Floor Statements

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee).

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Yesterday afternoon, Senate Democrats voted against a rules change that would have reduced needless delay in the Senate and ensure that future Presidents of both parties could staff their administrations in a timely fashion.

Democrats chose partisanship over principle and political advantage over the well-being of the Senate. How do I know that this was a partisan decision on Democrats' part and not a principled one? Because 34 currently serving Members of the Democratic caucus supported a very similar rules change measure when President Obama was in office. Yet not one Member--not one Member of the Democratic caucus--voted in favor of the rules change yesterday.

Worse, privately, many Democrats had indicated a willingness to support the rules change but only if the effective date were pushed to 2021, when Democrats hope they will have a Democrat in the White House. Apparently, it is reasonable for Democratic administrations to be staffed up in a timely fashion, but Republican administrations should have to suffer endless partisan delays. That is a pretty offensive position.

It is disrespectful to the American people, who deserve a fully staffed administration, even when their choice of President isn't the Democrats' choice. It is disrespectful of our system of government.

Democrats apparently think the system should be rigged in favor of their party, no matter what election results say. Don't like the fact that a Republican President got to choose Supreme Court Justices? Pack the courts. Don't like the fact that your candidate didn't win the election? Change our electoral system.

In a democracy, you win some elections and you lose some elections. Sometimes you like the individual in the White House, and sometimes you don't. Sometimes you succeed in passing your legislation, and sometimes you just don't have the votes. That is the nature of life in a democracy.

No one likes being in the minority. It is not fun to lose votes or elections, but that is the price of freedom. That is the price of democracy.

The other option is for one party to try to rig the system in its favor so that everything goes its way no matter what election results say. There is a name for that. It is called tyranny.

Back in 2013, a majority of Republicans, including the Republican leader and me, supported a rules change to streamline the process of approving lower level administration nominees, such as district court judges and assistant secretaries. We voted for this rules change even though we knew it would benefit only President Obama since it would expire at the end of the 113th Congress, but we signed on because we supported the principle behind the change. We believed that Presidents should be able to staff their administrations in a timely fashion, yes, even if they weren't Presidents from our party. We believed that whether the President was a Republican or Democrat, the American people deserved a fully functioning executive branch. So we worked with Democrats to streamline consideration of lower level administration nominees.

I am deeply disappointed that Democrats chose to betray their principles yesterday for short-term partisan gain, and I hope the Democrats here in the Senate will think better of their vote and work with Republicans to speed up consideration of lower level nominees before Democrats' historic level of obstruction becomes a permanent standard here in the U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith).

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

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

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

Mr. President, sometimes attempting to block a Presidential nominee is justified. If a President nominates a candidate who clearly is unfit for the office for which he or she has been nominated, then, as Senators, we should try to stop the confirmation of that nominee. But that is the exception. The Senate's advice and consent power is not supposed to be used to slow-walk all of a President's nominees simply because one party doesn't like the President who is doing the nominating.

In the past, once Presidential nominees had been vetted and approved by the appropriate committee, their confirmation was pretty painless. Cloture

votes designed to end filibusters of candidates and allow their nominations to come to a vote were rare because Senators only tried to block nominees in extreme cases. But that is no longer the case. Since President Trump took office, Democrats in the Senate have engaged in a systematic campaign of obstruction, pointlessly delaying qualified nominees for no reason other than the fact that Democrats dislike this President.

But wait, you say. Not so fast. Maybe Democrats obstructed all of these nominees because they didn't believe any of them were qualified for the positions for which they had been nominated--except we all know that is not the case because again and again Democrats have delayed and obstructed nominees they have ultimately supported.

One egregious example occurred in January of 2018, when Democrats forced the Senate to spend more than an entire week considering four district court judges even though not one single Democrat voted against their confirmation. That is right--Democrats forced the Senate to spend more than a week of our floor time considering the nomination of four judges even though not one single Democrat opposed their confirmation. These judges could have been confirmed in a matter of minutes by voice vote, but Democrats forced the Senate to spend more than a week on their consideration--time that could have been spent on genuinely controversial nominees or on some of the many important issues facing our country.

