Floor Statements

Mr. President, climate disruption is the seminal challenge of our generation. It is the most significant test that human civilization on our planet has faced, and there are a lot of questions about how we are going to be able to come together as a community of nations and community of cultures to address this very significant threat to our beautiful blue-green planet.

It affects everything from our farms to our forests to our fisheries. We see the impact in terms of disappearing glaciers, shrinking ice sheets, melting permafrost and dying coral. We see the impact on our farms, our trout streams, and our forests. We see the impact with migrating animals, migrating insects, and more powerful storms.

In response, communities across the globe are taking action. They are transforming their energy economies. They are developing aggressive strategies to save energy in their buildings, in their vehicles, and in their appliances. They are working to replace their fossil fuel energy supplies with clean and renewable energy.

How much do you know about the changes underway? Let's find out. Welcome to episode 3 of the Senate Climate Disruption Quiz. The first question we have is, Why did American Airlines cancel 57 flights between June 20 and 22? Was it extreme temperatures? Was it a pilot strike? Was it severe storms? Was it a fuel shortage? The answer is A, extreme temperatures.

How is that the case?

When air gets hotter, it gets thinner. Thinner air provides less lift for planes to take off, and eventually the runway isn't long enough for the plane to go fast enough to get enough lift to clear the runway. Therefore, all of these flights got canceled.

It is not the first time it has happened. It happened in 2013 in Phoenix, with 18 flights canceled, but this was a pretty dramatic incident attributable to very extreme temperatures.

Let's turn to question No. 2. How long was the recent streak of record-setting monthly temperatures--meaning, for example, that a given month like May was the hottest May ever, June was the hottest June ever, and July was the hottest July ever? How many months in a row did this happen? Did it happen for 6 months in a row? Or for 12 months in a row? Is it conceivable that this streak extended beyond a year to 16 months or perhaps even for 2 years, to 24 months? Lock in your answer.

The correct answer is C, 16 months. From May 2015 through August 2016, each and every month was the hottest month on record. In September, 2016, the streak was broken, but only by a few hundredths of a degree. In fact, in September 2016, the temperature was still 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average.

I have a math question to put in here. If you had climate data and temperature data for 50 years, what are the odds that, by chance, 16 months in a row would be the hottest--each one the hottest among the 50 previous months? What are the odds of that? Pull out your calculators, and take 1 out of 50, and take it to the 16th power. What do you get? You get that the odds are less than 1 out of a trillion trillion. That is the odds. In other words, this didn't happen by chance.

Let's turn to question No. 3. Where in the world is the largest floating solar project? Maybe you have never even heard of a floating solar project. There is one. In fact, there are several. Where is the world's largest? Is it in China? Is it in Brazil? Is it in India? Or is it in Australia?

By the way, here is a hint. All four of these actually have floating solar projects. Lock in your answer. Here is the answer.

The answer is A, China.

India has a small floating solar project, and it generates about 100 kilowatts. Australia's is 40 times larger, at 4 megawatts, and it is roughly the equivalent of two wind turbines. Brazil's is yet larger, at 10 megawatts. The largest floating solar project by far is in Liulong, China. The 40-megawatt solar plant is able to provide enough energy to 15,000 homes. Because it floats, it uses less energy than most solar farms because the water acts as a natural coolant.

There is something very symbolic about this largest-in-the-world floating solar project, and that is that it sits on a lake caused by the collapse of abandoned coal mines. It is as if it is saying to us: Let's transition from a fossil fuel economy to a clean, renewable energy economy, like electrons produced by solar power.

Question No. 4, last year plug-in hybrids and fully electric vehicles made up less than 1 percent of global car sales. It is a very small amount. What was the percentage in Norway?

Was it half a percent behind the world average? Was it 15 percent? Was it 37 percent? Or, perhaps, was it even more than one out of two cars sold in Norway? Lock in your answer.

Here is the right answer. The answer is C, 37 percent. When the world average is under 1 percent, it is pretty impressive that Norway is at 37 percent.

In 2016, plug-in hybrids and fully electric cars made up 37 percent of the new car sales in Norway. That is a huge increase in just a couple of years. Three years earlier, the electric vehicles--the plug- in hybrids and fully electric vehicles--accounted for only 6 percent of Norway's sales. In a short 3 years, it went from 6 percent to 37 percent. This growth is a combination of fees on gas-powered and diesel-powered cars and subsidies for electric vehicles.

Let's look at what else is happening with cars in the world. Volvo has announced that all of its new models from 2019 forward will have some form of electric drive. Then you see the growth of companies like Tesla, which only produces electric cars. It is becoming increasingly clear that the future of the global auto industry is electric.

Let's turn to question No. 5, our final question. This one hits close to home for me as a Senator from Oregon. What killed billions of baby oysters in Oregon in 2007 and 2008? Was it red tide? Red tide occurs when an algae blooms, and it is a red bloom. It discolors the water, turns it red, and releases toxins that are absorbed by the clams and

other sea life, so that we can't go out and dig up our clams and eat them for fear of getting poisoned.

Was it red tide that killed the oysters? Or was it the POMS virus, or the Pacific Oyster Mortality Syndrome virus, which affects Pacific oysters and can cause up to 100 percent mortality within days of initial detection? Was it sea lice--tiny jellyfish larvae that are tiny, almost invisible specks that are no larger than a grain of pepper? Or was it rising ocean acidity, caused by the emission of billions of tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the air that get absorbed by the ocean through tidal action? Lock in your answer.

The correct answer is D, rising ocean acidity. How is this possible? How can you stand on the coast of Oregon and look out at the Pacific Ocean and envision that humankind has burned so much fossil fuel--so many fossil fuels--and that it has created so much carbon dioxide in the air and tidal action has absorbed that into the ocean and turned it into carbonic acid that it has changed the acidity of the ocean? It seems completely impossible. Yet over the last 150 years, the burning of fossil fuels by human civilization has increased the acidity of the ocean by 30 percent.

In 2007, when I was running for the U.S. Senate for the first time, the oysters started dying. The scientists got involved. They said: What is going on? They said: Is it a virus? Is it a bacterium?

It wasn't a virus. It wasn't a bacterium. After some time, they nailed it down simply to that the ocean water had become too acidic, that there was too much carbonic acid in the ocean from carbon dioxide pollution in the atmosphere. Where did that come from? From the burning of fossil fuels.

Now, the water comes into the Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery in a very large pipe, and then it has to be buffered; that is, the acidity has to be decreased before that water continues into the vats with the baby oysters. For all we know, they will have to do this forever more, until we can turn the clock back on global climate disruption.

If the oysters are being affected, what else is going to be affected in the sea chain? What is the impact on our coral reefs, which provide the foundation for many of the world's fisheries? That is something that we should rightly be very concerned about.

There you have it, folks, episode 3 of the Senate Climate Disruption Quiz. How did you do? How many of those questions did you get right? The facts on the ground are changing very quickly as climate disruption increases and communities across the globe respond. Together we are racing the clock, and there is no time to spare. So stay engaged in the fight.

In the near future, I will bring you episode 4 of the Senate Climate Disruption Quiz. In the meantime, if you have a good idea for a climate disruption question, please tweet that question to me at @SenJeffMerkley, using the hashtag ClimateQ4Jeff. Together, let's keep fighting to save our planet.

Henry David Thoreau said: What use is a home if you don't have a tolerable planet to put it on?

Let's work together to make sure we have a tolerable planet, a healthy planet, not just for this generation but for our children and our great-grandchildren and the generations to follow.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 words: ``We the People.''

Our Founders chose to write those words in supersized font so that we could, from some distance away, know exactly what the mission statement was. Their goal wasn't to write a structure for government that would repeat the governments of, by, and for the powerful of Europe but to pursue differently a vision in which the will of the people would be enacted; that government would work not just for the benefit of the citizens at large but also empowered by the citizens at large. This is a vision we have been very concerned about as we see the influence of the concentration of money in American politics.

Indeed, we have five members of the Supreme Court who don't understand the basic, fundamental nature of the first three words of our Constitution. They adopted a court case, Citizens United, which was the opposite of the vision of our Constitution. That vision was articulated by Thomas Jefferson, who said that the will of the people will be enacted only if each and every citizen has an equal voice. But Citizens United gives a dramatic, stadium-sized megaphone to the individuals who are the richest and most powerful in the country, at odds with that fundamental vision that Lincoln so well summarized as government of, by, and for the people.

We have certainly seen the case of government by and for the powerful in the context of the recent TrumpCare bill--the Senate version thereof--crafted in secret by 13 of my colleagues from across the aisle, hiding from the press, hiding from the healthcare stakeholders and experts, hiding from their own citizens. In fact, during this last break, of the 52 Members of the Republican caucus, apparently-- reportedly--only a couple had townhalls because they were terrified of what their citizens would say about the bill they have been crafting in secret--the secret 13.

This bill is also known as the zero, zero, zero bill--zero committee meetings, zero amendments considered in committee, zero months of opportunity for Senators to go back and consult with their citizens back in their home States.

Then what do we find as a result of this secret process of government by and for the powerful? A bill to rip healthcare from 22 million Americans in order to deliver hundreds of billions of dollars to the richest Americans. In fact, if you want to summarize it, you can say that this bill gives $33 billion--not $33,000, not $33 million but $33 billion--to the richest 400 Americans while ripping healthcare away from 700,000. That is the number who could be funded by that same $33 billion. That would cover all of the Medicaid recipients in Alaska and Arkansas and West Virginia and Nevada. This has incredibly grave consequences for the peace of mind and the quality of life for these millions of Americans. It rips $772 billion out of Medicaid.

We know the Medicaid expansion in Oregon has enabled 400,000 people to acquire healthcare in my home State--400,000. If they were holding hands, they would stretch from the Pacific Ocean to the State of Idaho, across the entire east-west breadth of my State.

Think about how much of an impact this has on rural Americans. One out of three Oregonians in rural Oregon are on the Oregon Health Plan, Oregon's Medicaid Program. It has a big impact on our seniors--our seniors in long-term care.

Oregon is a leader in helping families, helping individuals stay in their homes as their healthcare deteriorates. But when they can no longer stay in their home because of the extensive nature of their care, many then are, through Medicaid, able to go and get care--long- term care--in a nursing home. That long-term care, paid for by the Oregon Health Plan, covers about 60 percent of the individuals in long- term care, but in rural Oregon, it is much higher.

I was in Klamath Falls at a nursing home. I was citing the national statistic, 60 percent, and the head of the nursing home said: Senator, here, it is virtually 100 percent.

I looked at those residents down that long hallway who needed intensive nursing healthcare, and one woman asked why I was there. Her name was Deborah. When I explained it, she said: I am paid for by Medicaid. If Medicaid goes away, I am out on the street. That is a problem because I can't walk.

