Floor Statements

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Kansas, the chairman of the Senate Ag committee, who was incredibly instrumental in getting that last Farm Bill passed. I have the privilege of serving on his committee, and we do a lot of important work for our farmers and ranchers in this country. As he very aptly pointed out, one of the things that could undo a lot of the good work we hope will improve the economic outlook for farmers and ranchers, which today is a very difficult one--something that could really undo that is passage of something like this Green New Deal. It could do irreparable harm to the Ag economy in this country and would be disastrous for farmers and ranchers.

This afternoon, Senate Democrats will have a chance to vote on the Green New Deal, and the American people will have a chance to see just how many Democrats embrace this new government expansion.

The Green New Deal, as the name suggests, is largely about energy policy, but there is a lot more to unpack. The Green New Deal is a comprehensive socialist fantasy that would put the government in charge of everything from healthcare to the way you heat your house.

Do you like your car? With the Green New Deal you almost certainly will not be able to keep it. The Green New Deal also wants to eliminate fossil fuels, which means the engine that currently powers your car will likely be illegal. It also means, roughly, 3.5 million American truckdrivers will be out of a job.

Presumably airplanes would also be grounded, drying up the aviation sector and the travel, tourism, and business it supports.

Do you like your house? That may not matter if the government decides your house doesn't meet the Green New Deal's guidelines. Enjoy rebuilding your home according to plans provided by Washington.

Do you like your job? The Green New Deal will eliminate millions of current energy jobs, but that is not all. The energy industry in this country powers the American economy. Our supply of reliable, affordable energy allows businesses to flourish. So what happens when the Green New Deal drives up the price of energy or when businesses are hit with Green New Deal taxes or when American manufacturers can't meet the Green New Deal's stringent emissions goal? Well, I will tell you what will happen: American jobs will be lost or move overseas.

I mentioned Green New Deal taxes. That is because paying for this plan would require massive tax hikes on just about everybody. One think tank has released a first estimate of what the Green New Deal would cost, and the answer is between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years. That is almost an incomprehensible amount of money. Ninety-three trillion dollars is more than the amount of money the U.S. Government has spent in its entire history. That is right. Since 1789, when the Constitution went into effect, the Federal Government has spent a total of $83.2 trillion. In other words, it has taken us 230 years to spend the amount of money Democrats want to spend in 10.

How do Democrats plan to pay for this? Well, they don't actually have a plan. The Green New Deal resolution itself refers vaguely to ``community grants, public banks, and other public financing.'' That is all very well, but unless the Democrats' plan is to just print a lot of money, that public financing has to come from somewhere, and since the government is not currently sitting on a spare $9.3 trillion a year, that money is likely going to come from taxes--new and heavy taxes on just about every American.

Let me be very clear. This is not a plan that can be paid for with Democrats' favorite solution of taxing the rich. Taxing every millionaire in the United States at a 100-percent rate for 10 years would only bring in a tiny fraction of $93 trillion. In fact, there aren't enough millionaires in the entire world to cover $93 trillion. In 2017, the combined wealth of all the millionaires in the world was $70.2 trillion. So you could confiscate--you could literally confiscate all the money from all the millionaires in the entire world, and you still wouldn't have $93 trillion. The Green New Deal is not a plan that can be paid for by taxing the rich. This massive government expansion would be paid for on the backs of working families.

The energy industry has been a bright spot for American families over the past few years. Between 2007 and 2017, as the price of healthcare soared and education and food costs increased, household energy costs decreased. That is a big deal for working families, but that progress would go away under the Green New Deal. Energy costs would go up, not down, and the price of a lot of other items would likely rise sharply as well, as everyone from farmers to manufacturers would struggle under the Green New Deal's mandates and taxes. Needless to say, families' paychecks would shrink by a lot.

