Floor Statements

Mr. President, I encourage folks to take a close look at this picture of a forest ablaze in Oregon. Right now, there are innumerable fires burning across our State. Some of them are called complexes--a fire complex. Maybe it is referred to as a single fire complex, but that means there may be 10 or 20 different fires within that area.

What we are seeing more and more with the changing climate, with climate disruption, is that we have lightning storms that sweep over our forests, will light up and create multiple fires at one time, and then, because the forest is so much drier, they burn fiercely.

Just last week, Mary and I were hoping to spend a couple days out on the Pacific Crest Trail. This is the trail that runs from Mexico to Canada, and we were planning to go down to the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument and experience some of that, but we couldn't because of the intense smoke from fires burning.

Fires in the middle of the State had shut down some of the Pacific Crest Trail near Jefferson, so we decided to go up to the northern end of the trail, the trail that plunges into the Columbia River at a place called Bridge of the Gods, Cascade Locks, and walk south. The plan was to go about 18 miles or so and then pick up the Eagle Creek Trail and come right back through to where we had started. But posted at the start of the Pacific Crest Trail was that the Eagle Creek Trail had been closed and that the loop was shut down due to the Indian Springs fire.

Well, we decided, OK, we can still at least do the first half and maybe continue walking on through to Lolo Pass on Mount Hood and then get a ride and come back around to where we were. The point is that all across Oregon, there were either blazes or smoke from blazes.

Oregon State is a plain, and it is not the only State. California, Washington, Montana, and parts of Idaho are burning up, and it is getting worse each year.

As we were considering how we were going to progress, we had to bypass a campground at Wahtum Lake because it was shut down. We had to camp on the side of a ridge that was just on the edge of the fire containment area. So we pitched our tent on a steep slope that had a little rock outcropping and a little bit of flat ground, basically about 3 feet by 6 feet. We settled down after a long day of hiking. We were absolutely exhausted.

About 1 in the morning, I woke up and I got a strong whiff of smoke. So I leapt out of the tent, and down below us on the slope last week was this glow. Immediately I was concerned that fire had leapt into the valley below us, and you do not want to be on a steep slope upstream from a fire, especially when that is the direction the wind is blowing--as it was.

I said to Mary: Wake up. Get out of the tent. We may have to make a run for it. And she jumped up.

The glow just stayed the same, and it turned out it wasn't a fire. It turned out that it was a landslide, and the Moon was illuminating that landslide and creating that glow on the slope below us. But we were terrified. You can imagine, if you are hiking through Oregon and suddenly there is a forest fire on the slope below you, you are going to run like crazy.

Well, there were a bunch of folks who were on that Eagle Creek Trail that I referred to, and they were on a section very near the Columbia gorge--that section that hadn't been shut down. They were walking south, but they couldn't go on through the Tunnel Falls area. They could go only a few miles in. But a couple of teenagers went up that trail and started throwing firecrackers, fireworks off the edge of a cliff, and it set the gorge on fire on that Eagle Creek Trail.

You can see how the Cascade Mountains plunge down to the Columbia River, and you can see here how that Eagle Creek Trail was lit up. There were 140 hikers trapped by this fire and the fire that Mary and I were dodging--the Indian Springs fire--and they had to retreat to the section of trail that actually goes through a tunnel that is drilled through the basalt. It has a waterfall next to it, and they were dropped supplies overnight before they could be brought out and escape this fire. This fire was raging so much, it had leapt the river--the Columbia River, the largest river by river flow volume in the United States of America. It had leapt this river to the State of Washington. These are just two of the fires of the many that are burning across the State of Oregon.

There is also the Chetco Bar fire, which is even larger than the Eagle Creek fire. The Chetco Bar fire has continued and now has burned 176,000 acres of Douglas fir and oak and manzanita brush fields. There are 1,700 people working to contain this fire right now and, as of yesterday, it was just 5 percent contained. And, as of yesterday, the Eagle Creek Trail was just 5 percent contained.

Fires are a big problem that is just getting bigger. There are 65 large fires burning across the United States; 19 of those are in Oregon. You can see how they are spaced out here. Both the Indian Springs fire and the Eagle Creek fire that I referred to are here, and you can see its position and how it leapt across the Columbia River into Washington State.

There are more in Washington State and more in California and Idaho and Montana going this way. Nineteen of those 65 big fires are represented right here. Another 23 are in nearby Montana.

Over the last decade, we have seen an average of about 50,000 forest fires in America each year, with an average of about 5\1/2\ million acres being burned. This year, we are already over 8 million acres, with a lot more acreage that will be burned in the weeks ahead. In Oregon, we have seen an average of about 493,000 acres a year burn. We are over 550,000 acres now--and counting.

So what happens during these intense fire years? What happens is we run out

of money to fight these fires, and then we engage something called fire borrowing. There is no FEMA for fires--no Federal Emergency Management Agency for fires. So the Forest Service says: Well, we must fight these fires. I can tell you that a tremendous number of helicopters and planes and ground crews are involved in this effort. It is very expensive to fight them.

We run out of money, and the Forest Service has to borrow from other accounts--from the hazardous fuels fund, which tries to reduce the amount of fuels that will create fires on the front end, so we decrease our effort on the front end in order to fight the fires on the back end.

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 those are borrowed from. So I have been pushing, I have been fighting for us to get the funds now, right now, to make sure we don't engage in fire borrowing to have to address this challenge, and we have a compromise that has been worked out that is going to help. In the continuing resolution, the funds are based not on the amount the administration wanted but on the fiscal year 2017 level that included $400 million of buffer funds. One-quarter of what was authorized in fiscal year 2017 is now going to be available--and available retroactively--so that it can be used and spent in September, which is still in fiscal year 2017, so in immediate moments we will not have to engage in fire borrowing. That is a victory.

I thank the cochairs of the Appropriations Committee for working so hard to help us get this provision that will stop the fire borrowing problem in the short term. But in the near future, after we are into fiscal year 2018--into October--we will be short funds that were spent for fiscal year 2017, so that will be a challenge we will have to continue to address in the year to come.

We are all thinking a lot about Harvey and its impact on Houston and Texas, and we are all worried about Irma and the fact that it is hitting Puerto Rico, and it is aimed for Florida. But let's not forget the fires burning all over the United States at an unprecedented rate, which we need to make sure we address as well.

Under this provision I just mentioned--this compromise that will be helpful in the short term--the Office of Management and Budget has control, and we need to make sure they actually exercise that control and release those funds, so we will have to keep pushing.

I see my colleague is here. I do want to talk a little bit about fisheries, but I will defer to him if my colleague from Vermont would like to speak.

Mr. President, may I have 2 minutes to conclude my statement?

Mr. President, so far this year, the Secretary of Commerce has declared nine disasters for fisheries, and another disaster assistance request is pending in Southern Oregon and in Northern California.

When these fisheries close, our fishermen and their families are in deep trouble. Their expenses don't disappear--the mortgages on their vessels, their mooring fees, their maintenance. Of course, they have to continue to be able to pay their basic living expenses. So when they are told they have to stay in port because a fishery is closed because of a fishing disaster, then, it is an enormous challenge to which we need to help to respond. It is not just for the fishermen themselves, but for the entire community--the recreational anglers, as well as the commercial fishermen, the processors, the gear stores, the boat repair facilities, and the tourism. All of it is impacted.

So let us not forget that we have nine declared disasters for fisheries, and we should make sure we respond and assist these communities.

Mr. President, I want you to imagine for a moment that you are an 11-year-old child. Your mother tells you to pack some things because you are going on a trip. So you pick out four or five of your favorite toys and you put them into a backpack. You put in a bottle of water and some rosary beads as well.

You walk out through the door of your home into the night with your mom. You don't know what is going on. You are just doing what you were told. You hold your mother's hand, and you walk in silence.

Soon you are walking with 20 others through the Mexican desert. You are tired and hungry and carrying everything that matters to you on your back. The sweat is pouring off. The prickly bushes scrape your body. You are overcome by dehydration, and you faint.

Someone comes to your aid. They give you some water from their canteen. You come to and you keep going. Eventually, on this journey, you make

it into the United States of America, into Arizona.

Then, out of the blue, the years pass and you grow up. Fourteen years pass and now you are 25 years old. You have spent more than half your life in the United States of America. You are studying and going to college to get your degree in economics or working full time at the local bank to save money.

You have made friends and built a life for yourself, and things are going well. Then, all of a sudden, your future--everything you had planned for in life--is thrown into doubt. The President of the United States has just said that he views you as a criminal because of the decision your mother made well more than a decade before. Just remember what you did. You followed what your mom said: Put some things into a backpack, and we are going out into the night.