It is not just a problem for Deborah. It is a problem for all of our residents in long-term care who need extensive nursing care. It is a challenge. It is a real challenge. It is a real problem for our mothers. One out of three women in maternity care are paid for by Medicaid. Don't we want our children to get a good, strong start in life? Don't we want maternity care from the moment a woman knows she is expecting a child? Don't we want that? Then why do so many of my colleagues support a bill to tear that care away from our expecting mothers?

It is a problem for our older Americans, our older Americans whose rates would go way up. For example, a man who is 60 years old, earning $20,000 a year, who currently pays about $80 a month for healthcare--an affordable policy. Under the Republican TrumpCare bill, that would go to $570 a month.

I challenge my colleagues, find me someone earning $20,000 a year who can pay $570 a month for healthcare. Find that individual and defend your plan on the floor of the Senate as to why that isn't equivalent to just taking healthcare away from that individual.

Then, of course, we have the issue of preexisting conditions. People sometimes have an injury in high school football or maybe it is in softball or gymnastics or in wrestling that they carry with them their entire lives. Maybe it is something that develops further on in life. Maybe it is asthma, diabetes, or an episode of cancer. Now they have a preexisting condition. Under our old healthcare system, prior to 2009, 2010, they couldn't acquire insurance unless they were fortunate enough to get it through that job, which millions of Americans do not get it through their workplace. They were out in the cold, out on the ice.

Now we have this Republican TrumpCare bill. They want to throw those citizens back on the ice who have preexisting conditions, not their friends who are wealthy enough to buy healthcare on their own or heads of corporations who get big benefit packages--not them, no, just the struggling working Americans.

Don't we care about struggling working Americans? Aren't we a ``we the people'' nation, not a ``we the privileged'' nation? I encourage my colleagues to read up on the first three words of our Constitution and what it means.

Then we have the plan my colleague from Texas has presented. It is referred to as the Cruz amendment. The Cruz amendment--the Cruz amendment for fake insurance. It works like this. It says, if an insurance company provides one policy with extensive benefits--that is, benefits essential to ordinary healthcare like maternity care and the ability to go to a hospital, the ability to get a broken bone repaired, the ability to get affordable drugs, just the basics of healthcare-- they have one policy with these essential benefits. They can offer policies that cover virtually nothing. These are known as fake insurance.

We have a President who likes to talk about fake news virtually every day. Why do we have a President who

hates fake news but loves fake insurance? Why do I have 52 colleagues here who apparently love fake insurance?

Here is what it does. It means the young and the healthy get those policies because they cost very little, and they make a bet that they aren't going to get hurt and they are not going to get sick. That means that those who are older and those who have preexisting conditions have to go for the policy that has those essential benefits, but now because only the older individuals and the sicker individuals are getting that policy, it is way beyond reach.

Earlier I described how a 60-year-old at $20,000 has a policy that increases seven times, from $80 a month to $570 a month. The Cruz amendment would make that much worse. It makes fake insurance for the young or the wealthy and unaffordable policies for those who are older and have preexisting conditions.

Our President said the House bill is mean, but the Senate bill is meaner. The House bill would knock 14 million people out of healthcare within a single year. The Senate bill, that is 15 million people.

The American Medical Association has long operated under the precept of, first, do no harm. Wouldn't that be a good principle for legislation on healthcare? Is it any wonder that the USA TODAY poll says only one out of eight Americans likes this Republican TrumpCare bill. We can turn to the PBS NewsHour poll, 17 percent. That is quite a small number of Americans who understand that ripping healthcare from 22 million people in order to give hundreds of billions of dollars to the richest Americans is one of the biggest takings this country has ever seen proposed and one that so deeply and profoundly damages the quality of life for these Americans.

Our Presidents--Republican and Democratic--over time have understood this. President Eisenhower said:

Because the strength of our nation is in its people, their

good health is a proper national concern; healthy Americans

live more rewarding, more productive and happier lives.

He continued:

Fortunately, the nation continues its advance in bettering

the health of all its people.

Today, on the floor of the Senate, we have a different philosophy, not the Eisenhower strategy of advancing the bettering of the health of all of our people but in fact the Trump policy echoed by so many of my colleagues that is about destroying the healthcare for millions of people, taking us back in time to a place where peace of mind was missing for millions of Americans because they couldn't either afford healthcare or because their policies didn't cover anything. Other Presidents over time have weighed in with very similar sentiments to that which President Eisenhower put forward.

Let's hear it from the citizens back home. Kathryn, from Springfield, has battled cancer three times over the last 12 years. Kathryn says that during her last two bouts with cancer, in 2010 and 2011, she was ``blessed enough to have qualified for the Oregon Health Plan'' and that without it she would not be here today.

Indeed, healthcare coverage has been a blessing to so many. Let's not rip those blessings away.

Let's go to Beth in Bend and her 34-year-old son who is living with a rare genetic condition and relies on the Oregon Health Plan to survive. In 2012, doctors found tumors along his spine and areas of concern in his brain and his lungs. They are benign now but could turn into cancer at any time. Beth's son's life depends on regular, expensive MRIs to monitor them. He is only able to afford those MRIs because of the Oregon health plan.

As Beth says, ``If the ACA is repealed and replaced with TrumpCare, my son will most likely lose his current health insurance . . . the loss of access to affordable insurance is a potential death sentence for my son.''

Medical professionals like Caitlin, a nurse in Portland, tell us how significant this is, and she writes:

With the passage of ObamaCare, I saw people were finally

able to come and be seen by our medical teams. Often their

disease processes were so advanced that we would have to take

very extreme measures to try to halt or reverse these disease

processes.

But as time has passed, we're able to catch things sooner

and people can actually go to primary care rather than

waiting until it's a matter of life or death and having to be

seen in the Emergency Department.

I am struck by Liz from Enterprise, who works at a clinic and told me that the clinic has expanded in this very small, remote town in Northeast Oregon from 20-something employees to 50-something employees. It has doubled in size, which means an incredible improvement in healthcare. She went on to say that they have been able to take on mental health as well, which they never were able to do before. Why could they afford to do this? Because the uncompensated care dropped so dramatically that their finances improved, and they were able to hire more staff.

Let's ask about John in Sherwood. John wrote about his grandmother. He lost his grandmother to Alzheimer's a few months ago, but thanks to the Oregon Health Plan, his grandmother was able to live in a nursing home and get the care she needed 24 hours a day right up until the end.

As John says, ``I'm forever thankful for the work of President Obama and Congress for passing the ACA. If they wouldn't have passed this bill, my grandmother wouldn't have gotten the care she needed from those great men and women at the nursing home.''

These stories go on forever. Over this last weekend, I did a series of townhalls in rural Oregon, parts of Oregon that would be painted red on a political map. I held those townhalls and then went to a series of other Main Street walks with mayors and small incorporated cities. What I heard everywhere I went--inviting the entire community to come to the townhall and talk--was enormous anxiety, enormous anxiety and disappointment that the leaders they are counting on here to make our healthcare system work better care more about giving more American tax dollars away to the richest Americans than they do about fundamental healthcare for struggling working families across our Nation.

Let's listen to those individuals. I know most of my colleagues didn't go home and listen to their constituents. As I mentioned, it has been reported that only a couple of my Republican colleagues held a townhall, even though this bill would affect them so profoundly. Still, their voices are echoing through this building, through the emails, through the phone calls, through the individuals who are coming and visiting our offices both here and back home. Let's listen to those voices. Let's be a ``we the people'' nation that works in partnership with the American people to make this world, this Nation, provide a foundation for every family to thrive.

That means we have to take an oak stick and pound it through the heart of TrumpCare and bury it 6 feet under and then work together in a bipartisan fashion. Think of all we could do. We know that when you strip away reinsurance, you destroy the market for insurance companies to go into new areas and compete. Let's restore that reinsurance.

We know that when the President holds on to the cost-share payments and will not say whether he is releasing them, our companies don't know how to price their policies, and they are dropping out of the exchanges across this Nation. County after county health insurance companies are fleeing because the President will not tell them whether he is releasing these cost-share payments. We can fix that.

We know we have a meth and opioid epidemic across this country. I have heard my colleagues on both sides say we have to take this on in a more courageous, more substantial fashion. We passed authorizing legislation, but let's put funds behind that. Let's do that, and let's take on the high cost of pharmaceuticals.

These four things we can do together. The country would love to see Democrats and Republicans working together to make our healthcare system work better. That is exactly what we should be doing in representing the citizens of the United States of America in a ``we the people'' democratic republic.

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

Mr. President, let's revisit recent history. Four weeks ago,

my Republican colleagues were meeting secretly in this building, in a hallway that the press was not allowed in because they didn't want to have the press see them sneaking in and sneaking out of this completely undemocratic process--13 Republican men crafting a healthcare plan to destroy healthcare for 22 million Americans. That is where we were 4 weeks ago.

We made a big deal out of the fact that is not the way a Congress is supposed to operate. You are supposed to have committee hearings. You are supposed to have committee debate and invite experts in. You are supposed to have time to consult with your constituents back home, but none of that was happening. No, we had the Republican zero-zero-zero process: Zero committee meetings. How does that compare to more than 100 committee meetings and roundtables and walkthroughs from 8 years ago? Zero committee amendments. How does that compare to more than 400 amendments that were considered 8 years ago and more than 100 minority amendments, Republican amendments, that were adopted in this process? Zero exposure of the bill to the folks back home and to the healthcare stakeholders.

Then, 2 weeks ago, we had a draft, and we had a chance to circulate that draft and get a few folks from home to weigh in on what it looked like. We received a CBO analysis. Yes, it looked a lot like the House bill. The House bill was going to eliminate 14 million healthcare policies in a year, and the Senate was going to best that by eliminating healthcare for 15 million Americans and 22 million Americans over a 10-year period.

The President had called the House bill mean, but we had the even meaner Senate bill. Fortunately, we were able to create such a fuss that the majority leader canceled the vote--the vote that was going to take place with the zero committee hearings and zero amendments and that would give my colleagues the opportunity to go home and talk to their constituents. But what happened?

Well, in the course of this entire year, two-thirds of my Republican colleagues haven't held a single townhall, and last week, when they had a full opportunity to finally take their secret 13 bill--zero-zero-zero bill--and ask their constituents what they thought, they didn't hold townhalls. By best count, 2 Senators across the aisle held a townhall out of 52.

Why are my colleagues so terrified of their constituents? Is it because wiping out health insurance for struggling Americans is a travesty? Is it because wiping out healthcare for working Americans is a crime--a crime against decency? Is it because their bill proceeds to give $33 billion to the richest 400 Americans? No, that is not $33,000 or $33 million, that is $33 billion to the richest 400 Americans--more than several hundred billion dollars to the richest Americans overall. You know, the money they want to give to the top 400 richest Americans would fund healthcare for more than 700,000 Americans under Medicaid.

