which people can compare individual policies, pick the ones best for their families, and get tax credits to be able to buy them. So the Republicans came out against their own plan.

In addition, it wiped out Medicaid expansion. In my home State of Oregon, the exchange is responsible for roughly another 100,000 people getting access to insurance, the marketplace, and 400,000 people gaining access through Medicaid expansion. There are a half a million Americans in just my State, my humble State of Oregon. Yet here was a bill that said: We do not care. We are going to wipe out healthcare for a half a million Oregonians and untold millions across the country--20 to 30 million across the country.

We owe a big thank-you to grassroots America. We owe a big thank-you to ordinary citizens who believe in the vision of this country. They proceeded to connect with Capitol Hill--to fill the streets and to flood the phones and to overflow our inboxes--saying: What are you doing? Please stop. Please stop trying to destroy the peace of mind of Americans. They said: Make healthcare work better, not worse.

Is that really too much for us to ask?

As we ponder how to make healthcare work better, those in grassroots America have expressed a lot of ideas. They have said: We have a really complicated system that creates all kinds of obstacles for ordinary families, for working families.

For example, consider whether you have a job that provides you with insurance and your family with insurance but then the company changes the policy and only covers you. How are you going to get your children covered? Are you going to be able to get them signed up right away in the Children's Health Insurance Program? How do you go about doing that?

Then your employer says: By the way, you now have to start paying us in order for us to provide you with healthcare.

You say: Wow. That is a huge chunk out of my check. Can I possibly afford that and still pay my rent? Am I going to have to choose between healthcare and homelessness? It is not a choice families should have to make.

Then, perhaps, people are working several part-time jobs, and their employers have no healthcare programs at all, so they sign up for the Oregon Health Plan or the equivalent Medicaid plan across the country. They might like that, but it is complicated to apply, and they have to reapply periodically. What happens if their incomes go up just a little, and now they are over the line for eligibility? As a result of being over the line, they now have to go back into the individual markets. How do you do that in the middle of the year when it is not an open enrollment period?

There is such complexity, such difficulty. That is why it is so appealing to think about the vision of a seamless, simple healthcare program that you have that will provide quality healthcare when you need it--portable healthcare--just by virtue of your being an American. That is a beautiful vision, and it is not out of reach. Every other developed country has found some version of that and made it a reality. We need to ponder as to how to have that seamless, simple system down the road, but right now we have a more immediate task.

That immediate task is to stop the sabotage of the healthcare system we have. President Trump has engaged in many maneuvers to try to force the collapse of the insurance markets. One is to withhold the cost- sharing payments from insurers so they no longer have the funds they were promised. That uncertainty has caused many companies to say: Do not count on us to be in that market in the future if we cannot count on you, the Federal Government, to honor your obligations.

Why isn't the Senate body demanding that the President honor the obligations of those cost-sharing payments?

In addition, we have the President shutting down advertising during the open period so people will not know they can sign up. We have President Trump cutting the enrollment period in half. We have a plan now from the administration to cut the funds for consumer outreach and enrollment assistance, which enables folks who need to get healthcare to find out how they can actually get through the complicated application process.

Most recently, the administration announced it is actually going to shut down the website periodically on weekends during the open enrollment period, which is when people will have the time and effort and ability to apply. They are going to shut down the website so people will not be able to apply during portions of the weekend.

All of us should unite--100 Senators should unite--and tell President Trump: Enough of this sabotage. If you want to drive up insurance policies by 20 percent over any other increase they might otherwise have and if you want

to be responsible for millions of people not gaining access because of your irresponsibility, then we are going to hold you accountable for it. Everybody in grassroots America is going to hold you accountable for it.

Fortunately, we have a bipartisan process that has been underway to remedy these conditions. I, profoundly, thank Lamar Alexander, chair of the HELP Committee, and Patty Murray, the ranking Democrat on the HELP Committee, for saying: Let's have the normal, rational process that we go through to try to understand how we can improve the healthcare system.

They have held a series of hearings. They have brought in the experts, and they have brought in the stakeholders. They have done it in front of the public so the public can weigh in. They have consulted constituents and encouraged all of us to consult with our constituents and be part of that conversation. Pragmatic, experienced legislators are gaining expertise from those on the frontline so they can make the system work better. Isn't that the way the Senate is supposed to work?

Their work shows a lot of promise. There are some very straightforward things they have heard from those experts.