Another ugly example occurred during my chairmanship of the Commerce Committee last Congress, when Democrats pointlessly delayed the confirmation of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, Derek Kan. Mr. Kan, who had been confirmed by voice vote just 2 years earlier as a member of the Amtrak board of directors, was delayed for months in 2017, with Democrats ultimately requiring the filing of cloture--but not because Democrats had any problem with his qualifications. When the vote on his nomination finally came, he was confirmed by an overwhelming margin of 90 to 7. Once again, Democrats obstructed for obstruction's sake.

During President Obama's first 2 years in office, his nominees were subjected to a total of 12 cloture votes. Do you want to know how many cloture votes President Trump's nominees faced during the President's first 2 years in office? One hundred and twenty-eight--more than 10 times as many cloture votes as President Obama's nominees faced over the same period--128 to 12.

Democrats' slow-walking of nominees is obviously a problem for this President and his administration. Essential positions have stayed vacant for months longer than they should have, making it more challenging for the administration to carry out its responsibilities. But Democrats' actions are not just a problem for this administration; they are setting a terrible precedent that could derail the work of the Senate and inhibit the President's ability to govern for many years into the future. Just imagine if Democrats' behavior over the past 2 years becomes the norm. Presidents could be waiting years to adequately staff their administrations, and the Senate would be perpetually tied up on unnecessary cloture votes, leaving less and less time to actually do the business of governing.

Democrats and Republicans need to curb this rampant obstruction before it becomes a permanent precedent here in the Senate. Later today, we will have a chance to do so when we vote on the Blunt- Lankford resolution.

Back at the beginning of President Obama's second term, Democrats and a number of Republicans, including me, passed a measure streamlining the confirmation process for lower level positions, such as district court judges and Assistant Secretaries. This was obviously something that benefited President Obama and only President Obama since the rules change expired at the end of that Congress, but Republicans signed on because we believe that Presidents should be able to staff their administrations in a timely fashion. So we worked with Democrats to streamline consideration of lower level administration nominees.

The Blunt-Lankford resolution is very similar to the rules change we passed in 2013. Like the 113th Congress rules change, the Blunt- Lankford resolution would streamline the process for consideration of lower level nominees, while preserving the current rules for high-level nominee positions, such as Cabinet officials and Justices.

Thirty-four currently serving Democratic Senators also served in the 113th Congress and voted for that rules change, and I am hearing that Democrats would be willing to support the Blunt-Lankford resolution as well. But there is one catch: Democrats apparently would only support the rules change if we delay the effective date of the resolution to 2021--in the hopes that they will have a Democrat in the White House by then.

That is an outrageous demand, this ``We will take the rules change when it helps us, but we will do everything we can to make sure the other party doesn't get its share of the benefits, but that ``The rules don't apply to us'' attitude has unfortunately become pretty typical of the Democratic Party lately. Think about recent Democratic support for packing the Supreme Court. Why has that long-dead idea come back to haunt us? Because Democrats are angry that President Trump has gotten two individuals confirmed to the Supreme Court. Apparently, the only good Supreme Court Justices are the Justices nominated by Democrats. Take the Democratic proposal to abolish the electoral college. Democrats are still mad about their loss in the 2016 Presidential election. We get that. Their solution is not working harder to win in 2020 but changing the rules to favor their party.

Simple intellectual honesty would dictate that the 34 current Democratic Senators who voted for the rules change in the 113th Congress vote for the rules change today. I hope they will. Nothing less than the future of the Senate is at stake here.