Well, I went home. I went to a lot of places. I went to three cities in what you might call blue Oregon. I went to 13 towns in what can clearly be called red Oregon--predominantly Republican Oregon. I went to towns like Echo and Helix; Adams and Athena; Weston and Sumpter; Granite and Greenhorn, with 37 individuals; and Adams, with a population of 348. I went to larger towns like North Powder and Wallowa; and Baker City, Burns and Nyssa.

In six of those Republican towns, I held full townhalls, and what did I hear? I heard that the top concern was healthcare because constituents in red America across this country are terrified of the secret 13's bill and all that it involves. What would it do in my home State? Well, 400,000 Oregonians under the Oregon Health Plan would lose their care. At least another 100,000 would lose their care because of the changes in the way the exchange operates. They kind of put their minds to work at what the picture looks like from the draft the Republicans were willing to circulate after we applied extensive pressure. And what did we hear? Well, we heard that they are very concerned about extinguishing the expansion of Medicaid. Those are folks who are working hard but struggling, often in multiple part-time jobs.

We heard about the fact that Medicaid pays for more than two out of three individuals on long-term care in rural America. In fact, I went to one nursing home and asked: Does Medicaid--Oregon Health Plan--pay for two-thirds of your residents?

They said: No, Senator. Here in Klamath Falls, it is nearly 100 percent.

Realize that an individual who is getting paid-for, long-term care under Medicaid has to have assets of less than $2,000. So there is no backup plan. You wipe out healthcare for those 400,000 individuals who are on expanded Medicaid, many of whom are in long-term care, and they have no backup plan.

One woman, Debra, said to me: Senator, I am paid for by Medicaid, and if they cut Medicaid, I will be out on the street. That will be a problem because I can't walk.

That is right, Debra, you are in trouble, and so is every other individual who is funded through Medicaid for long-term care.

What about maternity care? One out of three individuals in rural Oregon and rural America who is preparing to have a baby is funded through Medicaid. Children and the disabled are funded through Medicaid.

What do we get as an alternative now that the Republicans are back, having ducked their constituents? They want a new plan to offer? Well, they are talking about the Cruz plan. Now, this is interesting. It is a plan that says an insurance company can offer policies that cover nothing as long as they have at least one policy that covers quite a bit, which means the young and the healthy buy the policy that covers almost nothing, and then the policy that covers quite a bit that older Americans and those with preexisting conditions need becomes incredibly expensive because the group in that pool are people with lots of healthcare problems, and it creates a death spiral in insurance.

Well, at the one end of the spectrum, you have a death spiral for insurance policies that cover a lot; at the other end of the spectrum, you have fake insurance because it covers virtually nothing. Oh, maybe it only costs $50 a month. Oh, isn't that wonderful--until you find out it doesn't cover a day in the hospital; doesn't cover a trip to the emergency room; doesn't cover maternity care; doesn't cover drugs. In fact, it doesn't cover anything.

Why is it that a President who is so concerned about fake news is so interested in supporting fake insurance?

My constituents back home told me a lot of stories. These are stories that I hope to share in the next couple of days, but right now, I think it is important that we hear from my colleague from Virginia, Senator Tim Kaine, because he has also been looking in detail at this bill. He also understands what a devastating consequence TrumpCare will have for American healthcare.

Can't we come together with a better vision? Can't we come together and make the marketplace work better, restore the reinsurance that has ripped apart the ability of insurance companies to go into new markets? Can't we restore the cost-sharing payments that buy down the premiums, in fact improve them, so there are lower premiums and lower deductibles? Can't we come together and do a better job of funding opioid treatment? Can't we come together and take on the high costs of drugs in general, which is driving costs in the healthcare system? Just those four things would be something very positive to make our current healthcare system even better.

Let's work together to make healthcare here in the United States of America even better, not tear it down and destroy it, as is being proposed by my Republican colleagues.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my intern, Gloria Ramirez, be granted privileges of the floor for the balance of the day.

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

In response, communities across the globe are transforming their energy economies. They are increasing the energy efficiency of their buildings and their vehicles and their appliances, and they are replacing carbon-polluting fossil fuel energy with clean, renewable energy.

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

Welcome to episode No. 2 of the Senate Climate Disruption Quiz.

First question: Which car company announced just last week that all of its new models will have an electric motor starting in 2019? Was it Toyota, which has the Prius currently, the Prius plug-in? Was it Volvo, known for its safety, or Honda, which advocates its fuel efficiency, or Ford, which has the all-electric Focus?

The answer is B: Volvo. On July 5, Volvo announced that beginning in 2019, every new model in its fleet will have some form of electric propulsion. These cars will include so-called ``mild'' hybrids featuring regenerative braking like the Prius, plug-in hybrids like the Volt, and fully electric cars like the Tesla. Volvo intends to do all of these forms.

Now with electric cars in mind, let's move on to question No. 2: Which European country plans to ban the sale of new diesel and gas vehicles by the year 2040? Is it France or Spain or the United Kingdom or Switzerland? The answer is France.

Last week, on July 6, France's Environment Minister Nicolas Hulot announced a new environmental plan for his country to reflect France's commitment to the Paris climate agreement. Minister Hulot not only said that France will ban the sale of new diesel and gas cars starting in 2040, but will seek to shut down all of its coal-powered electric plants over the next 5 years--by the year 2022--and to pursue a ``carbon-neutral'' economy by the year 2050. That is the same as a net zero production of carbon dioxide.

Let's turn to a different part of the world. Let's go to the Southern Hemisphere. A crack in the Antarctic ice shelf will soon create an iceberg of what size? Will it be the size of Oregon, my home State, which is roughly 100,000 square miles; or the size of the Superdome in New Orleans, about 6 acres; or how about the size of Manhattan, 23 square miles; or Delaware, which is much larger, at about 2,000 square miles? The answer is D, Delaware.

The crack in this ice shelf will create an iceberg about the size of Delaware.

This is Antarctica's fourth largest ice shelf. The crack is now 120 miles long, and in some spots now it is 2 miles wide, and there are just 3 miles left in which it is attached to the ice shelf. So given the stresses that are being applied to that vast sheet of ice, the break is expected to happen in the next couple of weeks. When that happens, we will have an iceberg larger than 2,000 square miles--about the size of Delaware--and this will be such a large iceberg that it will contain roughly 1 trillion tons of ice.

Question No. 4: Global production of what fossil fuel fell by 6.2 percent in 2016? Was it coal or was it oil or was it natural gas?

The answer is A: coal. According to British Petroleum's annual report, global coal production fell by over 6 percent last year--the largest decline since they started keeping statistics in 1950. What is driving the decline? It is shrinking coal production in both the United States and in China.

What is happening in the other two sectors--oil and gas? There was a slight increase in the production of oil last year, and the production of natural gas was basically flat.

Now, compare these to renewable energy, which grew very quickly last year. Global wind energy grew by more than 15 percent in a single year, but that is a small amount compared to global solar energy, which grew by almost 30 percent--in a single year, almost a one-third increase in global production. And renewable energy is now taking up a larger share of the primary energy production worldwide.

Finally question No. 5: How many U.S. cities have joined the ``We Are Still In'' coalition? That is the coalition that was formed after President Trump announced he was going to withdraw the United States from the Paris accord. Is it 15 cities, 125 cities, 500 cities, or just 100 cities?

The correct answer is B, and of course the number is increasing even as we speak. President Trump announced on June 1 that he would pull the United States out of the Paris accord and, in just that short period since--a little over 5 weeks--125 cities, 9 States, 900 businesses and investors, and 183 colleges and universities have declared that they are committed to the vision of the Paris Agreement and to taking steps to be part of obtaining and securing that vision. Together, this coalition represents 120 million Americans and a $6.2 trillion share of the U.S. economy.

It includes cities from the West, like Los Angeles, and the East, such as Baltimore. It includes cities in red States, like Houston, TX, and Tucson, AZ. It includes cities from the Southwest and Southeast, like Santa Fe, NM, from the Southwest, and Charleston, SC, in the Southeast.

These are just a few of the 125 cities--cities led by Democrats and Republicans--because the fact is, the threat of climate disruption to our planet is not a partisan issue. It is not a red issue or a blue issue; it is an issue that impacts everyone on this globe, regardless of political ideology.

So there you have it, folks. Episode No. 2 of the Senate Climate Disruption Quiz--questions ripped right from the headlines. How did you score?

Every week we have surprising new facts--new facts on the ground about the changes in the environment and new facts about the response of communities across the globe.

There is no question that we are racing the clock to take this on as human civilization, and there is no time to spare. So stay engaged in the fight.

In the near future, I will bring you Episode No. 3 of the Senate Climate Disruption Quiz to present some of the new issues that will unfold in the coming days. If you are following this quiz at home and have a good idea for a climate disruption question, please tweet it to me at @SenJeffMerkley on Twitter, using the hash tag ClimateQ4Jeff.

Let's fight together and save our beautiful blue-green planet.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I extend to my colleague from Hawaii every blessing for her successful health treatment. I know the thoughts and prayers of every Member of the Senate are with her tomorrow and beyond as she undertakes that healing path.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Hawaii tonight. They are certainly very relevant to the issue of healthcare here in America because each of us hopes that if a loved one gets ill, they will have the peace of mind that they know they will be able to get the healthcare they need and they will not go bankrupt in the process. Yet here we are tonight debating a bill titled ``Better Care Act.''

Better Care, has ever there been a bill in the history of the United States of America so more perversely named than this Better Care Act which strips care from 22 million Americans?

I was very struck by one equation of this bill; that is, that it provides to the richest 400 Americans $33 billion over a 10-year period. That is enough to pay for healthcare under Medicaid for 700,000 individuals--700,000 individuals. It rips the healthcare away from them to give $33 billion to the richest 400 families. That is obscene. That is certainly not better care.

It is hard for me to imagine that a single Member of this body would vote to proceed to this bill, but here we are. Until we get agreement that we are not going to proceed, we have to continue to carry on this fight.

We know that 15 million people, CBO estimates, will lose healthcare in the next 12 months. That is even worse than the House bill. Last week, I came to this floor to call the Senate draft mean and meaner. The House bill was mean. The Senate's is meaner. Now we have the CBO estimate that says, yes, it is worse. One million more people would lose healthcare in a short period of time.

Furthermore, the rate at which standard Medicaid is compressed-- Medicaid, as it existed before ObamaCare, that rate has increased to further diminish healthcare, having nothing to do with ObamaCare, just to add to the cruelty of this bill. So millions lose, but we deliver billions of dollars to the richest Americans.

In my home State of Oregon, just the elimination of the expansion of Medicaid, the Oregon health plan--just that would eliminate 400,000 Oregonians off healthcare.