They have heard we need to lock down the cost-sharing payments. No insurance companies are going to be in the insurance markets if they do not know they are going to get paid what they have been promised or they are going to raise their premiums incredibly high to cover the risk that they will not get paid. Then, of course, people will not be able to afford that insurance.

They have heard from the experts that you have to have reinsurance. If you want to have this private marketplace in which people can compare policies and use tax credits to buy the policies, an insurance company will not enter that market unless it has its own insurance policy against getting the disproportionate share of the really sick people. Of reinsurance, they have heard.

They have also heard we must not suppress outreach to those who need insurance but increase outreach--outreach to younger, healthier people to make sure they are part of the exchange as well as outreach to those who are often working several part-time jobs and have little time to focus on this question unless someone reaches out and says: Here is your opportunity. We are now in the open period. Here is how you sign up, and we can make sure you get that done.

In that set of hearings, they heard other things. They heard we need to do more to take on the challenge of mental illness in America. They heard we need to do more to take on drug addiction, the opioid epidemic in America.

There it is--a list of a modest number of things we could do together to make our healthcare work better. Wouldn't that be a beautiful closing chapter to the nightmare, the repeated horror stories we have been playing in the Senate that threaten to rip healthcare from millions of people and simply awaken from that war over healthcare and work together to address these fundamental questions.

We actually have had public hearings in the HELP Committee, which we have not done before. We have actually listened to the experts, which we have not done before. We have actually encouraged people to consult with their constituents rather than to hide from their constituents. The result would be a significant strengthening of what we have--lower premiums as a result, more competition in the exchanges, more awareness of how to sign up, more and healthier young people getting involved in the exchanges, which means the premiums will come down.

I think, as we ponder the goal of our healthcare system--the question of peace of mind--that is our best immediate step forward to provide peace of mind, to end the sabotage of the system we have, and address the shortcomings the healthcare experts and the people of America have pointed out.

Let us be that mission statement under this vision of a ``we the people'' government, in that we pursue healthcare that is designed for the people of America in order to create peace of mind, so when their loved ones become ill or when their loved ones are injured, they will get the care they need, and they will not end up bankrupt. We should be able to make that happen.

Thank you.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my intern, Jessica Rosenblatt, be granted privileges of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. President, climate disruption is the seminal challenge of our generation. It affects everything from our farms to our forests, to our fisheries. We see the impact from disappearing ice sheets and melting permafrost and glaciers. We see it in the coral reefs. We see it in the moving insect populations. We see it in the more powerful storms.

In response, communities across our globe are transforming their energy economies. They are working on energy efficiency, certainly-- more efficient appliances and a little more mileage in their cars. Yet many are also working to transform their energy economies from a fossil fuel energy economy to a renewable energy economy.

How much do you know about the changes that are underway? Let's find out.

Welcome to episode 5 of the Senate Climate Disruption Quiz. Here we go. Here is the first question.

This August, an electric 500 horsepower Tesla Model X SUV raced a 740 horsepower Lamborghini Aventador SV in a quarter-mile drag race. Who won? Was it the 500 horsepower electric Tesla or the 740 horsepower Lamborghini? Was the race called off or did they tie?

Take a moment. Feel free to lock in your answer.

The answer is, the Tesla won the race. The Tesla won the race, despite the fact that it had far less horsepower. In fact, it set a record for an SV in a quarter mile. It beat the Lamborghini by about 500ths of a second.

It just goes to help demonstrate the incredible torque and acceleration that comes with electric power, and if you have ever tried driving a Tesla and had it accelerate so fast that it pinned you against the back of the seat, you would know what I am talking about.

OK. Let's turn to question No. 2. Taking a page from the white roof movement, which city in America has begun painting its streets white in order to lower temperatures? Is it the city of Phoenix, AZ? Is it Austin, TX? Is it Kansas City, MO, or perhaps Los Angeles, CA?

The answer is, among those cities, Los Angeles, CA. You may have seen this in the news. After a heat wave and recordbreaking temperatures, Mayor Eric Garcetti announced plans to cut the average temperature in L.A. by 3 degrees Fahrenheit over the next two decades.

One of the keys to doing this is to coat the city's roads in something called CoolSeal, which is a light-colored paint. Originally, it was a paint that was developed by engineers for military air bases so as to keep spy planes cool while they were resting on the tarmac. CoolSeal keeps streets and parking lots 10 degrees cooler than does black asphalt.

This is an interesting innovation, and I am sure the work L.A. does will help create information for other cities because cities are heat islands. Because of the asphalt, they are often much hotter than the surrounding countryside.