It doesn't matter to President Trump that you had no choice in that decision. It doesn't matter to him all you have had to overcome. It doesn't matter how you have invested so seriously in being a productive part of your community. In the eyes of the President of the United States, you are a criminal.

It really shouldn't be too hard to imagine that story because the story close to that is the story of some 800,000 people living in the United States--young men and women who came here as children, having nothing to do with the decision themselves.

This particular story that I have read to you is the true story of an Oregonian. It is a story that belongs to Hugo, one of 11,000 Dreamers living in Oregon today. Like the hundreds of thousands of others brought to this country as children through no fault of their own, Hugo's future was thrown into complete chaos by the President--thrown into chaos when Attorney General Sessions, acting on orders from President Trump, announced the cruel and heartless decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, or the DACA Program. We know this program best as a program for Dreamers, those young men and women who are seeking to do everything they can to have productive lives, to contribute to their community, to establish a financial foundation, and to contribute back to America--those young men and women who know no other nation, who speak no other language, who contribute to society, and who are American in every way that matters. But that is not the viewpoint President Trump has, and so we in the Senate have to act.

The United States is and always has been a nation of immigrants. Unless one is a Native American, each of us--every one of us--is either an immigrant or descended from immigrants who were fleeing famine, immigrants who were fleeing political persecution, immigrants who were fleeing religious persecution, immigrants who were simply seeking a better life, greater opportunity, greater freedom for their family. That is the foundation on which America has been based.

Our Founding Fathers recognized just how vital immigration was to the growth and strength of our budding Nation. After all, it was James Madison, the author of our Constitution and our fourth President, who declared during the Constitutional Convention that ``America was indebted to immigration for her settlement and prosperity.'' He continued: ``That part of America which had encouraged immigration most has advanced most rapidly. . . .''

Now, we have always had debates and discussions about immigration. At times, we have been shortsighted in banning or limiting one group or another in a generation only to turn around and welcome them with open arms in the next generation. Time and again, we have overcome our prejudices. We have remained true to the loving and compassionate Nation we are, a Nation that has welcomed others to our shores.

If we want to know the true nature of our country, we only need to look to the Statute of Liberty, where there, below the feet of Lady Liberty, are inscribed those words: ``Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.'' I think that line from the poet Emma Lazarus resonates so powerfully because we know that so many of our lives are connected through our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents to that experience of coming to America's shores poor and tired and yearning to breathe free.

Generation after generation of immigrants saw Lady Liberty, this welcoming symbol of freedom and opportunity, as their first glimpse of America. It has inspired hope and given people across the world permission to dream.

But if we end DACA, if we crush the dreams of these young men and women, we might as well take away those words off of the pedestal of Lady Liberty because we will no longer be that compassionate Nation. We will no longer be that welcoming Nation that has played such an instrumental role in each of our histories.

I can't think of anything more damaging to the well-being or the future of our great Nation because we know that when people come here and add their distinctive cultures, beliefs, and backgrounds to the melting pot of America, we become a stronger country and a stronger people.

This is especially true of our Dreamers, the 800,000 men and women for whom America is the only home they know, the 800,000 who came here as young children, the 800,000 who went to school here and made their friends here and grew up here and invested in creating a future here, the young men and women whom we promised, if they came out of the shadows, if they did everything else right, if they obeyed the laws and met the rigorous requirements asked of them, that we would protect and look after them in this Dreamer Program--people such as Hugo Nicolas, whose story I just shared, and Zaira Flores, another Dreamer who came to America as a child who grew up in this country and is now giving back to our country.

Zaira came when she was just 6 years old. Her younger brother was in need of medical attention, and he couldn't get that medical attention back home in Mexico, but he got it here in America. He underwent years of treatment and surgery, and thereupon Zaira's family decided that this was their home. Two decades have passed. Two decades have passed, and now 26-year-old Zaira Flores works for the State of Oregon. She is a bilingual counselor and volunteer coordinator who assesses social services and disability programs for older adults. Zaira didn't make the decision to come here or to stay here. She didn't have a say in the matter. She doesn't remember her life back in Mexico.

Attorney General Sessions and President Trump may say she is a criminal, but I say she is a contributing member of Oregon who has done everything right to build a solid life, a contributing member to our country, and we need to pass the Dream Act to make sure she can continue to make these substantial contributions. It is the only right thing to do for her, but it is also the right thing to do for our community, for Zaira and Hugo and the hundreds of thousands of talented, driven young men and women just like them who embody the American dream. They have risen up from humble beginnings. They have overcome adversity to thrive. Aren't these exactly the kinds of individuals we want in our Nation? We ought to be celebrating these Dreamers for all they are doing, not punishing them for choices made by their parents.

The eviction of 800,000 Dreamers just doesn't hurt them, it doesn't just punish them, it doesn't just damage their families, it hurts all of us because as punishing as it would be to send Dreamers back to countries they have never known, all of us will pay a price if this is allowed to happen. We will pay the price economically in the estimated $460 billion the economy would lose over the next 10 years, and we would pay the price morally as our Nation's standing as a beacon of hope and opportunity is tarnished in the eyes of the world.

If President Trump will not do the right thing, if he is willing to turn his back on these 800,000 young men and women, then it is up to all of us in Congress to stand up for them. It is what many of my Republican colleagues, both here in the Senate and over in the House, have said they want to accomplish, including Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell. It is what President Trump's friends in the business sector have said they want. Just this past weekend, more than 400 industry leaders signed a letter pledging

their support for DACA and urging the President to continue it. It is what nearly three-quarters of the American people say they want to see happen in the most recent polls.

So let's listen to our business leaders, let's listen to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's listen to the American people, let's listen to our hearts and our minds on this issue before us, and let's act expeditiously--not in 6 months, with days to spare before President Trump's clock runs out. Let's act within 6 days. Let's act quickly because for every single day that passes now, these individuals and their extended families are in a whirl of pain and uncertainty. That simply isn't right. Let's protect these Dreamers who are here through no fault of their own, who have contributed an enormous amount to our country, and who are American in every single way that matters.

To paraphrase President Madison, we are a nation that is indebted to immigration for our incredible success. We cannot--we must not renege on that debt by turning our backs on the Dreamers. It would undermine our Nation's moral standing. It would hurt our economy. It is cruel. It is mean. It is absolutely just plain wrong. Let's get that bill on this floor and let's pass it expeditiously.

Thank you.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, a few moments ago, I had the opportunity to meet with a group called the Tribute to Fallen Soldiers. They have an annual cross-country motorcycle ride in honor of soldiers who died during combat. The motorcycle brigade escorts the Fallen Soldiers Memorial Flame from Eugene, OR, all the way to Arlington National Cemetery. Along the way, they visit Gold Star families--families who have a loved one who died on the battlefield in service to the United States of America.

One couple who came today was Terry Burgess and Elizabeth Burgess, whose son Bryan lost his life fighting in Afghanistan, and they shared with me, in the military tradition, a medal.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use a visual aid.

Mr. President, this medal has a picture of their son. It says: ``In memory of SSG Bryan A. Burgess, who lived from April 23, 1981, through March 29, 2011.'' On the back of it, it has a picture of a memorial that shows a pair of boots and a rifle and a hat and ``never forget.''

The Tribute to Fallen Soldiers is about never forgetting our fallen soldiers. We put them into situations of enormous stress and challenge and danger, and they are there for all of us. In those particular situations, time and again, one of our soldiers loses their life. So may we never forget our soldiers who have died, our soldiers who have been wounded, and may we continue to reach out to Gold Star families to provide a community of support to them.

I completely respect and appreciate the Tribute to Fallen Soldiers' motorcycle brigade that rides across the country visiting with Gold Star families, making sure they have that community of support and making sure they know that the sacrifices of their son or daughter are not forgotten.

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

Mr. President, climate disruption is a seminal challenge of our generation. It affects everything from our farms to our forests to our fishing. We see the impact in disappearing glaciers, melting permafrost, shrinking ice sheets, raging forest fires, dying coral reefs, migrating animals and insects, and more powerful storms.

The world is changing right in front of us. It is appropriate to call this climate disruption because our climate is broken, and it is affecting so many things that we value. In response, communities across the globe are transforming their energy economies--from increasing the energy efficiency of buildings, vehicles, and appliances to replacing a carbon-polluting fossil-fuel-energy economy with a renewable and clean- energy economy.