Imagine those individuals holding hands, 400,000 Oregonians, stretching from the Pacific Ocean to the State of Idaho. Anyone who has driven across Oregon would realize it is 400 miles across Oregon. If you are driving it, it is 7 hours of driving. For 7 hours, at 50 miles an hour, 60 miles an hour, you are passing a stream of people who would lose their healthcare just from the elimination of the expansion of Medicaid.

My colleagues across the aisle have crafted this so as to put it beyond the next Presidential election, beyond the 2018 election and beyond the 2020 election. Why? They are so terrified of the impact of this on the election they decided to postpone it until after 2018 and 2020, as if that makes it acceptable to rip healthcare from millions of people. That type of cynical, cynical act, purely political, is not going to be viewed well by the American public.

If you are so ashamed of this bill, if someone is so ashamed that they want to postpone the effects beyond the next Presidential election 3\1/2\ years from now, then maybe you should be so ashamed as not to vote to move to the bill here in the short term.

One of our colleagues across the aisle noted today: I can't imagine-- not quite the exact word-for-word, but it is close. I can't imagine that anyone in America would have a chance to review this bill and truly understand it in time to proceed to it this week, including myself.

Well, that is certainly true. Has there ever been a case where a bill profoundly affecting so many has not had the benefit of committee deliberation here in the Senate? Are we a legislative body or are we a dictatorship where everything is done behind closed doors

and then rammed through? That is not the American way, and that is not the constitutional vision for how the Senate should work. There is supposed to be time to consult healthcare experts and time to go home to consult our constituents and find out how they feel.

If one is so terrified of this bill that you are afraid of your constituents, then you shouldn't vote to proceed to the bill. If one is so terrified you don't want to consult the experts, you shouldn't proceed to this bill. If you are so terrified that the reaction from the public will be so strong that it will put you in an awkward spot, then you shouldn't proceed to this bill--because you have the responsibility to consult with your folks back home, a responsibility to consult with healthcare experts, to understand every nuance of this bill.

One of those facts is going to have a devastating impact on those who would go to nursing homes. Folks who are under Medicaid and in a nursing home have given up their entire income and assets before they can get Medicaid support.

I was in Klamath Falls the weekend before this last weekend, went to a nursing home, and they said: Senator, almost 100 percent of the folks here on long-term care are paid for by Medicaid. I thought they were going to say 60 percent or two-thirds, because that is the national statistic. No, in rural Oregon, in Klamath Falls, almost 100 percent.

Then we had the CEO of the Oregon Health Association reach out and address this issue of how it is going to affect seniors. Here are his exact words:

I was on a call early today looking at some projections of

how hard Oregon and Medicaid-funded long-term care service

would be hit. If this bill passes, it literally could force

the closure of the majority of nursing facilities in Oregon

by 2025.

One thing I can't get out of my mind. At another nursing home I went to is a woman named Deborah. I explained I was coming by to talk to people because I wanted to understand better the impact of this bill on long-term care.

She said: Senator, I am paid for by Medicaid. If Medicaid disappears, I am on the street, and that is a problem because I can't walk.

That is exactly what Deborah said. And, of course, it is a problem, not only because she can't walk but because she needs extensive care, which is why she is in long-term care to begin with.

The anxiety was palpable among the nursing home residents, among the long-term care residents, because they have no backup plan, because they had to spend down their assets before they qualified for Medicare. Don't think of this just as ripping healthcare away from millions of working families, millions of struggling families, millions of children, but also from our seniors who are in long-term care, who need extensive care, and who have given up their assets in order to qualify for Medicaid. They used those assets to pay for it as long as they could, and now they are on Medicaid. We are prepared to take those folks, many of them in wheelchairs--like Deborah, unable to walk--and throw them into the street and say: too bad.

The President called the House bill mean and indicated he wanted a bill with more heart. This is not a bill with more heart. We should not move to proceed to this bill.

Mr. President, on May 4 of this year, there was a party at the White House, a celebration--a celebration that the House had passed TrumpCare. Indeed, the President wanted to invite people over and say what a great job they had done and what a great bill they had passed. He called it a ``great plan.'' He said the House plan was ``very, very incredibly well-crafted.''

That was on May 4--a party at the White House, a celebration--but what a difference a month can make. A week ago, on Tuesday, June 13, the President had another gathering, and at this gathering he said that the bill from the House was ``mean,'' and he went on to use a very derogatory phrase to describe it.

So what happened between May 4 and June 13? Did the bill change in some way? Absolutely not. It had already been passed out of the House. Apparently what happened is that someone explained to the President what was in it, and he said: That is terrible. We can't do that. It is a mean bill. And he used other vivid language to say just how bad it was.

What feature of the TrumpCare bill did the President get briefed on that made him say that it was mean? It certainly is a mean-spirited bill. It certainly is a hard-hearted bill. It certainly is destructive to the quality of life of millions and millions of Americans. So which aspect of the bill was he referring to?

I asked that question of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, when he came to the Senate for a hearing last week. I asked the Secretary if he shared the President's opinion that the TrumpCare bill was a mean bill. He didn't have an answer for that. He wouldn't say whether, as a leader in the administration on healthcare, he shared the President's opinion.

I asked whether he thought the President thought it was a mean- spirited bill because it ripped healthcare from 23 million Americans. The Secretary of healthcare didn't answer.

I asked whether it was mean because it eliminated essential health benefits like emergency care and rehabilitation services and mental health and addiction treatment and maternity coverage for women having a child. The Secretary again refused to answer.

And he proceeded to say things like ``Well, I wasn't in the meeting,'' and that he hadn't talked to the President about why the President didn't like the bill. One would think that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, upon hearing that the President thought that the bill he had advocated for was terrible, would actually go to him and say: What is it you thought was so terrible? That might inform the conversations here in the Senate. But he said that he hadn't talked to the President about it. The Secretary of Health and Human Services didn't want to know why the President disliked this bill.

I asked if the President thought that this was a mean bill because it has vast premium increases for older Americans. An individual in their mid-sixties, prior to the age for Medicare, a 64-year-old earning $26,500--how much would they pay under current law and how much would they pay under TrumpCare? Under current law, the answer is about $140 a month. And under TrumpCare from the House, the answer is $1,200 per month--an eightfold increase. How can anyone earning a little over $2,000 a month spend $1,200 on health insurance? It is an impossible situation.

So, of course, those Americans in that situation would not be able to buy health insurance, would not be able to access healthcare. Is that why the President thought it was mean? Did the President get briefed on the damage it would do to our older Americans? Or was the President concerned about the impact on our older Americans who need to have care in a nursing home? Is the President finally aware that Medicaid pays for more than 6 out of 10 individuals who are in a nursing home because they need a level of care that can't be provided in the home?

I went and visited a nursing home over the weekend in urban Oregon and then visited one in rural Oregon, in Klamath County. In Klamath County they told me that almost 100 percent of their citizens in long- term care are paid for by Medicaid. Nationally, it is a little more than 6 out of 10, but in this rural community, almost 100 percent. I thought about the residents there and what happens to them. Under this bill, when Medicaid is slashed massively and 23 million folks lose access to it, what happens to them? One woman, Deborah, said: Senator, Medicaid pays for my bill and if it doesn't exist for me--if it is taken away--I am on the street, and that is a problem because I can't walk.

So picture an older American, a senior American who needs an intensive level of care that can't be provided in the home being thrown into the street in a wheelchair, unable to walk, and, by the way, no support structure because in order to qualify for Medicaid to pay your bill, you have to have spent down all your own resources, so it isn't like somebody has a backup plan. Maybe there are family members who will take them in and provide an intensive level of care. Maybe a few will have friends who will take them in and provide an intensive level of care. But for the vast majority, that support structure isn't there, and that means they are going to be on the street. Is that why the President said it was mean?

Was it because the bill said States can charge more, allow insurance companies to charge more for individuals with preexisting conditions? That is certainly a huge problem. Community pricing has given access to insurance at the same price to everyone in America, regardless of preexisting conditions, but, unfortunately, TrumpCare changes that.

I think we need to recognize that now, here in the Senate, 13 Senators are working to craft a Senate version of TrumpCare, and they are terrified--terrified of the public seeing their bill. It is a vampire bill. It is afraid of the sunlight--the sunlight of public commentary, input, even a public discussion from experts. They are afraid of their citizens. They are afraid of the expert commentary. And they want to hide it until the last second so they can bring it to the floor--next Thursday, a week from this Thursday--and try to pass it in a moment's time, less than a day.

I was fascinated that our Secretary of Health and Human Services-- after there were more than 100 hearings and roundtables and walk- throughs of the healthcare bill in 2009, after consideration of more than 300 amendments in the Senate, after more than 100 Republican amendments that were adopted,

minority amendments adopted, after more than 25 days of debate on the Senate floor--complained that the bill and the process were not transparent. If that wasn't transparent, how do you score the transparency of a bill where there have been zero committee meetings, zero chance for legislators to weigh in, zero chance for public input by experts, zero chance for the citizens of the United States to see this bill and share their feelings, zero chance for us to go back to our own States and have townhalls and ask for input? Well, you give it an F. It is a process completely out of sync with the responsibilities that every Senator took when they took the oath of office to be a Member of a legislative body--not a secret body, a legislative body, which implies deliberation in committee and deliberation on the floor and deliberation with constituents back home.

There is a phrase for the Senate--probably not merited; in fact, I am sure it is no longer merited--that the Senate was the world's greatest deliberative body. But crafting legislation in secret that affects the quality of life of millions and millions of Americans, with no deliberation, that is not a legislative process. That is not what was envisioned under our Constitution, our ``we the people'' Constitution. It wasn't a ``we the secret group of powerful folks accommodating powerful special interests, government by and for the powerful.'' That wasn't the introduction to our Constitution. Perhaps Members might read the first three words of the Constitution. Perhaps folks might go back and look at our history of why we have this floor to debate the issues, because that is what a system of government of, by, and for the people is all about.

In my home State, the elimination of Medicaid expansion--that is, the Oregon Health Plan expansion--would throw 400,000 people off of healthcare. Stretching that timeline from a couple years to 7 years doesn't change the fact that 400,000 people lose healthcare. That is mean-spirited. That is hard-hearted. That is terrible healthcare policy.

It is not just those individuals who are affected. The uncompensated care rate has dropped enormously in Oregon, from 15 percent to 5 percent. The result is that there is much more income to our clinics and to our hospitals, and the result is better healthcare for everyone--everyone in our rural communities, everyone in our urban communities. Nonetheless, the majority persists in wanting to destroy this improvement.