The size of the tax hikes that would be required to even begin to finance the Green New Deal would usher in a new era of diminished prosperity for American families. Gone would be the American dream of giving your children a better life than you have enjoyed. Under the Green New Deal, American families could look forward to permanently narrowed horizons.

So this afternoon, my Democratic colleagues face a choice. They can double down on their socialist fantasies and vote for the Green New Deal resolution--perhaps the most costly resolution ever to come before the Senate--or they can reject this green nightmare and resolve to work with Republicans to advance clean energy in a way that will not devastate the livelihoods of the American people.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).

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

Mr. President, desperate to distract from the $93 trillion price tag of their so-called Green New Deal, the Democratic leadership here in the Senate has been coming down to the floor to claim that Republicans are ignoring climate change.

On February 14, the Democratic leader came to the floor and said: ``Since Republicans took control of this Chamber in 2015, they have not brought a single Republican bill to meaningfully reduce carbon emissions to the floor of the Senate. Not one bill.'' That is a quote from the Democratic leader just a month ago.

That would be news to me, and I think it would be news to some Democratic Senators here, as well. On January 14 of this year, for example, the President signed into law the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. That legislation, led by Republican Senator Barrasso and cosponsored by both Republicans and Democrats, paves the way for new advanced nuclear technologies, which will help further reduce carbon emissions.

Here is what the Democratic ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee had to say about this bill:

Nuclear power serves as our nation's largest source of

reliable, carbon-free energy, which can help combat the

negative impacts of climate change and at the same time,

foster economic opportunities for Americans. . . . This is

another important step in our fight against climate change.

That is from the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Let me repeat that. ``This is another important step in our fight against climate change.'' That is coming from a key Democrat on a key committee that deals with this issue. That is not a Republican talking; that is the Democratic ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Then, of course, there is the Furthering Carbon Capture, Utilization, Technology, Underground Storage, and Reduced Emissions Act. Granted, that is a fairly long title. Several Republicans are original cosponsors of that. It became law as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. The FUTURE Act, as it is referred to, extends and expands tax credits for facilities with carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration technologies, which are referred to as CCUS technologies.

Here is what the Clean Air Task Force had to say about this legislation:

[T]he U.S. Congress took a landmark step by passing one of

the most important bills for reducing global warming

pollution in the last two decades.

That is a quote from the Clean Air Task Force and what they had to say about that legislation.

Then there is the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act, led by Republican Senator Mike Crapo, which

became law in September. This legislation will help support the development of advanced nuclear reactor designs, which will increase America's supply of clean and reliable energy.

Here is what the junior Democratic Senator from Rhode Island had to say about this legislation:

Partnerships between the private sector and our world-class

scientists at national labs will help bring new technologies

forward to compete against polluting forms of energy. . . . I

am proud to have worked with Senator Crapo to get this

bipartisan energy legislation over the finish line.

Here is what the junior Democratic Senator from New Jersey had to say:

Reducing our carbon emissions as quickly as possible

requires prioritizing the development and commercialization

of advanced nuclear reactors, which will be even safer and

more efficient than current reactors. Passage of this

legislation will provide critical support to startup

companies here in the United States that are investing

billions of dollars in these next generation reactor designs.

Here is what the Democratic whip himself had to say:

I was proud to join Senator Crapo on this bipartisan bill.

I could go on. I could talk about the 2018 farm bill, which, in the words of Earth Justice, contains ``a number of provisions that incentivize more climate-friendly practices.'' I serve on that committee. I was involved in the conservation title and the drafting of that, including a number of provisions in there. I could talk about the provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 to ensure the completion of our first two new nuclear reactors in a generation, which will prevent 10 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually; or the extension of wind and solar clean energy tax credits; or the bipartisan America's Water Infrastructure Act, which will help advance hydropower projects--a significant source of emission-free energy.

Suffice it to say that Republican Senators have passed more than one bill to protect our environment and help America achieve a clean energy future, and we are not stopping here. So why all the misdirection on the part of the Democrats? I am sure Democrats think it is politically advantageous to portray themselves as the only party that is invested in clean energy.