How much do you know about the changes under way? Let's find out. Welcome to episode 4 of the Senate Climate Disruption Quiz.

Here we go. First question: Atmospheric carbon dioxide is at its highest level in at least how many years? Is it 88 years? Is it the highest level in the last 8,000 years? Is it the highest level in the last 800,000 years, or is it the highest level in the last 80 million years?

Think about your answer.

The correct answer is C, 800,000 years.

In September 2016, we reached a historic milestone. The carbon dioxide readings for the planet reached 400 parts per million. For perspective, before the industrial revolution, before we started burning fossil fuels in massive quantities, that number was about 280 parts per million.

Here is something that is even scarier. The rate is going up faster and faster. In 1965 and 1975, it was going up at about 1 part per million per year. Then, a couple of decades later, it was 2 parts per million per year, and the last 2 years, it has gone up at a rate of 3 parts per million per year.

As the human civilization, we have to turn this around. We have to not only slow it down, but we have to turn it around and lower those levels of carbon dioxide if we are going to save our blue-green planet.

Question No. 2, which Governor announced that he or she will hold a global climate summit here in America next year?

Is the answer Jerry Brown? Is the answer Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan, Governor Susana Martinez of New Mexico, or Governor Rick Scott of Florida?

The answer--now that you have decided which one you think is right-- is A, Governor Jerry Brown of California. He announced on July 6 that he will bring together entrepreneurs, mathematicians, professors, climate experts, and others from around the world in September 2018 for a summit to ``combat the existential threat of climate change.''

This meeting is being viewed as a very significant undertaking to keep the conversation going forward, because in the absence of the United States being deeply involved in the Paris Agreement, the United States has to be involved in many other ways. This issue is too big, and the challenge is too great for us to be sitting it out.

Let's turn to question No. 3. The world's first floating wind farm is being constructed off the coast of which country? Is it Germany? Is it off the coast of the United States? Is it Scotland? Or is it France?

I might point out that, when we see a floating wind farm, we are talking about a wind farm in which the sea floor is deep enough that it can't be anchored; that is, the turbine cannot be anchored on the sea floor. There is a hint, a little clue.

Do you have your answer?

The correct answer is C, Scotland.

The Peterhead wind farm, off the coast of Scotland, is using revolutionary technology to harvest wind power in waters that are too deep for wind turbines to be anchored on the seabed.

The wind farm's first turbine was just towed into place. Once finished, it will include five 6-megawatt turbines. By the way, those are much larger turbines than the ones we have on land in the United States. The blades will be 246 feet long. Together, the group of turbines will be able to power 20,000 homes by the end of the installation.

Maybe we will see some of those appearing off the coast of the United States in the future.

Let's turn to question No. 4. Glacier National Park in 1910 had 150 glaciers. How many are there today? Are there 200? Are there 150? Are there 25? Or are there 10?

What is the answer?

The answer is C, 25.

Here we are in just a century, and we have gone from 150 glaciers in Glacier National Park to only 25 left. According to Dan Fagre, a USGS research ecologist, ``within 20 years, the bulk of the remaining glaciers will be too small to be considered active glaciers.''

When these glaciers are gone, it will have a significant impact on Montana and its economy. They typically put off a significant amount of water in late August and early September. They feed streams that would otherwise dry up. They provide cool water that plays a critical role in the life cycles of both insects and fish. If you are planning to see the glaciers in Glacier National Park, go soon.

Let's turn to question No. 5. Tesla, the electric car company, is set to install the world's largest grid-scale battery in which country? Are they going to install that battery in China, in Australia, in Mexico, or in Spain?

If you had time to ponder the question and develop your answer, the answer is not China, which you might expect because China is so large and is so engaged in renewable energy today, nor is it Mexico or Spain. It is Australia.

Australia has embraced renewable energy. In 2016, renewable sources produced more than 17 percent of the country's electricity. South Australia has raced ahead of the rest of the country in embracing renewables, particularly wind power.

Until now, it has not been able to adequately store the energy generated by the region's wind farms. Later this year, Tesla will install the world's largest lithium-ion grid-scale battery and pair it with one of the wind farms, in a major leap forward for large-scale renewable energy use.

The idea is that the 129-megawatt-hour battery, which is capable of putting out 100 megawatts of power at a time, will help stabilize South Australia's electrical grid and provide backup power if there is a shortfall.

More and more, as we have wind on the grid and as we have solar power on the grid, batteries are being turned to as a strategy to even out the flow of electricity.

There you have it, folks. Five questions in episode 4 of the Senate Climate Disruption Quiz. They are questions ripped right from the headlines. Facts on the ground are changing fast, as climate disruption increases and communities across the globe are responding. We are racing the clock. There is no time to spare.

Stay engaged in the fight to save our beautiful blue-green planet. In the near future, I will bring you episode 5 of the Senate Climate Disruption Quiz.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, the first three words of our Constitution are ``We the People.'' Indeed, our entire system was set up to be a government which produces results of, by, and for the people, but certainly right now, that is not what we are getting.

We are getting a secret plan which has not yet been put on this floor, with a promise that there will be a debate in the middle of the night--no chance for committee hearings on it, no chance to consult with experts, no chance for us to go home and talk to our constituents. This is about as far away from a deliberative democratic republic as you can possibly get.

It makes us think of 1787, when Ben Franklin came out of the Constitutional Convention and was stopped by someone in the crowd and asked: What do we have--a monarchy or a republic?

He answered: A republic, if you can keep it.

Well, we are not keeping it right now through this secret, middle-of- the-night, non-consultative process. We are disgracing the notion that our Founders fought for the ``we the people'' Republic.

This is something which touches so many Americans. We are not talking about the weight limit on a highway. We are not talking about what kinds of signs to post. We are talking about fundamental access to healthcare.

If the rumors are right, my colleagues plan to bring forward a bill that will blow up insurance on the exchange for millions of Americans.

An insurance pool is a little bit like a swimming pool. You tear a hole in the side of a swimming pool, the water drains out and there are only a few inches left, and the only people who would bother to go into that depleted swimming pool would be those who really, really want to swim. It is the same with the healthcare pool. The bill coming out tonight, we are told, will rip a big hole in the side of the insurance pool, and it will do so in a fashion that only those who have preexisting conditions, only those who are sick, only those who are old, will truly try to get that insurance. This means the price will be driven up, and many of them can't afford it, so they will drop out. So it means the pool will have even more people who are sick and older. This is the death spiral.

My colleagues today are planning to put forward a bill tonight, we are told, that creates a death spiral insurance. Who pays the price? Who pays the price? Our Nation pays the price with an estimated 16 million people who would lose insurance. We are talking about those who have every desire to have the peace of mind that if their loved one gets sick, they will get the care they need. We are talking about Americans who have every desire to know that if their loved one gets injured, they won't end up bankrupt. But all of that is at risk tonight.

A few moments ago, my colleague from Nebraska came to the floor, and he started out by saying we need to ensure that the President doesn't overstep his powers. Let's talk, too, about this Senate not destroying its procedures designed to ensure a ``we the people'' republic, which means we should all vote to send whatever bill comes out tonight to committee, where it can be duly considered in a bipartisan fashion, with experts, with consultation. In fact, my colleague from Arizona, who came back and gave a dramatic and beautiful speech just 2 days ago, said it should be considered by committee.

Let's work together to take whatever plan comes out tonight and put it where it needs to be--in committee for due deliberation. This issue touches too many lives. It is too core to the quality of life of our fellow Americans. Let's not allow any bill to pass out of this Chamber that would do so much destruction.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I intend to offer the following motions to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

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

Madam President, I intend to offer the following motions to H.R. 1628, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we are now considering the Cruz amendment, which he titles consumer freedom, but there could not be a more misnamed amendment to come to the floor.

Americans know this as the fake insurance amendment. This is the amendment that says: Hey, insurance companies, we are going to do you a big favor and let you sell these policies that aren't worth the paper they are written on. And, Hey, isn't this wonderful, says my colleague from Texas, because, you know what, people will only have to pay a few dollars per month for those worthless policies, and that is freedom.

Well, I will tell you that if my colleague had been out talking to people in rural America, as I have been, if he had been out there talking to people in red America, as I have been, he would be hearing that people are terrified about this effort to annihilate health insurance.