I am hearing from people like Elizabeth from Portland, who wrote to say that the Oregon Health Plan saved her life. The Oregon Health Plan, or Medicaid, saved her life. She was in school, and she had some health problems that were getting worse because of stress. But she didn't have a job and didn't have insurance, and things were getting bad. Then the Affordable Care Act came around, and it extended coverage. Since then, she has gotten her health problems under control, finished school, and was able to get a job. In Elizabeth's own words:

I am once again contributing to society. I just need a

little bit of time and help and I'm back on my feet.

Isn't it the right thing to provide a foundation for every single American to have access to quality healthcare, so that when they get sick, it helps them get back on their feet?

Ask yourself: What is your value? Is it your value that every American should have access to affordable healthcare? That is my value. That is what I am fighting for. What are you fighting for? Are you fighting to destroy healthcare for millions of Americans? Is that your value--to make life difficult and hard and mean-spirited and hard- hearted and terrible and painful for millions of Americans? Is that your value? If so, then keep up with this secret plan to destroy healthcare for millions of Americans. But if you value your constituents' quality of life, if you value their peace of mind, then put a stop to this abomination, this anti-democratic process. Insist that there is at least a month of consideration of the bill so that citizens can weigh in, so experts can weigh in, so committees can deliberate, so committees can propose amendments and improvements. Insist on that.

We just need three Members of the majority party to believe in the responsibility of this Chamber to hold a public debate and insist that they will not vote to proceed to the bill unless we have at least a month of opportunity. That is only one-ninth of what we had in 2009. It is only a fraction of the committee meetings, roundtables, and walk- throughs we had in 2009. It would be only a fraction of the amendments offered in 2009. It would only be a fraction of the time here on the Senate floor we had in 2009. Don't you believe we should have at least a fraction of the public deliberation we had just 8 years ago before jamming this through and destroying healthcare for millions of Americans? What does peace of mind mean to you?

I will tell you what it means to my constituents. It means that when their loved one gets sick, their loved one will get the care they need. It means that when their loved one gets sick, they won't go bankrupt. That is the peace of mind we are talking about, and that is the peace of mind that is so profoundly disturbed when you have a secret group meeting with powerful special interests, devising a bill they are afraid to show to the public of the United States of America. I would never want to have to vote on such a major bill without being able to hear what my citizens in Oregon think. I don't think any Member of this Senate should agree to vote on a bill with no deliberation and no public hearing.

So we need three champions. Just three out of 52. It should be 52 out of 52 who insist on a quality public process. We have heard the comments in the hallways, many Members of the majority dislike the fact that there is a secret process that their majority leader is insisting on. We have heard that they don't like it. It is not right. But do you know what? Every Member here has a chance to say no to the secret operation, the secret committee of 13, and the last-second presentation of such a bill on the floor.

The issue of the changes in healthcare without public deliberation terrifies folks like Deborah from Hillsboro, OR. She was diagnosed with Crohn's disease 8 years ago and has to take regular injections and medications to keep it under control. She does a lot of things right. She doesn't smoke, she exercises, and she follows her doctor's recommended diet. Other than her regular medications, she lives a normal, healthy life, and she is looking forward to retiring in the near future with her husband. They have been working hard their whole lives. They have been saving up for it. It is so close that they can almost taste it. But it is a dream that could be shattered by the Republican healthcare plan--the TrumpCare plan--being concocted secretly by 13 Members of this body. As she says:

Without affordable coverage for pre-existing conditions I

cannot even switch jobs easily. If Medicare is reduced or

eliminated, as the GOP is trying to do, I may never be able

to retire . . . we should not now, or ever, eliminate

coverage for pre-existing conditions (or price that coverage

such that most of us will never be able to afford it).

She is worried that changes that refer to Medicaid and the Oregon Health Plan will ruin her ability to retire and her ability to access healthcare.

I don't know exactly what the President was briefed on that made him call TrumpCare ``mean'' and then speak in a very derogatory fashion about the bill from the House. I don't know exactly what he learned. I don't know if it was because he learned that folks on long-term care could lose that long-term care and Medicaid pays for more than 6 out of 10 Americans who are in long-term care. I don't know if it was because he learned about preexisting conditions. I don't know if it was because he learned it would throw 23 million people out of the healthcare system. I don't know if it was because he learned this would have devastating consequences to rural healthcare because of the impact on the finances of clinics and hospitals.

Whatever he meant, he was right. He was right to make that transition from a month earlier when he held a celebration at the White House because this terrific, wonderful bill had been passed by the House, and when he sobered up and discovered that it was a mean-spirited, hard- hearted bill. But for all these reasons, no healthcare should be crafted and jammed through without deliberation. No significant bill affecting

the lives of Americans should be pushed through in this manner. Americans deserve better. They expect more from this Chamber than such a secret, callous, poorly informed process. They don't like that powerful special interests are meeting with the Senators in private-- those private 13--to develop a plan, because here is what they have heard:

They know this bill gives huge tax breaks to powerful parts of the healthcare industry, that it gives huge amounts of money away to those who make medical equipment and huge amounts of money away to health insurance companies, meanwhile stripping healthcare from millions of Americans. They know it also gives a massive tax break to the richest Americans.

So here we are with a bill that Trump has called ``mean,'' giving away the Treasury to powerful special interests, meeting in private with my colleagues, giving away the Treasury to the richest Americans, while on the other hand lowering the boom on our seniors in long-term care, lowering the boom on struggling and working families, lowering the boom on 20 million or so Americans who would lose healthcare, and lowering the boom on the clinics and hospitals that provide care for everyone.

That is what they see: special favors for the powerful and thrown into the street the working and struggling families. That is morally wrong. That is wrong from a policy point of trying to improve the quality of life of Americans, and it is why every Senator here should absolutely say no to moving to this bill on the floor without a full month, at least, for committee deliberations and for the citizens of the United States to weigh in.

That is the difference between what happens in a dictatorship with no deliberation and a democratic republic with a legislative process that values deliberation and openness. That is the difference. Which model do my colleagues support?

Let's fight for the ``we the people'' vision of our Constitution, and let's fight for quality healthcare for every American, and let's say no to moving to any bill that hasn't had public deliberation and at least a full month of deliberation in this Chamber.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a moment? The majority leader has returned to the floor to hear a unanimous consent request--actually two of them--which we will make very brief and then yield back to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, this weekend, I was out doing townhalls in rural Oregon. I was in Klamath County and Lake County--counties that on any map would be described as solidly red. At my townhalls, people were turning out with one huge anxiety; that is, the healthcare bill that might be considered next week, with no consideration in committee, no consideration for amendments, no opportunity for experts to weigh in, and, most importantly, no opportunity for the citizens of America to weigh in.

So two veterans came up to me after one of the townhalls, at the Paisley Saloon, and they asked: Does DC understand the despair, the anxiety in rural Oregon over this healthcare bill plan? The answer, of course, at this point is no, but we hope the answer will be yes.

Then I was visiting a nursing home, and two different individuals I spoke to noted that virtually everyone on long-term care was there through Medicaid. They said: You know, if we lose Medicaid, we are out on the street. As one woman said: I will be out on the street, and I can't walk so that is a problem. Well, yes, it is a problem for folks on long-term care to be dumped onto the street.

That is why, at this moment, I am asking for our normal process for any bill, any modest bill, but certainly a major bill to get thorough democratic consideration in this beautiful, ``we the people,'' democratic Republic, and that means committee hearings, that means experts testifying, and that means input from citizens.

Mr. President, that is why I ask unanimous consent that no motion to proceed to Calendar No. 120, H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act, be in order until the bill has been the subject of executive session meetings in the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, during which amendments from the majority and the minority have the opportunity to be presented and considered, and the American people have the chance to weigh in, and the bill has been reported favorably from the committee.

Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks from my colleague from Wisconsin, who came here to champion the citizens of her State and the citizens of all of America. As she spoke so passionately about the need to make sure we have affordable, quality healthcare, that is really the theme that we are talking about. That is the value we are talking about, that in this great big, beautiful, wonderful Nation, the United States of America, everyone should have access to affordable, quality healthcare.

There are some colleagues here who do not share that value. They consider healthcare to be a privilege for the wealthy--healthcare for the wealthy, healthcare for the healthy--but not healthcare for all Americans. They say: You can't afford healthcare? Too bad.

They have a plan of 13 Republicans meeting in secret--the secret 13-- even meeting in a room to which the hallway is not accessible to press because they are afraid to have the cameras showing them as they go into the room and out of the room. If you are ashamed to see yourself going in and out of a room and for your constituents to see that, shouldn't you be ashamed of what you are concocting? Shouldn't you really wonder if you are doing the right thing in saying to your constituents: I am not going to show you the bill because I know you will not like it. I am going to keep it secret, and I am going to bring it out at the last minute. I am going to employ a tactic that does not belong in the Senate.

This is supposed to be a deliberative body--once called the world's greatest deliberative body--but under this leadership, it is now the body of zero deliberation, zero committee meetings, zero markups, zero chance for the public to weigh in, zero chance of hearing the experts and taking their insights into account. That has to change.

We need three of our colleagues who believe in this Nation, who believe in the Constitution, written with those beautiful three words ``We the People.'' They need to stop thinking about ``we the powerful'' and ``we the privileged.'' They have to stop thinking about how they help their friends in the gated communities of America or in the corporate suites of America. How do you help working Americans? How do you help struggling Americans?

Franklin Roosevelt said that the test of our progress should not be whether we do more--add to the abundance of those who have much--but whether we do enough for those who have little. Yet the philosophy of this bill that the secret 13 is cooking up is about giving more to the abundance of those who have much and taking away from those who have little. It is the opposite. It is government by and for the wealthy and government by and for the powerful and government by and for the privileged.

Have they forgotten the first three words of our Constitution? Have they forgotten that the philosophy, as Jefferson put it, was that we would have outcomes that would reflect the will of the people? If you are afraid to share the bill with the people of America, you are certainly not pursuing the will of the people of the United States of America.

What is really in this bill?

On the one hand, we understand that it is going to take healthcare away from millions of Americans. They are saying that it might do it a little more slowly than did the TrumpCare bill.

As for the TrumpCare bill, the President himself said it was ``mean,'' and he used a derogative slogan, which I will not repeat on this floor, to say how terrible it was. Why did the President call it ``mean''? Was it that it was taking away healthcare from an estimated 23 million people? My colleagues, we understand, are going to do it more slowly, inflict that damage over a number of extra years. Does that make it right to hurt people? Does that make it right? In the meantime, they are going to hand out an insurance bag of goodies to the health insurers of $127 billion. Strip healthcare over here. Give goodies to the insurance companies over here.

What happens to those who are in long-term care and nursing homes? More than 6 out of 10 Americans who are in long-term care are there because they are paid through Medicaid. They have to pay down all of their income and their wealth before they can use Medicaid. This is the last resort. It is the last thing they have. Medicaid comes to the rescue.