OK. Question No. 3. In which State do 31 communities face an imminent threat of destruction from climate disruption? Is it 31 communities in Utah or in Michigan or in Alaska or in New Hampshire?

The correct answer is Alaska. Alaska is experiencing a tremendous increase in the vulnerability of towns, which is the result of melting ice sheets; therefore, the storms closer approach. There are higher seas and more violent storms so we are seeing a real assault on those ocean communities. For one community of 600 people, it is estimated it would cost about $180 million to relocate all of the residents.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is moving to dismantle climate adaption programs, like the Denali Commission, which have provided Federal assistance to safeguard or relocate communities that are at risk from rising sea levels, storms, and disappearing sea ice.

This takes us to question No. 4. Of the following statements, which statement is not true; that is, which of these four statements is false? Is it that July 2017 was the second hottest month on record? Is the false statement that only one country is not signed on to the Paris climate agreement? Is it statement C, that climate disruption played no part in the devastation of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma? Is it statement D, that the United States is now producing 43 times as much solar energy as it did in 2007?

Three statements are true, and one is false. The false statement is statement C. It is, in fact, July 2017 that was the second hottest month on record. In fact, we had a recent period during which each month was the hottest month on record in the calendar year. That extended for about 16 months in a row not so long ago.

Then, indeed, only one country is not signed on to the Paris climate agreement. That country is Syria, which is in the grip of a ferocious civil war. Nicaragua had not signed on, but it has signed on now. The United States has withdrawn or expressed its intention to withdraw, but it will not actually go off the Paris accord until the year 2020. So there is just one country, and that is also true.

It is true that solar power has increased 43 times in a 7-year period. We certainly know climate disruption does not cause hurricanes, but we also know the hotter temperature of the ocean causes the hurricanes we have to be much more powerful and much more destructive.

In the days leading up to Harvey, the sea surface temperatures in Texas were 3 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit above average. We saw this same phenomenon when Hurricane Sandy struck the Atlantic coast, where temperatures were 5 degrees or more above average.

Let's turn to question No. 5. Some scientists say we need to invent a device to pull carbon out of the air. Which of the following would accomplish that task? Would it be permafrost, wind turbines, glaciers, or trees? We do not think of any of these as an invention by humankind, but one of these processes that exists currently in nature does have a big impact in pulling carbon out of the air.

The answer is D, trees. Of course, that is a process we see during which, every year, the carbon dioxide level in the air surges when the leaves come off the trees and then decreases in the spring when the leaves are on the trees because they start pulling more carbon dioxide out of the air. So we need a lot more force in order to reduce carbon pollution.

The challenge is, worldwide, we are not adding to our forests. We are, in fact, losing our forests. In 2015, we lost about 47 percent more forested land than we did in 2001. The rate of deforestation is actually increasing so we need to be doing the reverse. We need to be ending deforestation and adding forests. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

In 2015, we lost about 49 million acres of forest around the world. We lost it because of wildfires, because of logging, and because of expanding agriculture. That is about the size of Nebraska. Picture it. In a single year, we lost forests that were the size of Nebraska. That is bad news in the fight against climate disruption because deforestation accounts for more than 10 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, not to mention that forests play an incredibly important role in supporting diversified ecological systems around the globe.

So there we have it--this week's episode 5 of the Senate Climate Disruption Quiz. These are questions ripped right from the headlines. The facts on the ground are changing rapidly as the pace of climate disruption increases. This is the single biggest test facing humankind. It is a test that calls on every one of us to respond.

It is simply a fact that the devastation we have witnessed recently in

Houston, TX, is far more dramatic because of climate disruption and carbon pollution. It is simply a fact that the devastation we just witnessed in Florida is far worse than the disruption and the devastation that would have occurred otherwise. That is why we all need to keep working to tackle this challenge. The United States should be in the lead in taking on the seminal challenge of humankind in our generation.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Thank you, Mr. President.

Yogi Berra once said: ``It's like deja vu, all over again.'' Here we are feeling the echoes of the recent debates over healthcare, yet we have another Republican plan to dismantle healthcare and the peace of mind of millions of Americans coming to the floor.

We have seen previous plans. We have seen the House bill that was going to wipe out healthcare for 24 million people. We saw the bill that came over from the Senate in June wipe out healthcare for 22 million people. Then we saw the Republicans' improved version of that, wiping out healthcare for 32 million people. In July of this year, there was yet another plan, back to 22 million--millions and millions of people losing their healthcare. Now we have one more last-ditch effort to destroy healthcare for ordinary Americans, for rural Americans, for working Americans.