One out of three people in Oregon have been able to be on the Oregon Health Plan because of ObamaCare. It has had an incredible impact on our rural healthcare centers. Many of them have doubled their number of employees. About 20,000 employees across the State have been added. Oh, we just heard a speech about it being a job killer, but, in fact, it has employed thousands and thousands more people in the healthcare industry across America. Little communities that didn't have folks being able to take on mental health can now take on mental health issues. Rural communities that didn't have a drug treatment program now have a drug treatment program. Rural hospitals that were going out of business now have a strong financial foundation. And that is just the beginning.

Entrepreneurs across this Nation were tied up in their companies, afraid to leave and pursue their vision because they couldn't get healthcare by themselves. Now, they can, so they are starting one business after another after another after another, and what we have seen is month after month after month of growth in employment in this Nation.

Oh, we can tell you about the amendment that my colleague from Texas is putting forward and what it does in terms of offering these fake policies, but that is only the beginning of it because what it is designed to do is carve off those who are young, carve off those who are healthy, and put them into one pool, and then those with preexisting conditions, those who are sick, those who are older, have to go to another pool in which the rates go way up and create a death spiral. So whether we call this fake insurance for the young and healthy or a death spiral insurance for the old and those with health problems or preexisting conditions, it is really blowing up the insurance market at both ends.

Don't take my word for it; take the experts' word for it. We have a Republican Senator who said that there is a real feeling that there is subterfuge to get around the preexisting conditions, referring to this amendment. And then we have a staffer for a Republican who says: ``And outside health policy folks have said this would set up a death spiral for the markets.''

OK, but let's turn to the American Enterprise Institute, an extremely conservative organization. What does their scholar say? He says, ``This means that people with those kinds of illnesses will end up paying more.'' And then he goes on to say, ``The people who don't know something will happen and come down with something, those are the ones at issue.''

Or let's turn to the American Action Forum Deputy Director Tara O'Neill Hayes, who says: ``I think that really would be the definition of a death spiral.''

Or we can turn to the former CBO Director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who says ``What that will do is allow insurers to offer cheap policies to young invincibles. And on the exchange you're going to get all the sick people.''

He continues and says: ``That's a recipe for meltdown. You've split the risk pool into two exchanges.''

And he says: ``I think it would end up being bad politics.''

I am not concerned about bad politics, but I am concerned about those folks whom I have been meeting out in rural America, out in red America, because they are coming to my townhalls and they are saying: Stop this diabolical plan. The Cruz amendment only makes it a lot worse by creating the fake policies for the young and healthy--the young invincibles--and the death spiral insurance for everyone else.

So someone can stand up here and speak glibly about how this is going to fix job creation in America, but what it really says is healthcare for the wealthy--not healthcare, but wealth care.

It is so interesting to see this whole coalition of individuals who want to pass a bill that not only demolishes healthcare for 22 million, but gives hundreds of billions of dollars to the very richest in America. My colleague mentioned a moment ago that the richest 400 families would get $33 billion. No, not $33,000 apiece or $33 million-- $33 billion. They feel it is so important to rip healthcare from ordinary working families to deliver benefits to the wealthiest Americans. That is the opposite--opposite--of what we should be doing in America.

Franklin Roosevelt said that the test of our progress is not whether we add more abundance to those who have much; it is whether we do enough for those who have too little. What that translates to is whether we provide a foundation of affordable healthcare so that every family in America has a foundation to thrive. That is what we are fighting for.

This amendment is absolutely a bomb going off in healthcare on both ends of the spectrum, with the young and with the old, with the healthy and

with the sick, and with those with preexisting conditions.

So let's defeat this amendment and make sure we don't make a really terrible bill a lot worse.

Mr. President, of course my colleague from Texas made this big rant a little while ago about how ObamaCare is a job killer. When I pointed out it has created jobs all over our country in healthcare, no response. When I pointed out it has created the opportunity for entrepreneurs to create jobs and healthcare jobs, no response. When I pointed out it creates fake insurance that doesn't cover anything when you get sick, no response. All he has to say is that it makes insurance a little cheaper.

Yes, it is worth the paper it is printed on. Well, not even that, actually, because you pay $40 or $50 a month, you go to the hospital, not covered. If you get in an accident and you need an MRI, not covered. You and your spouse have the opportunity and have a child, not covered. Not covered, not covered, not covered. Fake insurance.

It is the experts who say it throws it into a death spiral. It is the experts who say it in conservative think tanks and in liberal think tanks. So what does he have to say? We have something from the Trump team that says it is OK--not a CBO score because he is afraid it will show it makes it worse than the existing bill.

So let's talk about real facts. Next time, don't bring in a political statistic from the Trump team. Let's get a CBO score on this. Then let's have that debate. You had plenty of time to get it and you didn't get it.

This is a terrible amendment. We must defeat it.

I believe my colleague has the remainder of the time.

Mr. President, I rise to address the Republican plan to have a vote to proceed to a healthcare bill tomorrow. The only challenge is that we have no idea what bill we are being asked to proceed to. This is hardly the way a democratic republic operates in which the leader of the majority says: We want to come to the floor with no committee deliberation, no consultation with healthcare experts, no dialogue with the public, no amendments in committee of any kind, and vote on a mystery bill.

The biggest mystery to me is how it is possible that the majority of Republicans are taking seriously a plan to rip healthcare from 20 million-plus Americans in order to give fabulous giveaways to the richest among us. The bill they entertained previously would have given $33 billion to the richest 400 Americans--$33 billion. I have mentioned this number before. Some journalists have quoted it as $33 million, and some citizens have said that I meant $33,000. No. It is $33 billion to the richest 400 Americans--enough funds to pay for Medicaid for 700,000 people.

What individual would say it is moral to rip healthcare away from 20 million people in order to give tax breaks to the very richest among us? In some misguided, mysterious way, something has gotten ahold of the hearts and minds of my colleagues and made them think this was some kind of good idea to do so much damage to so many.

In fact, we have been having this conversation since January. It was earlier this year, when President Trump was sworn in, when the majority said: We are going to come to the floor of the Senate, and we are going to repeal healthcare for millions of Americans in short order.

Here we are 6 months later, and it has not happened yet--in part because when people look at the details, they start to raise questions.

It took a long time for the House to send a bill over to the Senate, and then the Senate proceeded to work on this bill with a group of 13 secret Senators--working in a secret room, in secret meetings--with the public not allowed, with fellow Senators not allowed. They came up with a bill that looked very much like the House bill, and we will talk more about that later.

The President said in his campaign and throughout much of this year: You are going to have such great healthcare at a tiny fraction of the cost, and it is going to be so easy.

Well, it has not been that easy. We have seen the President back a plan from the House and invite everyone over to celebrate at the White House and get the champagne bottles out and say how wonderful it was that the House had passed this healthcare bill--this bill that would strip healthcare from more than 20 million Americans. Then, a couple of weeks later, someone explained to him what was in that bill, and he said: Oh, well, that bill is mean and heartless. Then the secret 13 here in the Senate meet, and they come out with a very similar bill. And now Trump is all excited; now we have a really good bill, except that in a single year, it would do even more damage to healthcare in America.

Along the way, the President moderated his dialogue a bit and said: Who knew healthcare could be so complicated? Well, Mr. President, most of the people in America realize we have a complicated healthcare system. We have an overlapping system of six different systems of healthcare. It really is quite messy and difficult. It would be great if we could, in fact, adopt a much simpler system. And I certainly have

been advocating for us to have a much simpler system, so just by right of being an American, you are born into this world and you have healthcare. That is the way most developed nations do it, but not here in the United States of America. We have a great healthcare system for the very wealthy, and we have a very complicated, stressful system for everyone else.

What are we going to vote on tomorrow? I wish the majority leader would come to the floor and tell us. Will we vote on a motion to proceed to a bill that looks like--what? What can you tell us? Is it TrumpCare 3.0? How does it differ from TrumpCare 1.0 or 2.0? Will it have the Cruz amendment in it for fake insurance, the provision that would do enormous damage on both ends of the insurance market, providing fake insurance policies to the young and the healthy and destabilizing healthcare and putting it into a death spiral for everyone else? Or, Mr. Majority Leader, maybe you could come and tell us if you are planning a straight repeal of the ACA--a straight repeal that would raise costs and premiums even higher and not just rip healthcare from 20-plus million people, but from 30 million-plus people, a plan that would be even more devastating than the previous plan. Is that what you want us to vote to proceed to tomorrow?