Then, of course, Democrats are desperate to distract from the details of the $93 trillion Green New Deal that their Presidential candidates have embraced. That is right--I said $93 trillion. One think tank has released the first estimate of what the Green New Deal will cost, and the answer is between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years. That is an incomprehensible amount of money.

For comparison, the entire Federal budget for 2019 is less than $5 trillion. The 2017 gross domestic product for the entire world, the entire planet, came to $80.7 trillion--more than $10 trillion less than Democrats are proposing to spend on the Green New Deal. Ninety-three trillion dollars is more than the amount of money the U.S. Government has spent in its entire history. Since 1789, when the Constitution went into effect, the Federal Government has spent a total of $83.2 trillion. That is right--it has taken us 230 years to spend the amount of money Democrats want to spend in 10.

Even attempting to pay for the Green New Deal would devastate working families, who would be hit with incredibly high new taxes. Let's be very clear about this. This is not a plan that can be paid for by taxing the rich. Taxing every family making more than $200,000 a year at a 100-percent tax rate for 10 years wouldn't get Democrats anywhere close to $93 trillion. Taxing every family making more than $100,000 a year at a 100-percent tax rate for 10 years would still leave Democrats short of $93 trillion.

Of course, the amount of money we are talking about, as horrifying as it is, is just one negative aspect of the Green New Deal. Democrats' Green New Deal is a full-blown socialist fantasy that would put the government in charge of not just energy but healthcare and all the other various aspects of the American economy.

One of the Green New Deal's authors posted and then deleted a document from her website noting that the Green New Deal would provide economic security for those unable or unwilling to work. That is right--in the Democrats' socialist fantasies, apparently the government will provide you with economic security if you are unwilling to work. Let's hope there are enough willing workers to fund those who are unwilling to work. After all, that $93 trillion has to come from somewhere.

It is no wonder that Democrats are trying to change the subject when it comes to the Green New Deal. They don't want to have to defend the specifics of their plan because their plan is, frankly, indefensible.

If the Democrats would like to have a serious discussion about energy, they should repudiate the unfathomably expensive Green New Deal and join Republicans in focusing on ways to secure a clean energy future without devastating the economy or bankrupting working families.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

Madam President, before I get to my main topic, I just want to briefly respond to something the Democratic leader, the Senator from New York, said regarding the tax cuts bill that passed in 2017.

The Democrats, none of whom voted for it, obviously, have not ceased to criticize the passage of that tax relief bill, notwithstanding the significant economic progress that we have seen as a result of its passage, coupled with relief from regulations and other policies that have been implemented by this President in working with the Congress.

There is historic economic data to report. We have record unemployment rates all across the country. We have seen record wage increases.

The Senator from New York talked about how this hasn't benefited working Americans. That couldn't be further from the truth. If you look at the data, it is very clear that wage rates are growing. They are growing at the fastest rate in over a decade. Today, we actually have more jobs available in this country than we do people looking for jobs. That is also a historic first and something that has been happening now for many months in a row.

We have record low unemployment, record high wages, and growth in the economy that we haven't seen in over a decade either--3.1 percent in a calendar year, fourth quarter over fourth quarter. That is the first time we have seen north of 3 percent growth in our economy since 2005. So if you look at the evidence, it is pretty clear that the tax relief bill that was passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President in late 2017 is having the desired effect.

With respect to the arguments that were made that this is what is contributing to the debt and the deficit, just last week there was a piece in the Wall Street Journal by a former colleague of ours, Senator Phil Gramm from Texas, who pointed out the Congressional Budget Office has adjusted its projections when it comes to growth in the economy since the tax bill passed.

In 2017, when it was in the process of being passed, the CBO was projecting 2 percent growth in 2018 and 1.7 percent growth in 2019. They have now modified those projections to 2.9 percent in 2018 and 2.7 percent in 2019.