Democrats have a choice to make: They can vote to restore the Senate's tradition of efficiently confirming noncontroversial nominees so the work of the government can get done, or they can continue to pursue a damaging, virulent partisanship that will negativity affect the Senate's ability to function for decades to come.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I recognize Brayden Hilton, an intern in my Aberdeen, SD, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months.

Brayden is a graduate of Roncalli High School in Aberdeen, SD. Currently, he is attending Northern State University in Aberdeen, where he is majoring in criminal justice. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Brayden for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Madam President, today I recognize Jacob Tarrell, an intern in my Aberdeen, SD, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months.

Jacob is a graduate of Hot Springs High School in Hot Springs, SD. Currently, he is attending Presentation College in Aberdeen, where he is majoring in sports and event management. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jacob for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. McSally), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. McSally), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would have voted ``nay.''

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

Madam President, when Republicans took office after the 2016 Presidential election, we had one goal in mind: make life better for American families. We knew a big part of that was getting our economy going again.

After years of sluggish economic growth, family budgets were stretched thin. Getting ahead had frequently been replaced by getting by. Wages were stagnant and jobs and opportunities were often few and far between.

So the Republicans and the President got right to work. We repealed burdensome regulations that were hamstringing economic growth, and we passed a comprehensive reform of our outdated Tax Code.

You might ask, Why the Tax Code? Well, the Tax Code has a huge effect on American families' prosperity. It helps determine how much you bring home in your paycheck and how much you have left over to spend or save. It helps determine what kind of jobs, wages, and opportunities are available to you. A small business owner struggling to afford a heavy tax bill is unlikely to have the money to hire a new worker or to expand her business. A larger business is going to find it harder to create jobs or improve benefits for employees if it is struggling to stay competitive against foreign businesses paying much less in taxes.

Prior to the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, our Tax Code was not helping American workers. It was taking too much from Americans' paychecks, and it was making it difficult for businesses to grow and to create jobs. We passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to put more money in Americans' pockets, spur economic growth, and expand opportunities for American workers.

We cut tax rates for American families, doubled the child tax credit, and nearly doubled the standard deduction.

We lowered tax rates across the board for owners of small- and medium-sized businesses, farms, and ranches. We lowered our Nation's massive corporate tax rate, which, up until January 1 of last year, was the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. We expanded business owners' ability to recover the cost of investments they make in their businesses, which frees up cash they can reinvest in their operations and in their workers, and we brought the U.S. international tax system into the 21st century so American businesses are not operating at a competitive disadvantage next to their foreign counterparts.

Now we are seeing the results. Our economy is thriving. Economic growth in the fourth quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2018 was 3.1 percent, the strongest growth we have seen literally in 13 years. The unemployment rate dropped to 3.8 percent in February, the 12th straight month the unemployment rate has been at or below 4 percent. That is the longest streak in nearly 50 years. The number of job openings has once again exceeded the number of job seekers. In fact, the Department of Labor reports that January was the 11th straight month with more job openings than people looking for work.

The economy has added more than 5.3 million jobs since President Trump was elected. Job growth has averaged 209,000 jobs a month over the past 12 months, exceeding the 2017 average by 30,000 jobs a month. Wage growth is accelerating. Wages are growing at a rate of 3.4 percent--the seventh straight month in which wages have grown at a rate of 3 percent or greater. Median household income is at an alltime high. Business investment is up, which means more jobs and opportunities for American workers. U.S. manufacturing is booming. Small business hiring recently hit a record high, and the list goes on.

This is a big turnaround.

After years of economic stagnation during the Obama administration, some were predicting that sluggish economic growth would be the new normal. When President Trump took office, the Congressional Budget Office predicted the economy would grow at a rate of 2 percent in 2018 and 1.7 percent in 2019. After Republicans cut burdensome regulations and passed a historic tax reform bill, the Congressional Budget Office substantially revised that projection, predicting 2.9 percent growth in 2018 and 2.7 percent in 2019--and the economy has delivered on that prediction.