I can tell you that we shouldn't be voting to proceed to any version on healthcare, something that so affects the peace of mind and the quality of life of Americans. We should be operating like a democracy, like a democratic republic--holding committee hearings, holding a conversation. This is what we did when we talked about the ACA those several years ago. We had more than 100 committee meetings, roundtables, and walk-throughs here in the U.S. Senate. We had the single longest markup of a healthcare bill in the HELP Committee ever in the history of the United States. We had the second longest session marking up the bill in the Finance Committee. We had the entertainment of hundreds and hundreds of amendments, and we adopted over 100 Republican amendments. There was a very public, extended process, with a ton of time to go home and consult with healthcare experts and stakeholders in our own States and with the most important stakeholders--the citizens of the United States of America--the men and women and sons and daughters and grandparents. How did they feel about these changes?

Well, as everyone knows, President Trump did call the House bill mean and heartless, but we just keep getting bills that are meaner and more heartless. The House bill would kick 23 million people off insurance over the next decade and 14 million just next year. The subsequent bills don't look that different.

The secret 13 here in the Senate went and did their deliberations, adopted pretty much the same thing as the Senate, only they made it worse. That June Senate bill would kick 15 million off in a single year, rather than 14 million. And then we had the brilliant idea of a repeal-only bill, which would do even worse, kicking 17 million people off in a single year and 32 million off within the 10-year period.

Then we have the bill that isn't even on here because we didn't get a Congressional Budget Office score on it; that is, the special Cruz fake insurance amendment bill--the one that would say: Hey, insurance companies, you can offer policies that are not worth the paper they are written on. Oh, they are very appealing. There is a health insurance policy. You only have to pay $40 a month. Isn't that great? And then the policyholder who has it, they get in a car accident, they get a broken bone, and they find out the emergency room is not covered, the x rays are not covered, the cast is not covered, the doctor is not covered. Nothing is covered. That is why it is fake insurance. That is why it costs only $40 a month. It might as well be 40 cents a month, for all we care, because it just doesn't cover anything.

Then, your spouse--your wife--has the great, joyful news that you are going to have a child together, and guess what. Maternity care is not covered. Can you imagine in this modern era not covering maternity care? Yet, before the Affordable Care Act, many, many policies in America didn't cover maternity care.

Well, in addition, these brilliant plans by my colleagues would cause premiums to skyrocket. Then, we have, of course, the fact that they do diabolical things to those who have preexisting conditions.

Now, let me spend a little more time on the special Cruz fake insurance version of this. Yes, it gave those very cheap policies that aren't worth the paper they are printed on to the young and the healthy. But then, those who are older--those who are sick or have injuries or have preexisting conditions or are concerned that they may develop difficult medical issues--they need to buy a policy that actually covers the things that one would expect, that has an essential benefits package, the same as every single policy in America today has. But, because the young and the healthy are buying the fake policies, that means that the costs skyrocket on the policies with the essential care benefits. As a result of that, more people bail out who feel like they are not directly in danger of getting sicker or injured, and then the cost of the policy goes up even more. It is a death spiral for insurance: fake insurance at one end, destruction of the insurance market at the other end.

So my colleagues decided to not even share the Congressional Budget Office analysis of that bill. It was that bad.

Let's see what some folks said about this. Larry Levitt, senior Vice President of the Kaiser Family Foundation said: ``If there were a Joy of Cooking for insurance, this would be the perfect recipe for destabilizing the market and turning the marketplaces into high-risk pools.''

That is his comment about the Cruz fake insurance plan.

Let's turn to a joint letter from Blue Cross Blue Shield and from America's Health Insurance Plans about the Cruz insurance plan, the Cruz fake insurance plan. Their letter says: ``It is simply unworkable in any form and would undermine protections for those with pre-existing medical conditions, increase premiums and lead to widespread terminations of coverage for people currently enrolled in the individual market.''

Or how about an article in the Atlantic by Vann Newkirk, published just a week ago, July 14 of this year: ``The Cruz amendment creates almost a textbook scenario of wide-scale adverse selection--whereby riskier and more expensive patients wind up concentrated in risk pools--and entirely undermines any tools for managing that adverse selection.''

That is a fancy way of talking about the death spiral in insurance for those who are not young and healthy.

Then we go to the conversation that CBO says is the worst option of all: 17 million would lose coverage in the first year and 32 million by 2026 under the repeal-only plan. Next year, in just 1 year, premiums would skyrocket above what they might have gone to anyway by an additional 25 percent.

Now, our majority leader likes to say that wouldn't actually happen because provisions in the bill don't go into effect for 2 years. Well, these estimates and these commentaries take that into account, because the destabilization in the marketplace begins immediately. Does anyone really think insurance companies are going to stick around the marketplace that they don't know is going to exist in 1 or 2 years?

This repeal-and-run strategy would throw our healthcare industry into chaos. If you think it is a good plan, well, I have some beachfront property in Arizona you might want to buy.

Every version of this Republican TrumpCare plan is worse and worse for the American people, yet these are the options that are being put forward. The majority leader wants us to vote to proceed to this set of undesirables tomorrow, these undesirable--in fact, ``undesirable'' is just too kind of a word for these policies. These are despicable. These are destructive. These are, as the President said, mean and hard- hearted.

Shouldn't we try to pursue options that will make our healthcare system work better? That is what we need to do. Let's start by nailing down the cost-sharing reduction payments, or CSRs. These payments are a lifeline to more than 12 million low-income Americans. They lower the premiums, and they lower the deductibles. They are important sources of stability for

insurance companies. But our President has said: I am not sure I want to release these CSR payments. So what happens with that? Insurance companies have to assume they are not going to get them, so they are raising their rates or perhaps bailing out of the market completely.

If these CSR payments are terminated, insurers may leave these exchanges altogether. For those who do stay in, the average premiums for silver plans would need to increase by 19 percent just to compensate for the loss of the CSRs. Because insurance companies are like any other business, they need to know how much they are going to be paid if they provide a product, and right now, they don't know.

Let's hear what some have had to say. When the insurance company Anthem pulled out of Ohio in June--last month--the company cited ``continual changes in Federal operations, rules and guidance'' as the main reason for exiting the marketplace.

The company also said that ``the individual market remains volatile and the lack of certainty of funding for cost sharing reduction subsidies . . . does not provide a sustainable path forward.''

Then there is Brad Wilson, the president of Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, who said:

The biggest single reason for that rate increase is the

lack of the federal funding for Cost Sharing Reduction

Payments in 2018. We cannot assume nor should we that the

money is going to be there based on what we know today.

At another point Mr. Wilson was quoted as saying:

The failure of the administration and the House to bring

certainty and clarity by funding CSRs has caused our company

to file a 22.9 percent premium increase, rather than one that

is materially lower. . . . The rate increase would be 8.8

percent if the CSRs were guaranteed for 2018.

A single-digit increase versus more than a 20-percent increase, and they have to go with the higher increase because they don't know if the President is going to make the payments that he is obliged to make.

I think a piece from the Baltimore Sun from May 5 describes the situation we find ourselves in best, when it says:

It's not the problems in the Affordable Care Act exchanges

that are driving the Republican effort to repeal Obamacare.

It's the Republican effort to kill Obamacare that's causing

problems in the exchanges.

President Trump and the Congressional Republicans are trying to exacerbate them. He closes by saying: ``No wonder rates are going up.''

This really does make clear the situation. The President wants to say the exchanges have problems so we need to repeal and run or repeal and replace. Our answer to the exchanges having problems is to drive 20 million people-plus off healthcare, maybe 30 million people off healthcare. In fact, the exchanges are having problems because they are being sabotaged by President Trump and our Republican colleagues; first, by wiping out the reinsurance proposal, which enables companies to go into a new area and compete but only if they have insurance against getting a disproportionate share of the really sick people. That is a very logical part of an insurance plan which encourages companies to go into new markets to compete, and my colleagues sabotaged it.

The cost-sharing reduction payments we just talked about, a very key part of lowering premiums and making the policies affordable so struggling, hard-working Americans can buy those policies and have lower premiums and lower deductibles, but my colleagues and President Trump have sabotaged it.

That is not a service to the American people. Maybe they feel they are doing a service--to whom? To the rich who can buy insurance without any of this effort to provide insurance throughout our society. Do my colleagues really want a world in which we only have wealth care? That is healthcare that only the wealthy can buy. Do they really want to denigrate, tear down, and destroy the quality of life of millions of their constituents by pursuing this path?

It was not that long ago that Franklin Roosevelt said: ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.''

But in their bills, my colleagues have been saying: We want to give massive tax giveaways to those who have the most by ripping healthcare away from those who are struggling, hard-working Americans.