It is just wrong, and I am going to explain some of the reasons all of us should be outraged by this bill--this new bill, which says immediately the individual mandate and the company mandate are wiped out. What does that do? That means instantly, in 2018 and 2019, there is a destructive race to the bottom for the insurance pools. If there is no pool, if there is no mandate, then only those who are sicker sign up. Those who are sicker are more expensive, so then more people drop out of the healthcare pool, and the pool becomes even more expensive. It just shoots right out of sight.

We are not talking just about damage that would be done in 2020; we are talking about damage that would be done next year and the year after.

What happens when the insurance companies say there are only 2 years left on this, and the healthcare pool has a big hole in it, the healthy people are gushing out, and only the sickest people remain? They are going to drop out of providing coverage. Suddenly, we have hundreds of counties across

the Nation with no healthcare provision for those who are currently in the healthcare marketplace.

We have been through this conversation. We have been through the Ted Cruz fake insurance bill, and it was voted down by this body with a substantial bipartisan majority. This is a repeat of that, saying let's destroy those insurance pools.

What else does this bill destroy? In 2020, it destroys the tax credits. Let's say you were fortunate enough to have the pool survive 2018 and 2019 and you have tax credits that enable you to buy insurance and there is still a provider during those 2 years, but then comes 2020, and there are no tax credits with which to buy insurance so now you are thrown out of healthcare. There is no remedy provided in this bill.

Is it possible that you are going to get covered by the Medicaid Program in your State? Well, it is not likely because Medicaid in most States provides insurance for poorer Americans, not for the folks who are getting the tax credits in the exchange. No, they are out of luck.

What else do we have? The elimination of essential benefits. Essential benefits are no longer required. Now, we have some history with this in our country. We have had those fake insurance policies that you buy that cost virtually nothing, and then you get sick and discover that your trip to the emergency room isn't covered or you discover your hospitalization is not covered. Your child gets injured-- they break a bone--and you discover the x rays are not covered, and the lab tests are not covered. Well, these are the fake insurance policies that don't belong anywhere because they are simply a fraud. This is a scam.

Why are we returning to a vote on fake insurance? Not only do we lose the individual mandate and the company mandate that makes sure an insurance pool--it is the pool having both sick and healthy people so insurance companies can actually provide insurance, but we also have this provision of this fake insurance, where you have a policy that costs virtually nothing and then covers nothing. So it is sold to those who are vulnerable by the sales pitch of the scam man.

What else does this do? Well, right now we have this very complicated healthcare system. It is a big improvement over what we had 8 years ago, but it is still complicated. We have Medicaid, and we have Medicare. We have on-exchanges, and we have off-exchanges. We have special insurance for the workplace called Workers' Compensation. We have special insurance for children called the Children's Health Insurance Program. We have workplace policies that have very good benefits covered by the company, and we have workplace policies that are very poor policies. We have workplace policies that are paid for by the company, and there are those where the individual has to buy into the workplace policy. Then, we have policies that cover just the worker and ones that cover the family. What do you do as you navigate this incredibly complex array? This is a continuous stressful journey for Americans.

Maybe you have a job that doesn't pay very much, and you are able to be on the Oregon Health Plan or on similar Medicaid programs across the country. Then, you earn a little bit more or your spouse earns a little bit more, and, suddenly, you don't qualify. How do you get onto the exchange in the middle of the year? How do you work out those tax credits for the end of the year? Or maybe your next job provides insurance for you but not your children. How do you get your children signed up? It is a very, very stressful situation--this complicated, overlapping healthcare that requires continuous attention just for people to make sure that, if their loved one is sick, if their child is injured, they will get the care they need when that happens and the family will not end up bankrupt. It is a pursuit of peace of mind.

What does this bill do? It makes our already complicated system even more complicated. It says in this bill: We want to have 50 different systems for 50 different States--so much for focusing on a simpler system where we can work to drive out any fraud or inefficiencies or abuse. No, now we have 50 systems pursuing different forms of fraud, waste, and abuse. We should be going in the other direction toward simplicity, toward a world in which, just by virtue of being an American, you know you are covered. You don't have to worry about that transition from job to job or that change as you go from one income to another income or the dynamics that occur should you get married or get divorced. No, just by virtue of being an American, you are covered. That is the way the whole developed world does it. They make it easy, but here we make it complicated, and this bill is determined to make it much more complicated, much more fractured, and much more stressful.

So let's not do that.

Let's apply a little common sense and recognize that none of us would run a business determined to make the workplace more stressful, more fractured, less efficient, and more filled with fraud. But that is what this bill does.