I visited a couple of nursing homes over the weekend, one in an urban area and one in a rural area. I encourage my colleagues to go visit a nursing home and talk to the men and women who are there. They are so thankful that they have that care.

One woman said to me: ``Medicaid is how I am paid for.''

Her name is Deborah.

Deborah said: ``Medicaid is how I can afford to be here. If you take it away, I am out on the street. Being on the street is a problem because my legs do not work.''

Picture that individual being thrown into the street. She is in her wheelchair because her legs do not work. Where is she going to sleep? How is she going to feed herself? Where is she going to bathe?

Then I went to a nursing home in rural Oregon, which was down in the south, Klamath County. At that nursing home, they told me that almost 100 percent of their long-term care patients are paid for by Medicaid-- almost one 100 percent. Imagine that entire hallway of individuals swept out, tossed out.

And why? What else do we have in this bill? Oh. Give tax deductions and gifts to the health insurance executives. First we have gifts to the health insurers and then another $18 billion to the health insurance executives.

Then my colleagues say: Let's make insurance cheaper by getting rid of the essential benefits. That way, people can have an insurance policy for less.

But unfortunately it is not worth the paper it is written on. We have been there. We have seen that. There is a reason you set a floor as to what the benefits are. It is so that when you actually get sick and need to go to the emergency room, you can actually go. When you actually get sick and need an operation, you can actually get it. When you break a leg, you can actually get it set. When you need treatment for a disease, you can actually get the treatment. When you are having a child, you can actually get maternity care. These are the fundamentals. They are not the fancy end of healthcare. It is not the fancy end that you might find with some executive healthcare packages. These are the basics, the essential basics. My colleagues want to strip that away.

On the other hand, they say: Hey, we have so much money that we can give tax giveaways to the prescription drugmakers--$29 billion to the prescription drugmakers.

Then they want to destroy the rural healthcare clinics and hospitals. I was in four of my rural counties this weekend. I was in Klamath and Lake, and I was in Grant and Wheeler. I held townhalls. People came out and spoke to me.

These folks said: Do you know that our rural clinics are the heart of our

communities, and they are what allow people to live here with the confidence that they can get the healthcare they need instead of having to go to some city that is hundreds of miles away or maybe not even be able to get care at all on a timely basis?

They love their hospitals that provide care in the bit larger communities in rural Oregon.

Yet, as for the heads of these hospitals and the heads of these clinics, what do they say? They say that without the Affordable Care Act and the vast decrease in uncompensated coverage, they would have to fire a whole lot of employees and provide a whole lot less healthcare.

One doctor from a clinic in the northeast corner of the State came to me and said: We doubled--roughly doubled--the amount of healthcare we are able to provide, and we are so remote, and it is so important to be able to have that nearby.

So why do my colleagues really dislike healthcare in rural America? Why do they want to undermine it? Well, they can give away more money to medical device makers--$20 billion to medical device makers--and all of this is before we look at the fact that they are giving more than $200 billion away to the richest Americans. So over here, let's strip the essential benefits. Let's destroy the health clinics. Let's undermine the rural hospitals. Let's make it challenging for those with preexisting conditions. Let's take those in nursing homes and make sure they are not able to be in nursing homes and, magically, maybe they will get cared for some other way so we can give tax giveaways to the health insurers, tax gifts to the insurance executives, tax goodies to the prescription drug makers, and special tax provisions to the medical device makers, and then give $200 billion to the richest Americans. Isn't that the opposite of the test of our progress? Here, in the United States of America, under a system of government that is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people--this bill is by the privileged and powerful, for the privileged and powerful. And not just that, but let's really hurt ordinary working people and struggling Americans in the process right where it really gets them--right here-- at the fundamental heart of the peace of mind they get from knowing that currently they have access to healthcare.

I don't know that anything is quite so disturbing as worrying about the fact that if your loved one gets sick, will he or she be able to get the care he or she needs? If your loved one gets sick, will he or she go broke? And what about your neighbor, and what about your extended family? This Republican bill is all about creating stress and anxiety and bad outcomes for ordinary working Americans, ordinary middle-class Americans, ordinary struggling Americans.

They didn't send us here to the Senate to do this. That is why the secret 13 are meeting in secret. That is why they don't want to meet in a room that has a hallway where the reporters can be. That is why they don't want to answer the questions in the hallway about whether they will vote to proceed to a bill without letting the people of America weigh in on it.

Shouldn't everyone here be willing to answer that question: Are you willing to vote to move to a bill that has had no public process? Aren't you working for the people of America? Or, as this bill says, are you just working for the companies and the rich? That is it, and too bad for everyone else.

Aaron in Portland wrote to me. Because she has been diagnosed with diabetes, she is terrified that if TrumpCare goes through, her condition will be considered a preexisting condition, and she won't be able to afford the coverage she needs. She says: ``Although through committed lifestyle changes and family support, I have done well managing this condition, I will be marked as high risk along with my age.''

Ellen from Medford, the southern part of our State, tells me that she has the challenge that her baby daughter was in a catastrophic accident just days before her second birthday. Her husband had just switched jobs and didn't have health insurance yet. But, fortunately, Medicaid-- that would be the Oregon Health Plan--was there for them, and her daughter got the lifesaving care she needed. That is anxiety for an ordinary person. Do you have health coverage when you are switching jobs? Is there one health insurance you can afford?

My colleagues want to strip healthcare from Ellen in Medford so they can cut $800 billion in Medicaid overall, so they can give tax giveaways to powerful corporations and the richest Americans. It is just wrong, morally wrong, and wrong in every possible way.

Marilyn from Ontario says that she is living with two autoimmune diseases--difficult to pronounce, so I won't. She was diagnosed before the ACA became law, but rather than be denied coverage outright by her insurance company, she was told she could be covered if she paid a monthly premium of about $1,000 with a $20,000 deductible--$20,000 deductible. Needless to say, that wasn't helpful to her. Marilyn went 5 years without insurance, and she ended up being very sick. She had to borrow against her home, leverage her home. She had to deplete her retirement savings. And she had to make payments on $64,000 worth of credit card debt, run up in order to cover her healthcare.

Then the ACA came along, and Marilyn was able to afford insurance, and she got community pricing. In other words, despite these preexisting conditions, you pay the same price as everyone else. That is so important to peace of mind about healthcare. Just saying that you will have ``access to healthcare''--a favorite phrase some of my colleagues use--if you can pay extraordinarily high prices that I know you will not be able to pay, that is not access. That is teasing people. That is cruelty to say: Oh, yes, we are going to make sure you have access; as long as you are a millionaire and you can pay a ton every month, you have access. We have taken care of you. You have access. No, that is not access. Affordability is critical to having a functioning healthcare system, and Marilyn will probably be priced out of the market again with the Republican strategy.

How about Lisa in Corvallis, a single parent of three children, two with serious medical conditions that have placed them on permanent disability. Lisa faces some hard times, and I will let her words speak for themselves. She says:

Our family was very fortunate and eternally grateful that

the ACA passed while I held that job, because in 2015, my

middle child was hospitalized for the first of four times in

the last two years. And, in March of 2016, I developed a

serious heart condition which my doctor attributes in part to

stress.

She goes on to say:

In June of 2016, my employer declined to renew my contract,

and if it weren't for the ACA, I would have been out of a job

and completely without medical coverage, this time with a

serious and expensive preexisting condition.

The stories are coming in through emails. They are coming in through my townhalls. They are coming in over the phones. They are letting us all know--and not just in States represented by folks on this side of the aisle, but every Senator here is getting these letters.

So I say to my fellow Senators: Read these letters from your constituents because I know that your constituents are in the same position my constituents are in. Be a champion for them. Be a champion for struggling families, for working families, for middle-class families. Honor the role and responsibility of representing all of the people of your State, not simply powerful companies and your richest constituents but all of your citizens. That was the vision on which our country was founded, and that is the spirit in which Franklin Roosevelt said: This test of our progress is not whether we give more of the abundance to those who have the most, but enough to those who have little.

Enough means affordable, accessible healthcare for every single person in America. Tearing that down is wrong morally and wrong to do it secretly and wrong in terms of the enormous damage that it will cause.

I am pleased to see my colleague from Pennsylvania, who has been a champion for working Americans every day he serves in this Chamber. He particularly makes sure that all of us are thinking about the impact on children, and there is so much of this secret Republican plan that is going to hurt the children of America. I appreciate the insights that he shares with all of us as

he urges us to ponder and do better every time we consider legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, yesterday we had a horrific tragedy here in the capital area. I know I speak for all of my colleagues who are holding the victims of that attack in their hearts and in their prayers: Congressman Steve Scalise, still in critical condition; Zack Barth, legislative correspondent who works for Congressman Williams of Texas, who was injured; Matt Mika of Tyson's Foods, who represents them here on the Hill; and two of our police officers, David Bailey and Crystal Griner of the U.S. Capitol Police. Without those two police officers present, this could have been a much more tragic event.

We have to reinforce the understanding that we are blessed to have the opportunity to raise our voices in our democratic Republic. We are able to raise them by speaking to our members who are elected in local and State and Federal Government, by writing to them, by meeting with them in townhalls. In my State, you can call them up, and they will sit down with you in a cafe. We have an opportunity to weigh in through writing letters to the editor, by protesting in the streets, by overflowing the email lines and flooding the phone lines. We have all kinds of ways to weigh in, in America, but violence is absolutely unacceptable. We have to try to diminish and eliminate the hate speech, which so often becomes the foundation for hate violence.

We have had a very divisive 18 months here in America, where various folks have sought to increase the divisions between groups of Americans, to attack women, to attack African Americans, to attack Hispanics, to attack Muslims, to attack LGBT citizens. We need to eliminate that strategy of division.

Here, in America, we are a tapestry of talents from all over the world, of different cultural backgrounds who come together to make this Nation incredibly strong. Unless you are 100 percent Native American, you are either an immigrant yourself or the son or daughter of immigrants. We bring that diversity to bear and we make this Nation powerful in ways few other nations could even come close to having.

Let's take this as a moment in which we seek to encourage public participation in all the legitimate forms of free speech but put hate speech out of bounds and hate violence out of bounds.

Mr. President, climate disruption is a significant concern for the health of our planet. It is affecting everything from our agriculture to our economy, to our forests, to our world's glaciers, to our ice sheets, and, certainly, to the distribution of the world's insects and the diseases they carry.

President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement has attracted additional attention to the role that America should play in taking on this major challenge. How significant are the impacts of climate disruption to our forests and our farming and our fishing? What are the business opportunities of transforming an economy from that based on fossil fuels to that based on clean and renewable energy? What are other nations doing? How fast do we need to move to save the planet?