It is the opposite. It is the opposite of the belief that we are all in this together, and we want a foundation for every family to thrive. I want a foundation for every family to thrive. That means peace of mind that if your loved one gets sick, they will get the care they need. It is the peace of mind that if your loved one gets sick, they will not end up bankrupt.

We are not just talking about ripping healthcare insurance away from more than 20 million people. We are talking about ripping peace of mind away from 20 million people. We are not just talking about those individuals. We are talking about undermining the rural and urban healthcare infrastructure which helps everyone.

I have been out in very rural, Republican parts of my State holding townhalls. I am hearing from those who are in clinics, and they have improved considerably. Some of them have doubled their number of employees over the last 8 years because of the support for healthcare clinics in the ACA and also because their uncompensated care--the number of people they were serving who couldn't pay their bills--has dropped enormously.

So not only have they been able to employ a lot more people providing healthcare in the community, but they have been able to do additional things. They have been able to provide more preventive services, more mental health services, and so forth. So it has been a big win for rural America, and my colleagues want to tear that down. That just doesn't make any sense at all.

That is why everyone here should vote unanimously to oppose going onto a mystery healthcare bill tomorrow. There is so much we could do together if we want to improve healthcare: fix those CSRs; provide a fix to reinsurance; proceed to have a full enrollment period rather than cutting it short; retain and reinforce the individual mandates so those who have insurance are covered throughout the spectrum, from the young and healthy to those who are older; provide the sort of advertising that enables people to sign up and make the signup process a lot easier than it is right now. There is so much we can do together to make our healthcare system work better.

My colleagues have come to the floor tonight to say this really matters. Quit playing games with people's lives, quit trying to destroy the foundation for our families to thrive, and vote no on a motion to proceed to a mystery healthcare bill tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the most important three words in our Constitution are the first three--``We the People''--the mission statement for our Nation, laid out in supersized font so that no one would forget what this document, our Constitution, is all about. Our Founders did not start out by writing ``We the privileged.'' They did not call for a document or a form of government for ``We the powerful.'' Indeed, they wanted to make clear that the structure of the government they were founding would be very different from those in Europe that functioned for the privileged and the powerful.

As President Lincoln summarized, we are a Nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. That is the vision. That is the vision that I have been coming to the floor and talking about for the last year and a half--about the importance of a government that responds to the issues that affect the citizens across this country, that listens to the people of this Nation.

It was President Jefferson who said that the mother principle of the United States is that we have a government within which each citizen has an equal voice. Admittedly, we had some deep flaws that had to be corrected in order to reach that objective, but that vision of each citizen's having an equal voice was the only way that the government would reflect the will of the people and make decisions that would reflect the will of the people. Of course, it is hard to hold onto that vision because the powerful and the privileged do not like that vision. They want a government that is of, by, and for the powerful and the privileged, not of, by, and for the people.

The history of the United States is one battle after another of decisions that make a foundation for families to thrive in the United States of America and decisions that raid the National Treasury for the benefit of the rich. We see that battle time and time and time again, and we have seen it very recently in this battle over healthcare. Today, I come to the floor to say that the people of the United States have had an incredible victory--a resounding victory--over those who were championing government by and for the privileged and the powerful.

It is really all about this bill, this TrumpCare bill, which originated in the House of Representatives. It proceeded to throw millions off of insurance--more than 20 million people off of insurance--in order to give tax breaks to the richest Americans. What did the House's bill do? The House's bill said that we will give to the 400 richest Americans $33 billion--not $33,000, not $33 million--and rip healthcare away from millions of Americans in order to pay for those kinds of tax breaks for the richest. In fact, just those tax breaks for the richest 400 Americans would have paid for 700,000 Americans to have had Medicaid, which is basic healthcare insurance. That would have been enough to have covered the States of Arkansas, West Virginia, Nevada, and Alaska all put together.

Then we saw the House's bill come over here to the Senate, and the Senate set up a group of the secret 13. Is there anything more opposite of ``we the people'' than the secret 13 Senators meeting in the halls of this building and particularly choosing a room that the press would not be allowed into? They did not want to be seen entering the room or leaving the room. That is how secretive it was. That is how embarrassed they were about the possibility of having the American people see what they were crafting. Then they came forward with the Senate's version of the bill.

Now, of the House's version, the President of the United States of America called it mean, and he called it heartless, but the Senate's version did not end up being much different than the House's version-- the Senate's version that would proceed to throw more than 20 million people off of healthcare, as well, the Senate's version that, through, maybe, the Congressional Budget Office's analysis, would throw off 1 million fewer over 10 years--22 million instead of 23 million--but 1 million more over the first year, that being 13 million rather than 12 million. It proceeded to constrain basic Medicare--Medicare as it existed before ObamaCare--in such a fashion that, over time, it would put a stranglehold onto Medicaid. Therefore, it was even meaner, if you will. It was even more heartless than the Senate's bill.

Then the secret 13 and its leadership said: We do not want to have the American people see this, so we are not going to give the time in order to have committee hearings on it. We are going to keep it out of the healthcare committee. We are going to keep it out of the Finance Committee because the experts will come, and the American people will see just how terrible, how mean, how heartless this bill is.

We had a zero, zero, zero process--zero days of committee examination, compared to 8 years earlier with the longest committee hearing and markup that lasted 5 weeks in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. We had the second longest committee hearing and markup in Finance 8 years earlier, which was the second longest in history. Again, the Senate's leadership recently said: No exposure in the Finance Committee--zero days in the Finance Committee--zero days in the HELP Committee, and zero months for the Senators to go back and talk to their citizens and talk to their healthcare stakeholders about what this bill would mean.

You know that something is wrong when you have a process that has diverged so dramatically from ``we the people.'' Instead, we had the secret 13 and the zero days of committee examination and the zero days in the Finance Committee and the zero months to be able to consult with healthcare experts and stakeholders and, most importantly, zero months to be able to hold a dialogue with the citizens back home.

Yet we did hear from the citizens back home. As great as the effort was to hold them at bay--to give them the stiff arm and prevent them from weighing in--they weighed in nonetheless. My office received well over 8,000 phone calls. Of those, they ran 84 to 1, saying stop this diabolical TrumpCare bill. I also received a whole lot of constituent mail, with more than 25,000 people weighing in from Oregon, back home. It ran 36 to 1.

With 84 to 1 and 36 to 1, when do you see such opposition?

Maybe we saw such opposition because the people of the United States wanted to weigh in, knowing that only the powerful special interests were meeting with the secret 13 to design this diabolical bill to rip healthcare from millions of Americans. Maybe that is why so many American citizens weighed in. Thank goodness they did weigh in. They filled our email boxes, and they overflowed our phone systems. They filled the streets often and went to our home States' offices to say that this matters, and it certainly did matter.

Has there ever been a bill in the history of the United States that did more damage to more people than the TrumpCare bill that was proposed here in the U.S. Senate?

One of the things that the citizens of the United States did was to weigh in with their stories with all of us--with all 100 Members of this Chamber. They wanted to let us know how unexpectedly they had been affected by their having a child who had a sudden and dramatic illness or a car accident that had occurred or, suddenly, a family member who had been afflicted with cancer or emphysema or leukemia or multiple sclerosis. The list went on and on and on--real people, real lives, real challenges, real ``we the people'' input.

I heard from Caroline in Portland, the mother of two young children who wrote to me, sharing her story of raising a child with special needs and the help that the Oregon Health Plan had been to her family-- the Oregon Health Plan, Oregon's version of Medicaid--and how terrified she was about not being able to afford healthcare for her child under TrumpCare.

I heard from Leslie, who contacted me about his 3\1/2\-year-old daughter Gloria, who suffers from a rare genetic condition that has led her to live with near constant seizures and cystic fibrosis. She needs intensive, around-the-clock care, and she is able to get that care because of a special Medicaid waiver that helps her parents afford it. With TrumpCare, she would have lost that waiver.

I heard from Jay in Eugene, who reached out to share his story about his battle with leukemia and stage IV

colon cancer. He was told he could only expect to live another 3 months, unless he received treatment. That was 2 years ago, and he is alive because he was able to access treatment. He has been able to fight the battle with cancer and fight the battle with leukemia, and he was able to do so because of the insurance he had through ObamaCare-- through the Affordable Care Act.

Kerry from Corvallis wrote to me, terrified about all of the members of her family who would be uninsurable if they passed TrumpCare: her husband, because he had a blood clotting disease; her son, who suffers from epilepsy; and her 78-year-old mother, who has Alzheimer's.

That fear of being unable to access healthcare because of a preexisting condition ran through story after story after story, but that is the system we had in the United States of America before we had the Affordable Care Act.