So let's say no. Let's have a huge bipartisan response to say absolutely not. Now, it is grassroots America that defeated those previous diabolical plans to wipe out healthcare for millions of Americans. They filled the streets. Grassroots America overflowed our inboxes. They flooded our phones, and, once again, we need the common sense of working America, of grassroots America to weigh in and say how wrong this proposed bill is.

During the previous debate, I kept noting that this was like a monster that you can only put away by driving a stake through its heart. Each time we attempted to have that debate on the floor and we defeated the bill, I thought: Well, perhaps, we finally put this monster 6 feet under. But now it is back in all its ruthless, tooth- and-fang fury, ready to destroy peace of mind in healthcare for our citizens.

So let's take a vote in this Senate that will do what we hoped we had done before and truly drive a stake through the heart of this TrumpCare proposition. Let's stand up in partnership with our citizens.

Oh, I know this room is full of really wealthy Americans who have never worried about healthcare. When I was first campaigning for the Senate, I met with one of those really wealthy Americans in New York City. He said to me: I don't know why you are saying you are fighting for better healthcare. Everybody in America has good healthcare.

Well, that is because that individual lived in a bubble, where he was surrounded by everyone he knew having good healthcare because they worked for really wealthy firms in New York City. They are so dramatically disconnected from the reality of working Americans.

I will tell you what is going on in my neighborhood, in my blue collar neighborhood--the same neighborhood that I went to from grades 3 through 12, the same neighborhood that my children went to. It is getting tougher to find a full-time job. It is getting tougher to find a living-wage job. It is getting tougher to be able to save and to help your child pursue their dreams. It is tougher to be able to help your family or, perhaps, to go on a vacation--even a simple vacation--and it is certainly tougher to buy a home. In fact, many people in my neighborhood feel that the only way they are going to be able to buy a home is to inherit it from their parents.

But I will tell you that there is one thing that got easier in the last 8 years against all that--one thing--and that was that we provided expansion of Medicaid to cover a lot more people and we created a marketplace for insurance where working people could use tax credits to be able to buy care and to easily compare policies. So we made a big step forward in one single area--in one area. Now my colleagues from their gated communities and with their 7-digit wealth want to come and destroy the one thing we did for working Americans.

If President Trump cared one whit about a working American, he would be ringing up the majority leader of this Chamber right now and saying: What are you doing? I campaigned saying I was going to stand with workers. This bill attacks them. What are you doing?

He would be calling up and saying: I called that House bill mean-- that House bill which eliminated healthcare for 23 million Americans-- the final bill. I called it mean and heartless. This is meaner. This is even more heartless.

But we shouldn't need the insights of President Trump to be able to understand the damage that this does to ordinary Americans because you can see it plain as day right there on the pages of this bill.

So, colleagues, read the bill. Talk to your healthcare experts, and drive a stake through this healthcare monster.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the most important words in our Constitution are the first three words: ``We the People.'' That is the mission statement for the United States of America. It is written in big, bold, beautiful letters so that even from across the room, if you can't read the details, you know what our Nation is all about. As President Lincoln summarized, a Nation ``of the people, by the people, for the people.''

What we have seen this year is quite an assault on this vision of government of, by, and for the people. It came in the form of President Trump's plan to rip healthcare from millions of Americans in order to deliver billions of dollars to the very richest among us--plan after plan, version after version, wiping out healthcare for 24 million, wiping out healthcare for 23 million, wiping out healthcare for 32 million, and so on and so forth, always over 20 million, and always delivering this enormous gift of hundreds of billions of dollars to the richest Americans.

You look at this from a little bit of distance, and it is just incredible to imagine that this could have occurred--that any member, a single member of our Nation would possibly

have supported such an outrageous, diabolical, dangerous, damaging plan to the quality of life for so many people across our Nation.

It wasn't just that it ripped healthcare from more than 20 million people. It wasn't just that it delivered billions of dollars to the wealthiest among us. It also ensured that those with preexisting conditions wouldn't be able to get care. It was also that it would have raised our premiums an estimated 20 percent for those who were able to secure insurance.

If one set out to design the worst possible healthcare plan you could ever imagine, you probably couldn't come up with one as bad as President Trump and the Republican team came up with. It seems incredible that we are still debating the basic premise of whether healthcare should be part of a standard foundation for families to thrive here in this century. Every other developed nation understands that healthcare is so essential to quality of life, so essential for our children to thrive, so essential for our families to succeed that they make sure that, just by virtue of living in a country, you have that healthcare.