What that means is--an additional percentage point of growth means higher government revenues. In fact, the CBO has adjusted their projections with respect to government revenues upward to about $1.2 trillion over the next decade. Government revenues of $1.2 trillion would be about 80 percent of what the projected cost of the tax bill was, about $1.5 trillion. At the time, we projected we would see additional economic growth as a result of passing tax reform and allowing individuals and businesses, whether they are organized as C corps or whether they are organized as passthroughs, to benefit from these provisions and changes in the Tax Code--faster cost recovery and lower rates--that would encourage them to invest, grow, and expand their operations. That is exactly what has happened.

As a result of that, according to the CBO and based on their projections, you have seen government revenues going up and up by over $1 trillion. Again, that is almost 80 percent and pays for the cost of the tax bill that the Democrats are so quick to criticize as contributing to the deficit and the debt.

So I would argue that if you look at the facts--facts are stubborn things--if you look at the record, if you look at the data, and if you look at the statistics, they all point to the impact of tax reform and other pro-growth policies that have been implemented by the Trump administration and this Republican Congress; they are having the desired effect. We are seeing increases in wages. Obviously, we are seeing a tremendous impact on growth and on jobs in this economy, and that is good for American workers.

Obviously, when you reduce tax rates, hopefully, that benefits everybody, but when you have a growing, vibrant, and robust economy, that lifts all folks. Everybody benefits from that, and we are seeing the effects of that as a result of this policy.

I know the Democrats all voted against it, so I suppose they have every reason to try to criticize it, but, again, if you look at the facts, if you look at the record, and if you look at the actual data, you get a very different conclusion from the one that they are trying to put forward and advance.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue).

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

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

Madam President, I am sure everyone remembers the Democrats' ObamaCare promise: ``If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.'' That promise was named PolitiFacts' ``Lie of the Year'' in 2013 after it became clear that millions of Americans would not, in fact, be able to keep their healthcare plans. There are no worries about being deceived on the question of keeping your insurance this time around because Democrats are loudly and proudly announcing their intention of getting rid of private insurance with their Medicare for All plan.

At a CNN townhall in February, the junior Senator from Vermont was asked: ``Will these people be able to keep their health insurance plans, their private plans through their employers, if there is a Medicare for All program that you endorse?''

The answer of the Senator from Vermont was no.

Another Democratic candidate for President, the junior Senator from New York, was recently asked: ``Should ending private insurance, as we know it, be a Democratic . . . goal? And do you think it is an urgent goal?''

Her response: ``Oh yeah, it is a goal . . . an urgent goal.''

If you like your health insurance, you definitely will not be able to keep it. In fact, the employer-sponsored insurance that you have today would be illegal under the Democrats' plan. In the minds of Democrats, Americans are supposed to be enthusiastic about Medicare for All because it would give them free healthcare. The problem, of course, is it will not really be free. Americans are still going to be paying for healthcare; it will just be in the form of much higher taxes.

A left-leaning think tank modeled a version of the Medicare for All plan proposed by the junior Senator from Vermont and found that it would cost a staggering $32 trillion over 10 years. To put that in perspective, the entire Federal budget for 2019 is less than $5 trillion. That is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, defense spending, education spending, law enforcement, infrastructure-- everything. In other words, Democrats are talking about increasing Federal spending by more than 60 percent each year just for healthcare. One Medicare expert estimates that doubling the amount of individual and corporate income tax collected would not be enough to cover the cost of Medicare for All.

I don't know about my Democratic colleagues, but I don't know a lot of working families who could afford to have their tax bill literally double. Of course, this is assuming that the cost of the program would be limited to $32 trillion. The Medicare for All proposal the House Democrats released last week could substantially exceed the $32 trillion estimate because, unlike the Vermont Senator's plan, it includes funding for long-term care, a notoriously expensive part of the healthcare system.