Then, there was a woman from Ashland who asked me not to share her name but wanted her story shared. I will call her Katie. Katie is a single mother who is currently battling cancer--invasive breast cancer and malignant melanoma. This is what she wrote to me:

In simple terms, I will die without treatment and the

ongoing care that I have received so far through Oregon

Health Plan. As a single parent, I could work 24/7 until my

last breath and still my income would not afford me basic

healthcare if it were not for the Affordable Care Act.

Katie continued:

With a pre-existing condition I would not be insurable,

left to suffer and even to succumb from my illness. Once,

this was only a nightmare, but now it is a horrifying

reality, too surreal to comprehend. I cannot explain the deep

heartache and frustration of the thought of orphaning my son,

all due to dying from an illness that could have been treated

if I had been insured.

Stories like Katie's and Caroline's and Gloria's keep coming in, day after day, email after email, phone call after phone call--indeed, from individuals at my townhalls. The weekend before last, I held a lot of townhalls and a couple of special healthcare forums and a bunch of Main Street walks in Oregon. Five of those townhalls were in counties that are very red, very Republican, and I lost those counties in my reelection by rates of probably 20 to 40 to 50 percent. But at those townhalls, people came out and said: Please stop TrumpCare.

One out of three individuals in rural Oregon, in Republican Oregon, are on the Oregon Health Plan. They remember that, not so long ago, all they had for a healthcare plan was to say a prayer each night and hope they didn't get sick the next day. They would say a prayer each night and hope they would not be in an accident the next day. That is all the healthcare they had.

Now they are able to get preventive care--preventive care for free. Now they are able to take their children in and get them inoculated. Now they know that, if a loved one in their family becomes ill or injured, that loved one will get the care they need, and they won't go bankrupt in the process.

That is peace of mind. Isn't that the kind of foundation we want, to enable every family to thrive in America? Shouldn't we consider healthcare to be a basic right, a basic service, that is provided with a healthcare system in a ``we the people'' nation, not a ``we the privileged'' nation, where healthcare is only available to those who are rich enough to buy it? That is wealth care. That is not healthcare. It is a healthcare system for ``we the powerful'' or for the powerful who write the laws that benefit themselves but leave everyone else out in the cold. No, a ``we the people'' nation has a healthcare system suited to we the people, where we provide streets and we provide public transportation and highways as part of the common infrastructure, where we provide free public schools so that every child has a chance to thrive, and where we provide public healthcare so that every citizen can have the peace of mind that, if their loved one gets sick, they will get the care they need.

But we saw the opposite this year. We saw the House bill that would have thrown 12 million people off of healthcare within a year and 23 million within 10 years. As for the President, weeks after he celebrated with his champagne glasses and his leaders from the House and weeks after he celebrated passage, someone told him what was in the bill, and the President said: Wow, that bill is mean and heartless.

Then we came to the Senate, and the secret 13 met, and what did they craft? A bill that was even meaner and more heartless. Instead of throwing 12 million people off of healthcare in a single year, it threw 13 million people off in a single year, and over 10 years, essentially the same number as the House. It wrote a Medicaid provision that over every subsequent year would have made Medicaid less and less accessible to people who need it.

Well, that ran into a dead end. So the Senate said: Let's recraft something that is better. And what did they do? They threw in the Cruz amendment. What did the Cruz amendment do? It is fake insurance. It is a fake insurance amendment.

Do you remember those days when you would get advertisements for healthcare that said: Pay us $25 a month, pay us $50 a month, and we will give you a healthcare policy. Millions of Americans bought those policies, and they thought they had something valuable, until they became sick and went to the doctor. Then they were told: This doesn't cover your doctor's visit, and it doesn't cover your x-ray. It doesn't cover your MRI--that is for sure. It doesn't cover the drugs you need to treat this illness. It doesn't cover a specialist. It doesn't cover hospital care. Oh, and you are pregnant? How wonderful that you are going to have a child, but your healthcare policy--that fake insurance policy that you bought--doesn't cover maternity care.

Fake insurance for the people of the United States of America is the Cruz amendment that was added as a so-called improvement to the mean and meaner bill already crafted by the secret 13--fake insurance. To make it worse, the fake insurance system means that the healthcare policies that cover essential benefits enter into a death spiral. They become so expensive that people can't afford them. So they don't buy them. As a result, only those who are already ill buy the policies, and that makes the policies even more expensive, and so even fewer buy them.

There it is--the Cruz amendment--fake insurance for the young and healthy, and the destruction of insurance with essential benefits for everyone else, pricing it out of reach. In other words, it is like a bomb going off in the healthcare system to destroy healthcare both for the young and healthy and for the older and the sick and those with preexisting conditions.

So some experts weighed in on this and said how terrible that idea is. This is how destructive this is to the healthcare of Americans. Suddenly, there weren't the votes for the Cruz fake insurance amendment, either.

So now what do we have before us? We have the repeal-and-run plan coming to the floor of the Senate, repealing the exchanges; that is, the healthcare marketplace, where people can use subsidies to be able to buy insurance, enabling individuals who are struggling and working families--working families assembling a number of part-time jobs, often minimum-wage jobs with no benefits--to buy insurance on this marketplace.

By the way, this was the Republican plan for healthcare: Let's bring together a marketplace where people can compare policies and can get subsidies to be able to afford those policies. This was the Republican plan. It came from a far-right Republican think tank. It was championed by a Republican Governor. It was test-run at a State level by a Republican nominee who became the nominee of the Republican Party for President of the United States of America. Call it RomneyCare. Call it the exchange. It was the Republican plan.

But my colleagues now say they don't like their own plan, and they don't like the expansion of Medicaid. They don't like the free preventive conditions. They want to get rid of the possibility of your children staying on your policy until age 26. They want to get rid of the healthcare bill of rights that says that gender is no longer a preexisting condition and you can't discriminate against women because they happen to be women. They want to get rid of the protection you have against policies that have an annual cap, which means, if you get seriously hurt or seriously ill, you don't get covered. They want to get rid of the protection you have that says there can't

be lifetime caps that destroy healthcare, so that if you are seriously sick, then, you not only hit your annual limit, but you hit your lifetime limit and no more care for you. Now you have a preexisting condition, and you can't get a policy anywhere else.

As for that whole set of consumer protections--the healthcare bill of rights--my Republican colleagues want to bring this bill to the floor to destroy that entire set of rights. Then, they say: After we have destroyed all of this--destroyed the expansion of Medicaid, destroyed the funding for our healthcare clinics--somewhere down the road we might figure out a new way to provide healthcare--even though they have had year after year after year after year after year after year after year. Let's count them all up, from the years when we crafted the ACA-- with an incredible amount of Republican input, by the way. There were more than 100 Republican amendments that were adopted. All of those years later, and now what we have is the majority party's Republican plan to simply repeal all of these pieces that have given a healthcare bill of rights to Americans, that have given struggling Americans access to healthcare, and saying: We are just going to wipe it all away and have people return to where we were before, where the only healthcare insurance they had was to say a prayer each night.

That is not acceptable in a ``we the people'' republic. I know that as citizens across the country weigh in, they are going to say, as they again fill our inboxes and ring up our phones and visit our offices, that this is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to make it impossible for an entrepreneur to leave a big company and found their company because they now have access to healthcare. That is a beautiful thing. We have launched small businesses by the thousands and thousands and thousands because people were able to get healthcare without being at a large company--small businesses that used to have to just struggle to get any sort of coverage.

There have been a lot of battles between we the people and we the powerful over the history of the United States of America--this 241- year history. We have had those who wanted to suppress the ability of workers to organize and ask for a fair share of the wealth they were creating. They wanted to bust the union, but the union worked not only to have better benefits for the workers at the mine or at the mill but to have better work circumstances for all Americans--to have a 5-day workweek, to have an 8-hour workday, to have overtime paid at time and a half, to have safer working conditions, to end the exploitation of children in child labor sweatshops, and to have employer-based health coverage. Again and again, workers organizing in the workplace have fought not only for benefits in that workplace but for benefits for all working Americans.

That is a ``we the people'' battle against the powerful and privileged who want to squeeze the working people until they have nothing--nothing left.

We have had other ``we the people'' versus the powerful battles. We had one back in the 1920s, where the powerful said: Let's deregulate everything about the banking system. Let's turn it into a wild casino, and everybody will make a lot of money.