Importantly, the benefits of our thriving economy are being spread far and wide. The lowest wage earners saw the fastest wage growth in 2018. The Wall Street Journal recently reported:

All sorts of people who have previously had trouble landing

a job are now finding work. Racial minorities, those with

less education, and people working in the lowest-paying jobs

are getting bigger pay raises and in many cases experiencing

the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for their groups.

They are joining manufacturing workers, women in their prime

working years, Americans with disabilities, and those with

criminal records, among others, in finding improved job

prospects after years of disappointment.

Tax cuts and other Republican economic policies are making life better for American families. So what do Democrats want to do? Continue with the policies that are bringing relief to American families? That would make sense.

Unfortunately not. Democrats want to raise taxes--by a lot--to pay for the socialist fantasies they are now embracing. Plans such as the Green New Deal and Medicare for All would result in massive tax hikes on just about everyone. Our economy would suffer and American families would see a permanent reduction in their standard of living.

It is deeply alarming that the Democratic Party is rapidly turning into the Socialist Party. It is vitally important that we ensure that hard-working Americans never have to live under Democrats' socialist fantasies.

Republicans are committed to protecting Americans from any attempt to

undo the economic progress we have made, and we will continue working to strengthen our economy even further.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea.''

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

Mr. President, yesterday afternoon, the Senate voted on the Green New Deal--the Democrats' $93 trillion socialist fantasy.

How did the Democrats vote on this deal? They voted present. That is right. There were 43 out of 47 Members of the Democratic caucus who voted present.

This may be the first time in my experience here that I have ever seen a piece of legislation and people who authored that legislation-- in this case, there were 13 Democrats who authored the bill, cosponsored the bill, introduced the bill, and indicated that action on the issue needed to be taken now--proceed to vote present. I have never seen that in my time either in the House or in the Senate. There was always an opportunity, as the Presiding Officer knows, in the House of Representatives, when you voted by electronic machine, to punch the yellow ``present'' option. You had red or green or present, but very rarely was that used. Yet I don't think I have ever seen, in the U.S. Senate, 13 U.S. Senators file a bill, introduce a bill, cosponsor a bill, talk about how important it is that we deal with it and deal with it immediately, and then proceed to vote present. That is what happened yesterday.

I want to step back for a minute and talk about the Green New Deal-- the Democrats' plan to put the government in charge of everything from your energy to your healthcare.

The costs of this plan would be staggeringly high. One think tank released its first estimate that found that the Green New Deal would cost somewhere between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over a 10-year period--between $51 trillion and $93 trillion. The 2017 gross domestic product for the entire world--the whole planet--only came to $80.7 trillion, which is more than $10 trillion less than the Democrats are proposing to spend on the Green New Deal. This $93 trillion is more than the amount of money the U.S. Government has spent in its entire history.

So how do the Democrats plan to cover that $93 trillion? Well, they don't actually have a plan. The Green New Deal resolution itself makes a vague reference to ``community grants, public banks, and other public financing.''

Then, of course, the Democrats have their favorite funding source, which is taxing the rich. The problem is, there is no way taxing the rich would even come close to paying for the Green New Deal. One analyst found that three Democratic proposals--the New York Representative's proposed 70-percent top tax rate, the Massachusetts Senator's wealth tax, and the Hawaii Senator's financial transactions tax--would together pay for approximately 4 percent of the Green New Deal.

Taxing every millionaire in the United States at a 100-percent rate for 10 years would bring in only a tiny fraction of $93 trillion. Taxing every household making more than $200,000 a year at a 100- percent rate for 10 years wouldn't get the Democrats anywhere close to $93 trillion. Taxing every family making more than $100,000 a year at a 100-percent rate for 10 years would still leave the Democrats far short of $93 trillion.