There will be many scholarly speeches on these topics here on the floor--many who will have been informed by the experiences that Senators will have had in their home States, both in the evolution of wind and solar energy and the changes that they are seeing in their forests and their farming and their fishing. I hope to draw attention and, hopefully, insights as to these issues in a more lighthearted fashion by presenting periodic episodes of a Senate Climate Disruption Quiz. Today, I am presenting episode No. 1 of this Disruption Quiz series. Let's get started.

Question No. 1: Which famous CEO resigned from three Presidential councils after President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement? Was it Bob Iger of Disney? Was it Elon Musk of Tesla and SpaceX? Was it Travis Kalanick, the CEO of Uber? Consider which of these individuals made this decision.

The right answer is Elon Musk. Congratulations if that is what you guessed.

Bob Iger of Disney resigned from a Presidential council, but he resigned only from one, not three. He resigned from the Presidential Strategic and Policy Forum, and he has been quite significant in putting forward other environmental issues, such as the zero waste of Disney's theme parks.

He said when he resigned:

Protecting our planet and driving economic growth are

critical to our future, and they aren't mutually exclusive.

He continued:

I deeply disagree with the decision to withdraw from the

Paris Agreement.

Travis Kalanick, the controversial and besieged Uber CEO, also resigned from the same council, that being the Presidential Strategic and Policy Forum, but he did so in response to the President's Muslim ban, not to the announcement that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

That takes us to Elon Musk, who resigned from three councils--the President's Strategic and Policy Forum, Manufacturing Initiative, and Executive Council on Infrastructure.

He tweeted:

Am departing Presidential councils. Climate change is real.

Leaving Paris is not good for America or for the world.

So that is the first question. Now get ready to see if you can answer the second question correctly.

Question No. 2: As of today, which two countries are not party to the Paris Agreement? Is it Syria and Nicaragua? Is it Iran and North Korea, two members of the axis of evil? Is it Togo and Indonesia, or is it India and Cambodia? I am sure you have heard climate news about all of these countries, but you may not know which ones are the only two countries in the world that are not members of the Paris Agreement.

By the way, the United States is not on this list because even though we have announced we are withdrawing, that takes some time, and we are actually still a member.

The correct answer is Syria and Nicaragua.

Nicaragua hasn't signed on because they don't believe the Paris Agreement goes far enough in its fight against climate disruption. Today, more than half of Nicaragua's electricity comes from renewable resources--wind, solar, wave, and geothermal. The Government of Nicaragua predicts that within a few years, the percentage of electricity from renewables will rise to 80 percent. Because of the abundance of these resources, a 2013 World Bank report labeled Nicaragua ``a renewable energy paradise.''

The reason Syria didn't participate or sign on to the Paris Agreement is because it is in the midst of a horrific 6-year-long civil war that has claimed the lives of 300,000 men, women, and children and driven millions out of the country.

Now we will turn to question No. 3. Thanks in part to warmer temperatures and milder winters, cases of which tick-borne illness have more than doubled since 1991? Is the answer Colorado tick fever or tularemia or Lyme disease or Heartland virus?

By the way, all of these are real diseases. Well, Colorado tick fever is a viral infection that is mostly found in the mountain areas of the Western United States and Canada and is transmitted by the bite of an infected Rocky Mountain wood tick. Tularemia, which is also known as rabbit fever or deer fly fever or O'Hara's fever, is certainly a scary- sounding disease. Lyme disease is mostly transmitted by deer tick bites and is predominantly found in the Northeast and upper Midwest, the Mid- Atlantic regions of the country. And then there is the Heartland virus, which is transmitted by the lone star tick.

Well, the correct answer is--drum roll--C, Lyme disease.

Since 1991, the number of cases of Lyme disease in the United States has doubled. Approximately 30,000 people are diagnosed with the disease each year, but because it is very difficult to diagnosis, the Centers for Disease Control thinks the real number of cases is about 10 times that, or 300,000 people per year here in the United States. The main reason for the increase we have seen in Lyme disease is warmer temperatures and milder winters. Cold winters kill ticks; warm winters don't. That is what it boils down to.

On to question No. 4. Who was recently quoted as saying that ``the fuel of choice right now, certainly for us, is wind''? Was it Bono, the lead singer of U2 and founder of the One Campaign, known for its activist work in Africa? Was it Gwyneth Paltrow, the award-winning actress? Was it Ben Fowke, the CEO of Xcel Energy, which owns and operates 13 coal plants around the country? Was it Pope Francis, who gave our President a copy of his encyclical when the President visited with him just a few weeks ago?

Well, it turns out the answer is C, the CEO of Xcel Energy. That is a little bit surprising given that they operate more than a dozen coal plants, but it is also a company that generates one-fifth of its electricity from wind.

In January, the company shut down a large natural gas plant in Colorado for 2 days, and wind, on average, provided the power for half of its customer demand. Wind is Xcel's fuel of choice because once the turbines are built, the cost of the fuel to operate the turbines is zero. The fuel, plainly speaking, is free. And that is what led him to this comment saying that it is a preferred choice. Anytime you can get free fuel, it beats gearing up your coal plant or your natural gas plant.

Now we will turn to question No. 5, our final question. The Power Minister of which country recently announced that they intend to sell only electric cars by the year 2030? Is the answer India, which is home to 1.3 billion citizens, the world's third largest oil importer and a country with 300 million individuals who don't yet have access to electricity? Is it Germany, a manufacturing powerhouse, which has had a large feed-in tariff--a subsidy, if you will--to encourage distributed solar, solar panels on the tops of commercial buildings and homes? Is it China, where the use of cars has absolutely exploded. And the pollution in Beijing is among the worst pollution in the world, driven largely by the combustion of fossil fuels. Is it Canada, which has a new Prime Minister, Prime Minister Trudeau, who has prioritized tackling climate disruption?

If you guessed Germany, you are almost right but not quite. Germany's

Bundesrat, the country's upper legislative chamber, passed a nonbinding resolution last October calling for a phaseout of gasoline-powered vehicles by 2030. But that is not quite the question that was asked. The question is, Which country's Power Minister said they would only sell electric cars by the year 2030? And the answer to that is India.

Speaking at this year's annual conference of the Confederation of Indian Industry, Power Minister Piyush Goyal said:

We are going to introduce electric vehicles in a very big

way. We are going to make electric vehicles self-sufficient.

The idea is that by 2030, not a single petrol or diesel car

should be sold in the country.

India, by the way, is already on track to be the world's third largest solar market, with the country's solar capacity expected to reach 18.7 gigawatts by the year's end. The country is also adding 50 percent more solar and wind generation than currently installed here in the United States. They are replacing 770 million street and household lights with energy-saving and long-lasting LEDs, and they are bringing access to electricity to thousands of poor rural villages through the provision of solar. And they are doing all this faster than anyone could have anticipated.

So that is the full five questions for this week's Senate Climate Disruption Quiz. Climate disruption is the seminal challenge of our generation. We need to start taking strong, decisive action now to avoid reaching the point where the damage we are doing to our planet becomes irreversible.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, the most important words in our Constitution are the first three--``We the People''--written in a beautiful script and written in a font size so that one can see it from across the room. They set out the mission statement for our Constitution, for our vision of government--not government of, by, and for the privileged and the powerful but government of, by, and for the people, as President Lincoln so eloquently summarized.

It is our responsibility as elected officials to look out for decisions that serve this mission of government of, by, and for the people, to fight in times of trouble for policies that provide a ladder of opportunity and a foundation for families to thrive. But at this very moment, a secret group of 13 Senators is devising a healthcare plan with the intention of bringing it to this floor with no public debate, no committee meeting, and no public notice. They want to just bring it to the floor, have a few hours of debate, and put it forward, even though it will affect millions of Americans. It probably will hurt millions of Americans, but the secret 13 want to craft this policy. And why in secret? Because they are plotting a plan that will hurt so many people, they don't want the public involved in the process. They don't want to hear from the citizens from rural America or urban America who are so concerned about the TrumpCare bill--the bill that will immediately destroy healthcare for 14 million Americans; the bill that will immediately undermine the solvency and success of our rural healthcare clinics and our rural hospitals; the bill that breaks every promise the President put forward on healthcare.

It breaks the promise that every person will be covered, breaks the promise that people with preexisting connections will get the same price as everyone else, breaks the promise that the

policies will be even better, higher quality. Instead, it guts the essential benefits. It breaks the promise that the insurance will be at a lower cost. In fact, for someone roughly 64 years of age earning about $26,500, their healthcare bill would go from $140 a month to $1,200 a month--a sum that is clearly impossible to pay on an annual income of $26,500. That is why it is being done in secret--because it involves broken promise after broken promise, destroying healthcare in every town and hamlet across America.

That is quite a contrast to the way ObamaCare was forged. ObamaCare had a yearlong debate. It proceeded to be in committee markup--that means with amendments being offered--in the HELP Committee for about 5 weeks, with television cameras rolling and 150 Republican amendments accepted during that process. Then the Finance Committee had its turn, and it had a very long markup, and it had dozens and dozens, if not 100 or more, Republican amendments adopted. The debate was all over the country. It was in the newspapers. It was in every forum. It was right there, square center, nothing hidden. But this is quite different. The majority leader today has started the rule XIV process, specifically intending to bypass those Senate committees and bring the TrumpCare bill to the Senate floor, completely bypassing government of, by, and for the people.

This is unacceptable. I think my colleagues know it is unacceptable, but they are hoping to do it so quickly and so fast that they will have a minimum of criticism across the country. There should be a maximum amount of criticism on the floor of the Senate. Every Senator who believes that this democracy--this democratic Republic--is one in which we do the people's work should see the light of day. The debate should see the light of day in the forging of the bill, as well as the final debate here on the floor.

We know another reason this bill--this replacement or addition or modification of the House bill--is being crafted in secret. That is because the very premise of it is to give a massive tax break to the wealthiest Americans, another promise broken in which Trump said that this would not be done. But there it is, TrumpCare out of the House, $600 billion given away to the richest Americans while devastating healthcare for working Americans.

Has no one noticed that we have an incredible gap in income in this country, with massive numbers of people earning very little and a few at the top earning massive amounts? Has no one noticed that we have a huge wealth gap in this Nation, with those at the bottom having few, if any, savings and those at the top having billions upon billions? If we have noticed, then we should care that that is not a foundation for families to thrive. Indeed, it is something that is only made much worse in a bill that takes away the foundation of healthcare-- essentially, the quality of life for families across America--and, in turn, takes the savings and gives it to the wealthiest families.

There is a reason to hide this bill. There are a lot of reasons to hide this bill. But it is undemocratic to have this secret group developing this bill with an intention to bring it to the floor without a committee hearing, without public exposure.

Folks back home are very worried, and I would like to share a few of their stories.