Democrats' last attempt to have the government fund long-term care fell apart before it was even implemented because the program was not financially viable.

It is not just the cost of Medicare for All that is completely unrealistic; the timeline for implementation is as well. House Democrats' proposal would put every American on Medicare for All within 2 years. We have 2 years to completely do away with healthcare as we know it and create an entirely new healthcare program to cover almost every single American.

I am sure most Americans remember the fiasco that was ObamaCare implementation. The Obama administration had 3\1/2\ years to get ObamaCare up and running, and they couldn't even build a working website in that amount of time. The ObamaCare exchanges were intended only to cover a tiny fraction of the number of people who would be covered under Medicare for All. The idea that the Federal Government could smoothly transition all Americans over to an entirely new government-run healthcare program in 2 years is absolutely ludicrous. Making the attempt would cause Americans an incredible amount of pain. Every aspect of this proposal would cause Americans an incredible amount of pain.

There are the heavy taxes that would be required to even partially pay for

this program and the bureaucracy and inefficiency that would come with any government attempt to take over healthcare.

Then there is the rationing of care that would inevitably come along. Democrats are promising that these would be plans with generous coverage, but what happens when Democrats don't have the money to pay for that coverage? Well, they can raise taxes higher, of course.

Yet they will also undoubtedly turn to the rationing of care that we have seen in other countries with socialized medicine. The majority leader noted on the floor last week that Britain's National Health Service canceled 25,000 surgeries in the first quarter of last year alone.

I could go on. I could talk about the long wait times Americans would experience under Medicare for All. I could talk about the fact that the Democrats' proposal would end the prohibition on government funding for abortion, meaning that your tax dollars would go toward ending the lives of preborn babies, whether you want them to or not.

I can talk about the threat that Medicare for All represents for seniors because, make no mistake, this program would do away with Medicare as we know it and the promises that have been made to seniors in this country. Seniors would receive care under the new plan, but it would not be the plan they signed up for, and there is no guarantee that they would receive the benefits the Democrats are promising.

If I went on about all the ways that Medicare for All is a bad idea, none of my colleagues would have a chance to speak for the rest of the day or probably tomorrow, for that matter, either. Suffice it to say that Medicare for All would be a very bad deal for the American people.

Let's hope that our colleagues across the aisle halt their mad rush toward socialism before the American people get stuck with this government-run nightmare.

I yield the floor.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue).

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, the more you look at the Green New Deal, the worse it looks. Last week, one think tank released a first estimate of what the Green New Deal would cost. Here is the answer: between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years. Between $51 trillion and $93 trillion. That is an unfathomable amount of money. The 2017 gross domestic product for the entire world, for the whole planet, came to $80.7 trillion--more than $10 trillion less than what Democrats are proposing to spend on the Green New Deal.

Mr. President, $93 trillion is more than the amount of money the U.S. Government has spent in its entire history. Since 1789, when the Constitution went into effect, the Federal Government has spent a total of $83.2 trillion. That is right--it has taken us 230 years of American history to spend the amount of money the Democrats want to spend in 10 years. Look at it this way: $93 trillion is enough money to buy more than 7,000 Ford-class aircraft carriers. To put that in perspective, guess how many aircraft carriers the Navy currently has in its entire fleet. Eleven.

It is like the Democrats are playing pretend. It is like they are on a road trip, and they are trying to pass the time, and they say, ``What would you do if you won the lottery?'' or ``What would you do if you had all the money in the world?'' It is a fun game to play for a few minutes, but this is not a game. The government doesn't have all the money in the world. That $93 trillion is going to have to come from somewhere.

Democrats like to suggest that we can pay for it and pay for just about anything simply by taxing the wealthy, but the truth is, taxing the wealthy or even the merely well-off isn't going to pay for this proposal. Taxing all the millionaires in the United States at a 100- percent tax rate for 10 years wouldn't add up anywhere close to $93 trillion. Taxing every household making more than $200,000 a year at a 100-percent tax rate for 10 years wouldn't get Democrats anywhere close to $93 trillion. Let's take it a step further. Taxing every family making more than $100,000 a year at a

100-percent tax rate for 10 years would still leave Democrats far short of $93 trillion.