The Green New Deal is not a plan that can be paid for by taxing the rich. This plan would be paid for on the backs of working families. The size of the tax hikes that would be required to even begin to finance this massive government expansion would sharply diminish Americans' standard of living and usher in a new era of diminished prosperity, and I haven't even mentioned the freedom of choice Americans would lose and give up under the Green New Deal.

Your car's engine would likely soon become illegal. Washington planners could force you to rebuild your house to meet strict, new, energy-efficient guidelines. Your ability to travel by air might be restricted or entirely eliminated.

The Green New Deal doesn't limit itself to massive government expansion in the area of energy.

Among other things, it would also put the government in charge of your healthcare. So, if you like your health plan, get ready to give it up. Then there are the millions of current energy jobs that would be lost under this plan. Plus, there would likely be significant job losses in other industries as small businesses and larger companies would find themselves being unable to cope with the Green New Deal's mandates and taxes.

For American families, the Green New Deal would mean smaller paychecks, fewer jobs, fewer choices, and a permanently reduced standard of living.

You don't even have to take my word for it. Here is what the AFL-CIO, which represents 12\1/2\ million workers in a number of unions, had to say about the Green New Deal:

The Green New Deal resolution is far too short on specific

solutions that speak to the jobs of our members and the

critical sectors of our economy. It is not rooted in an

engineering-based approach and makes promises that are not

achievable or realistic. We will not accept proposals that

could cause immediate harm to millions of our members and

their families. We will not stand by and allow threats to our

members' jobs and their families' standard of living go

unanswered.

Let me repeat that:

We will not accept proposals that could cause immediate

harm to millions of our members and their families. We will

not stand by and allow threats to our members' jobs and their

families' standard of living go unanswered.

Again, these are quotes from the AFL-CIO. That is what it is saying about the Democrats' Green New Deal.

The American people have a right to know where the Democrats stand on

this massive government expansion. Are they for it or are they against it? Their Presidential candidates have embraced this plan. There were 13 Senate Democrats, as I mentioned, who sponsored the original Green New Deal resolution in the Senate, and there were 92 Democrats who sponsored the original Green New Deal resolution in the House. Yet, yesterday, just four Members of the Democratic caucus had the courage to make their positions clear.

As for the rest, well, it is actually understandable that most Democrats didn't want to go on the record as supporting, perhaps, the most irresponsible and costly resolution ever to come before the U.S. Senate. It is pretty difficult to tell your constituents that you support cutting their paychecks, eliminating millions of their jobs, and drastically reducing their choices.

I am sure there are more than four Members of the Democratic caucus who don't support this plan, but the Democrats are more and more enthralled with the far-left wing of their party, and, clearly, some Democrats were afraid to actually reject this plan with their votes.

So what happened? There were 43 out of 47 Members of the Democratic caucus here in the U.S. Senate who left the American people in limbo about their views, and they ended up voting present.

I would love to think that every Democrat who voted present yesterday has realized how damaging the Green New Deal would be to working families. But the scary truth is that while some Democrats may have voted present simply because they wanted to avoid angering the far-left wing of their party, other Democrats really believe--they really believe--in the Green New Deal.

The junior Senator from Vermont was asked if the Green New Deal goes too far. His answer? ``No. You cannot go too far on the issue of climate change.''

Really? You can't go too far? Not even if you saddle millions of families with exorbitant taxes and other costs just for miniscule gains? Not even if you permanently damage the American economy?

One of the Green New Deal's authors has actually stated that it is a legitimate question whether people should have children because of climate change. Is that something the Green New Deal supporters want to legislate too? Really?

The Democrats' Green New Deal extremism is disturbing, and I am deeply disappointed in yesterday's vote because the American people deserve to hear where every Democrat stands on this dangerous plan. Americans deserve to know whether Democrats are willing to hike their taxes, eliminate their jobs, and diminish drastically their freedoms.

I hope more Democrats will join the four who rejected this massive government overreach and will work with Republicans to develop responsible solutions to protect our environment--solutions that don't hurt American families.

I yield the floor.

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

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