Lynda of Talent, OR, who survived her battle with stomach cancer, thanks to the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion--Lynda's friend wrote to share her story. Lynda was a self-employed plumber, working hard to get her business off the ground, but she was diagnosed with stage IV stomach cancer. Lynda couldn't afford insurance, and she and her husband couldn't afford to pay for treatment out of pocket because they were already paying off enormous debt from care her husband had received.

So what did Lynda do? She ignored the symptoms. She tried to go about her life as best as she could. As her friend wrote, ``She would have died rather than take on more debt that she was not sure she could pay.'' But that changed with the Affordable Care Act the day Lynda found out she would receive coverage under the Oregon Health Plan-- Oregon's Medicaid expansion.

Now there is good news to share. Lynda received treatment. She has been cancer-free for almost a year, and her friend describes this as ``nothing short of a miracle.'' ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, delivered a miracle to an individual who was planning just to die rather than get treatment and then could get treatment, thanks to Medicaid expansion, and is now in remission.

TrumpCare is being reworked in secret by 13 of my colleagues out of public sight. It wants to strip away that expansion of Medicaid, wants to rip away the chance for people like Lynda to receive lifesaving care.

Yvonne from Elmira, OR, sent a note to us about the high-risk pools that Republicans want to institute under TrumpCare. She says:

Before the ACA existed, I was in our state's high risk pool

because no company would insure me because I had Asthma and

had an ovary removed because of cysts.

The $1500 deductible and $550 per month was hard to pay and

then it only covered 70%.

When I was severely injured in an accident and required

reconstructive surgery I ended up bankrupt.

But then, 2 years ago, she qualified for the Oregon Health Plan. Now Yvonne has her medical needs covered at an affordable price and can't be denied coverage or charged a higher premium because of her preexisting conditions. Yvonne, like so many others, would suffer under the Republican plan to strip away the protection for preexisting conditions. She has had an accident, she has had an ovary removed, she has had asthma. It would be extraordinarily difficult for her to get insurance without the protection of everyone being in the same healthcare pool together. If she could get insurance--which is not at all clear--it would be at sky-high, unaffordable prices.

Bernard from Portland wrote to us. He said that an important thing that often gets lost in this whole debate over the future of the Affordable Care Act is the support it gives for Americans to innovate.

In 2011, Bernard in Portland chose to leave his job and pursue his passion of becoming a freelance artist. Here is what he said, in his words:

With my departure, I left behind the security of medical

coverage. For two years, I was not covered by medical

insurance, and fortunately nothing happened, but that is a

gamble nobody should have to take. And it's a gamble that I

could take being under 40 years old, and in relatively good

health.

A person should not have to stay in a job they may not even

like, and could be better filled by someone else, just for

fear of not having medical coverage.

He is right. One of the powerful things that has occurred under ObamaCare is that individuals worked for firms and wanted to become entrepreneurs but were afraid to do so because of the loss of healthcare coverage, but now, either through the expansion of Medicaid or through the exchanges, they can acquire insurance without being part of a large company. That has unleashed entrepreneurship across the country. People are pursuing their dreams and contributing to the economy in all kinds of ways because they can now access healthcare without being part of a company that provides healthcare.

Eventually, Bernard was able to afford a basic coverage plan. But it didn't provide much, and it cost a significant portion of his income, but it all changed with the ACA.

An October 2016 survey of American small businesses and a January 2017 followup survey found that one-third of 5,400 small business owners interviewed had the confidence to start their own businesses because they had access to healthcare through the ACA. According to the Department of Labor, between 2013 when the ACA went into effect and the end of 2015, the number of self-employed Americans increased by 3.5 percent.

These are just different ways of noting what we hear about all the time--people launching their entrepreneurial efforts, launching their companies because of the confidence they have that they can get healthcare. That is the powerful unleashing of creativity. It is an economic engine. It is a small business driver.

Lisa from Phoenix also wrote to share her powerful story. Lisa's daughter suffers from cerebral palsy and epilepsy, so Lisa has stayed home and

cared for her for the last 15 years while her husband worked. Now, thanks to ACA's Medicaid expansion, her family has been able to hire in-home help and it has been transformative.

Lisa's daughter has become more connected to the community, gained new skills and independence, is contributing to household chores, and has shown a great deal more vitality and engagement since the family was able to get some assistance. It has gotten to the point where Lisa can start thinking about her own needs a bit more. In fact, for the first time in quite a while, she is considering taking on a job outside her home to help provide more income.

The ACA isn't just saving lives in emergency health situations or by addressing diseases. It is improving the quality of life for millions of American families like Lisa's.

I will share one more constituent story today. It is hard to pick just one more because there are so many stories coming in each and every day. As we continue to talk about the assault on the health and peace of mind of millions of Americans, I will be coming back to the floor to share those stories coming in from other Oregonians. But this last story comes from Warren in Tigard, OR.

Warren and his wife Joyce have been happily married for over 60 years, but in the last few years, Joyce has been suffering from Alzheimer's. Joyce's disease has progressed very far. Among other things, she has lost her mobility, much of her cognition, and she is wheelchair bound. Her condition has progressed so far that Warren and the home caregivers who were helping him care for his wife just couldn't meet the need requirements any longer, so they admitted Joyce to a nearby adult care facility, where she is now secure, stable, and comfortable. But, as we know, the kind of care Joyce is receiving is expensive. Warren writes:

This care costs $4,000 per month. Our long-term care

insurance is currently covering most of this cost, but only

about 4 months' worth of insurance coverage remains. So we

will have to obtain Medicaid coverage for her continued care.

But proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act could

jeopardize this coverage. I have not anticipated this

disastrous change, but fear it would be a tragedy for both of

us.

Yes, it would be a tragedy for Warren and for Joyce to have TrumpCare pass and dismantle Medicaid and dismantle the exchanges. It would be a tragedy for so many others in similar situations across the country.

Many people don't realize that Medicaid helps pay for nursing home care for more than half of the nursing home residents--residents like Joyce. But here is TrumpCare, planning to cut $880 billion in direct Medicaid spending. It is basically: Well, too bad Warren and too bad Joyce. We want to save some money so we can give big tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.

I must say, there is not a lot of caring in that perspective. It embodies a principle, but is it really the principle we want in the United States of America--the principle that the goal of the majority party is to take away from those who have little to give more to those who have most? Is that really the principle my Republican colleagues want to embrace on the floor of the Senate?

Is that really the principle the secret 13 with their secret meetings out of public sight to develop a new version of TrumpCare want to embrace? I would suggest that is simply wrong. It is wrong from the point of view of providing an opportunity for all Americans to thrive. It is wrong from a moral point of view to pull healthcare--and the peace of mind that comes with healthcare--out of the hands of struggling Americans and working Americans across our country.

Finally, I want to address one more issue. We heard earlier today that Anthem is pulling out of Ohio. Why are they pulling out? Because of President Trump. Why is that connected? Because he refuses to confirm that his administration will make the cost-sharing reduction payments that have been part of the Affordable Care Act. Those payments reduce the premiums. Those payments proceed also to reduce the level of deductibles so you get more care sooner. So insurance companies don't know whether to raise their insurance policy a little or a tremendous amount, and that instability means they simply can't price their policies.

In addition, my Republican colleagues have assaulted the risk quarters, or reinsurance programs, that make it possible for an insurance company to go into a new market and know that if they get a disproportionate share of sick patients, they will get compensated for that risk and that result. So that reinsurance is essential for more companies to be in a particular market.

Moreover, the administration proceeded to not spend the money on advertising in the last stage of signups and reduced the number of people who were in the markets. So that is another assault on the stability of health insurance in America. This is a deliberate, straight-out effort to undermine healthcare in America to the disadvantage of millions of Americans. It is being done by the President without any action even happening on TrumpCare here in the Senate. It is wrong. It is hurting a lot of people, and the President should stop.

With that, I conclude my comments.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague Senator Wyden for submitting this resolution. I am proud to partner with him as we address this senseless, deadly attack that occurred back home in Oregon just 12 days ago.

Robert Kennedy once said: ``We must recognize that this short life can neither be ennobled or enriched by hatred.'' We have been reminded of that in this part of our history in the last year and a half in which we have seen acts of hatred flourishing across the country, preying on divisions among parts of our society. It is incumbent on all of us to call out the unacceptability of hate speech and certainly to work to bring unity where there has been division.

This all came together in dramatic, deadly fashion on the MAX train when a man spouting hatred and anti-Muslim rhetoric accosted two young women sitting on the train. Three men stood up and sprang into action and told him that was unacceptable.

I wish we could turn back the clock and have the incident stop right there with that intervention. These men, by being willing to stand up in that setting, are champions of justice. They were saying that this is unacceptable. They were saying that it must stop. But then this confrontation turned deadly, with the man spouting the hate speech pulling a knife, stabbing all three of these champions, killing two of them, and nearly killing the third. These individuals, Rick Best and Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, paid with their lives. The third individual, Micah David-Cole Fletcher, came very close to losing his as well.

We have been holding the families in our hearts and in our prayers. The community came together and had a vigil and another ceremony at the Muslim educational center and at the funerals to let the families know that, across Oregon, people are carrying them in their hearts and prayers. Certainly, one of those prayers was for the full recovery of Micah David-Cole Fletcher. He is back on his feet, and it is just a beautiful thing to see that he is out of the hospital. He spoke very eloquent words that I would like to share with you. In the days after the attack, he said:

I want you to imagine that for a second, being the little

girl on that MAX. This man is screaming at you. His face is a

pile of knives, his body is a gun, everything about him is

cocked, loaded and ready to kill you. There's a history here

with this. You can feel that this has happened before. And

the only thing that was different was the names and faces.

Micah continued. He said:

And then a stranger, two strangers, three strangers, come

to your aid, they try to help you, and that pile of knives

just throws itself at them. Kills them.

Well, this was an extraordinarily traumatic experience for these young girls simply to be accosted on the train and all the more so to see that those who came to their rescue were stabbed, with two of them dying and the third badly injured.

Our hearts are, again, so connected to the families. We must have a determination as a society to put healing where there has been division, to put empathy where there has been antipathy, to replace hatred with a connection, with a love.

Robert Kennedy said in that same speech when he was commenting on the fact that nothing has ever been ennobled or enriched by hatred--he continued to say this:

But we can perhaps remember--if only for a time--that those

who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us

the same short moment of life, that they seek--as do we--

nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and

in happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment that

they can.

Can't we come together as a society and enable each person to be able to live out their lives in purpose and happiness and set aside this divisiveness and this hatred?

I hope on this occasion, as we honor the incredible heroism of the three men who sprang into action and as we mourn the loss of two of them, that we all will dedicate ourselves to this purpose of creating a connection, creating unity, and creating respect and that we shall see the banishment of hate speech and hate violence.

Thank you, Mr. President.