The Green New Deal is not a plan that can be paid for merely by taxing the rich. Actually implementing the Green New Deal would involve taking money not just from the well-off but from working families--and not a little bit of money either. Ninety-three trillion dollars breaks down to over $650,000 per household over 10 years. That is more than $65,000 per household, per year--more that the median household income in the United States. In other words, the cost per household for just 1 year of the Green New Deal is more than the yearly income of 50 percent of American households.

Let's leave aside the stratospheric cost for just a minute and talk about the other consequences of the Green New Deal.

Democrats' Green New Deal would put the government in charge of a large portion of the economy and significantly shrink Americans' freedom. Under this bill, the government will impose new and stringent regulations on your appliances, your car, your house, and your place of business. It will limit your electricity options. It will put the government in charge of your healthcare. I know that is not really energy-related, but the Green New Deal's authors went beyond energy to include a full socialist wish list.

Your options for travel may be limited. A fact sheet released--and later deleted--by one of the authors of the Green New Deal called for a plan to ``build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.'' Well, that might work between DC and Boston, but it is not going to work so well if you have family in Hawaii. I don't think the high-speed rail is going to reach that far. I would say that you could make the trip by passenger ship, but, of course, we don't know whether ships as we know them would exist under the Green New Deal. After all, the plan's authors want to eliminate fossil fuels, which power ships, as well as your car and your home.

Incidentally, while we are on the subject, it is worth mentioning that the Governor of California recently scaled back California's high- speed rail project. Why? Because it was costing too much money.

Under the Green New Deal, if you like your car, you probably won't be able to keep it. If you like your healthcare, you probably won't be able to keep it. If you like your house, you may not be able to keep that either. That same fact sheet from one of the Green New Deal's authors says that we need to ``upgrade or replace every building in [the] U.S.''

There is no question that we need to protect our environment. There is no question that we should be developing clean energy sources and building on our existing clean energy technologies. I would tell the Chair that my home State of South Dakota is leading the way on this issue. In fact, my colleagues may be surprised to know that according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, South Dakota generates an average of two-fifths to half of its electricity from hydroelectric facilities along the Missouri River. Combined with our abundant wind generation, which provides roughly 30 percent of our electricity, South Dakota's net utility-scale energy generation is over 75 percent renewables.

I am proud of South Dakota's renewable energy achievements, and I think we should be encouraging improved domestic energy production, increasing America's renewable energy supply, and reducing consumption through improved deficiencies. What we should not be doing is adopting a wildly irresponsible, completely unworkable, and utterly unrealistic proposal that would drive taxes through the roof, reduce Americans' standard of living, and permanently damage our economy.

We are going to be voting on the Democrat's Green New Deal proposal in the coming weeks, and it will be interesting to see where all of my colleagues stand on this socialist fantasy.

You just heard the Democratic leader, the Senator from New York, say that it is a gimmick and we shouldn't be voting on this. It is the first time I think I have ever heard a leader of one of the parties here in the Senate come forward and say that we shouldn't vote on something that 11 of his Democratic colleagues have cosponsored. He doesn't want to vote on a piece of legislation that is put forward by 11 Democrats here in the Senate.

Well, I think it is important for the American people to know. I think it is important for Members of the Senate to go on record on whether they think this is a good idea or whether they think, as I think most Americans would believe, this is a crazy idea that would wreck the economy, cost Americans' jobs, and punish working families in this country with higher costs for literally everything they face in their daily lives.

For the sake of our economy and for working families, I hope that when this vote comes, at least some Democrats will slow their party's headlong rush to become the Socialist Party and not what we have historically known as the Democratic Party in this country.

I yield the floor.