Well, I have to salute the millions of Americans who weighed in to say that this diabolical plan needed to be dumped. They filled our streets and overflowed our inboxes and flooded our phones. They made it perfectly clear that healthcare is a basic human right, not a privilege reserved for the healthy and the wealthy. I certainly agree with them. We decided collectively that we were not going to allow this diabolical plan to undo the progress we made. We made significant progress with ObamaCare. After decades of being essentially unable to change the uninsured rate, we made significant progress. There we are with a big drop in the uninsured rate--a big increase in the number of people who have access to healthcare. But we are not in that place yet where this number drops to zero. We still have 10 percent of our country that doesn't have insurance. The costs are still too high, and the deductibles and copays are too high. One out of five Americans can still not afford their prescriptions.

In addition, we have this incredibly complicated set of healthcare systems. We have Medicare and Medicaid. We have on-exchange, and we have off-exchange. We have the Children's Health Insurance Program. We have workers' compensation. We have self-insurance. We have a multitude of varieties of healthcare through the workplace--some covering just the individual, others covering the entire family, some covering just a small percent of the healthcare costs and some more. Some are certainly so complicated that even the folks who have them aren't sure what the insurance company should pay.

So we found in this conversation with Americans about healthcare that Americans weighed in very strongly about the stresses and the challenges of ordinary Americans to secure healthcare. It is an ongoing lifelong effort. Do you have an employer who covers you but not your children? Can you get them on the Children's Health Insurance Program? Do you have an insurance plan at work that you have to contribute to, but the costs of contributing are so high that you really can't afford it? Do you opt out of that? Then, what happens? Or perhaps you are under Medicaid--up to 138 percent of the poverty level for those States that have expanded Medicaid--and you gain a small increase in your pay and maybe now you don't qualify. In the middle of the year, can you apply to the healthcare exchange? Will you get tax credits credited to you or will you have to pay a big sum at the end of the year when your taxes are reconciled? It is continuous applications, continuous change, and continuous stress. Why do we make it that hard?

In my 36 town halls a year--one in every county in Oregon, mostly in red counties because most of the counties in Oregon are red counties--I have had people coming out yearning for a simple, seamless system that says: Just by virtue of being an American, you have healthcare when you need it and you will not end up bankrupt. What is that vision all about? It is about taking an existing model, one that has worked so well for our seniors--the model of Medicare.

Folks used to come to my town halls and they would say: I am just trying to stay alive until I reach age 65 so that I can be part of that wonderful healthcare plan--that Medicare plan. So this is a well-known commodity. I have heard some of my colleagues mocking it in the last few days. Well, certainly, maybe they should get out and have town halls. Maybe they should talk to our seniors about how well this system works. Maybe they should recognize that the overhead costs are much lower--2 percent versus 20 percent, and sometimes much more in private insurance healthcare. That is more than a fifth of our healthcare dollars simply wasted--a waste that disappears with Medicare for All.

This is the type of healthcare system that addresses and changes this enormous, fractured, and stressful system. We currently spend twice as much as other developed nations per person on healthcare--twice as much as France, twice as much as Canada, twice as much as Germany, and the list goes on. Yet the healthcare we receive provides less health in America than in those countries.

We should be ashamed that our infant mortality rates are higher, even though we spend twice as many dollars per capita as those other countries. So it is clear that there is significant room for improvement. By the way, there are so many opportunities to move in this direction.

We laid out this Medicare for All plan, and I salute my colleague Bernie Sanders and my additional cosponsors. There are now 17 Senators who have said: We are cosponsors to this because we know that it addresses the fractured, stressful nature of our system. We know it is more cost-effective than our current system. We know that it will lead to greater peace of mind than our current system.

Shouldn't peace of mind be what we are all about? That is the peace of mind that if your loved one gets ill or injured, they will get the care they need. The peace of mind that if your loved one is in an accident, they will get the care they need and you will not end up bankrupt.

It is time for America to have this conversation, and it is my intention, certainly, to have this conversation with the citizens of Oregon and to encourage my colleagues to have this conversation with their citizens. How can we move to a system where you can stop worrying about whether you will get the care you need, whether your loved ones will get the care they need, and that you will not end up bankrupt when you are sick or injured? That is the goal.

Let's have that conversation, America, and keep pushing toward making it a reality. I am proud to sponsor this bill. I certainly am proud to fight for quality affordable healthcare for every single American because it is a basic human right.

Thank you, Mr. President.