There was massive speculation. The stock market ran up like this, and then it crashed. When it crashed, it destroyed the finances of millions of American working families. It left millions of regular families homeless and destitute. My grandmother lived in a boxcar because of this reckless pursuit of more wealth and deregulation by the powerful and the privileged. Thousands of banks across the country closed. More than 1 million families lost their farms in the first 4 years as loans were called in. More than half of all Americans were impoverished. Ninety percent of children in mining communities were malnourished. All because ``we the privileged and powerful'' want to crush ``we the people.''

But ``we the people'' surged back. They elected a government that established protection for depositors of accounts in our banks, protection through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. They elected a government that said: Let's regulate and create honesty and integrity in the stock market--the Securities and Exchange Commission-- so it is a safe place to invest. We can invest with confidence. They created the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide electricity and modernize the impoverished Tennessee Valley region. They forged Social Security so that for the first time Americans could count on having some income when they retire.

We had another ``we the people'' versus ``we the powerful'' battle: the civil rights movement. There were those who wanted to suppress opportunity on the basis of race and on the basis of ethnicity. But ``we the people'' came together and said: Here in America, it is going to be a land of opportunity for every single individual. No matter your race, no matter your ethnicity, you get a chance to thrive here in the United States of America. The doors cannot be slammed in your face.

That incredible 1964 Civil Rights Act, forged right here in this Chamber where I am speaking at this very moment, was an incredible ``we the people'' moment.

But it is not a battle we have completely won because still even today in many States across our country doors are legally being slammed in the face of our LGBTQ community. So shouldn't we come back together, pass the Equality Act, and give every single American full opportunity in our country?

Right now, as we come to the conclusion of the healthcare battle between the privileged and the powerful and the people, we have a chance to step out of the extraordinarily partisan role that the majority in this Chamber has played, treasuring power over healthcare in order to--well, in order to what? What purpose? To what purpose? What mission is being fulfilled? Yes, more desks are on that side of the aisle than this side of the aisle, but shouldn't we be here to solve problems? Shouldn't we work together to make our healthcare system better?

Buried deep within that mean and meaner bill are a couple provisions that would make our healthcare system better. There is reinsurance, which enables a company to go into a new healthcare marketplace and be insured against having a disproportionate share of sick people. That makes a marketplace function. Remember, this was the Republican marketplace plan, and they have a provision deep in their bill that would make that marketplace work better.

The marketplace requires healthcare companies to know how much they are going to get paid. Right now, that is in limbo because President Trump has held up the cost-sharing payments and won't commit to them, so nobody knows how to price their policies. He is driving healthcare companies out of one county after another after another. They are saying: We don't know how to price our policies because we aren't told how much we will be compensated. Well, there is a provision deep within that Republican bill that says: We are going to nail down the cost sharing.

There is another provision in that bill that says we should spend more to take on the opioid epidemic. Let's pull that out.

Let's work together. Let's take the cost-sharing block down and the reinsurance proposal and the funding to take on opiates and other drug addiction across the country, combine them, and we will have something we can do to make our current healthcare system better--and make it better as we work en route to having a healthcare system where simply by virtue of being born an American, you have basic, affordable, quality healthcare. We are a ways from that, from a Medicare for all or a Medicaid for all, but shouldn't we aspire to have that kind of peace of mind rather than the complexity of the system we have now?

At this moment, we have the opportunity to set aside our partisanship and make healthcare work better for our ``we the people'' Nation, and we should seize that moment.

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

Mr. President, our Nation's courts are supposed to be bastions of justice. They are intended to be run by men and women of sober contemplation and scholarly reflection, with the temperament to put aside their own personal feelings and biases and consider the facts of the case before them in order to make the best judgments possible; men and women committed to a full and fair judiciary--a judiciary that respects our constitutional rights.

I am sorry to say that the nominee for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals does not meet those standards. This man is unfit to serve on the bench. As revealed by his own words in a series of blog posts written under a pseudonym, John Bush does not have the temperament or the impartiality to sit on a court where jurists such as William Howard Taft and many eminent others have sat.

Mr. Bush himself acknowledged during his confirmation hearing that ``many of the blog posts used flippant or intemperate language''-- something I believe is unbecoming of an individual nominated to sit on the Federal bench. But it wasn't just flippant language. It wasn't just intemperate language. He wrote in an extreme rightwing, partisan fashion. His confirmation would threaten women's rights and the rights of LGBTQ Americans. It would threaten Americans' voting rights. It would threaten issue after issue, topic after topic, of the rights embedded in our Constitution.

Let's take a few moments to look at his words and his record. Let's look first at women's rights and the extreme views he has held on this issue.

In 1993, he filed an amicus brief in a Supreme Court appeal defending the Virginia Military Institute's policy of not admitting women, stating that the military-style atmosphere of the institute ``does not appear to be compatible with the somewhat different developmental needs of most young women.'' He was basically indicating that young women cannot handle the same rigors as men or serve in the same capacities as men--certainly a myth that has been shattered time and time again. He is locked into an 1800s view of the world. I know that my daughter, I know that her friends, I know that my colleagues who serve in the Chamber certainly don't believe that a woman is incapable of serving in the same roles in which a man can serve.

There was a 2008 blog post Mr. Bush wrote conflating a woman's legal, constitutional right to choose with slavery. He wrote:

Slavery and abortion rely on similar reasoning and activist

justices at the U.S. Supreme Court . . . . first in the Dred

Scott decision, and later in Roe.

It is hard to imagine how an individual takes the extraordinary human condition of slavery and the lack of freedom involved in that and compares it to a woman making decisions, with the advice of her own doctor, about her own body. One is slavery, and one is freedom--clearly not the same thing. How could any woman walking into his courtroom believe she would get a fair hearing with his extreme anti-women views?

For that matter, Mr. Bush's words and actions call into question whether he would abide by and uphold precedent that is far more recent; that is, the rights of the LGBTQ community in America. The Supreme Court declared in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples enjoy the fundamental right to marry, just like any other couple. Yet Mr. Bush has repeatedly demonstrated insensitivity and contempt for the rights of the LGBTQ community.

In 2005, he gave a speech to a private club in Louisville. He apparently wanted to bond with his audience by saying something about the town of Louisville--something he found positive. So he chose to use a quote related to Hunter Thompson, who described Louisville in a quote that uses a derogatory term for gay men. In the piece, Thompson recites the words of a man named Jimbo, who said to him over a glass of double Old Fitz: ``I come here every year, and let me tell you one thing I've learned--this is no town to give people the impression you are some kind of. . . .'' Fill in the derogatory word--the pejorative for gay men. Of all the possible quotes this individual could choose to create a bond between himself and his audience in Louisville, he chooses to attack the LGBTQ community.

Now, he could have chosen any of a number of quotes. A member of my team did a very quick look. In moments, they found a quote from the great frontiersman Daniel Boone, saying: ``Soon after, I returned home to my family, with the determination to bring them as soon as possible to live in Kentucky, which I esteemed a second paradise.'' That would be a nice thing to describe about Kentucky--about connecting to your audience in Louisville rather than describing the characteristics of hatred and discrimination.

That is where this nominee comes from--full of his vile opinions about women and about a great spectrum of people in our Nation. So much for opportunity for all in the United States of America.

The following year, he coauthored a paper criticizing the Kentucky Supreme Court decision regarding the right to privacy, specifically focusing on LGBTQ communities.

Then, a couple of years later, with the State Department updating the passport applications, he ridiculed the effort to accommodate LGBTQ in one of his posts. At a time when we should be continuing to push our country forward toward ensuring that the community enjoys the full measure of equality they are entitled to in our Constitution and under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, confirming John Bush to be a Federal judge would certainly walk back many of the gains so many have made.

Then there is his opinion of money in politics. Our Constitution starts with those beautiful three words, ``We the People,'' not ``We the powerful who can spend billions of dollars in third-party campaigns to have a megaphone the size of a stadium sound system.'' No. Jefferson said, for us to really secure the will of the people, the individuals have to have essentially an equal voice.

This individual who is before us today doesn't like that whole concept of equal voice. He doesn't like the mission statement of the Constitution of the United States of America. He wants government by and for the powerful and the privileged and nothing less. Therefore, he should go and serve in some foreign country that doesn't have a vision of government of, by, and for the people. He certainly doesn't belong in our court system in the United States of America.

There is so much more that people have described, including his writing in support of the ``lock her up'' chants at last summer's Republican convention, his trafficking in birtherism, and more and more.

I will be vehemently opposing this confirmation. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Let's fight for the vision. Let's fight for the ``We the People'' mission on which our Constitution was founded and that we have the responsibility to uphold.

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