Floor Statements

Madam President, last week, we learned that the economy grew at a rate of 3.1 percent from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2018. That is the strongest economic growth in over 10 years. Economic growth for the fourth quarter of 2018 smashed market expectations.

In January, the economy created more than 300,000 jobs. More than 5.3 million jobs have been created since President Trump was elected. Job openings hit a record high of 7.3 million in December, substantially exceeding the number of those looking for work. The Department of Labor reports that the number of job openings has exceeded the number of job seekers for 10 straight months. Unemployment is low. January marked the 11th straight month that unemployment has been at or below 4 percent. That is the longest streak in nearly five decades.

Wage growth has accelerated. Wages have now been growing at a rate of 3 percent or greater for 6 straight months. The last time wage growth reached this level was in 2009. Median household income is at an alltime high.

U.S. manufacturing has rebounded. The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday:

America's factories are hiring again.

After years of job losses, U.S. manufacturing employment

has risen for 18 straight months among those holding

production or nonsupervisory jobs, the longest stretch of

gains since the mid-1990s.

That is from the Wall Street Journal.

The list goes on.

The economic growth we are experiencing is the direct result of Republican policies. Economic growth has accelerated over the past 2 years, thanks to the lifting of the burdensome regulations and a historic reform of our Tax Code.

Before we passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, our Tax Code was acting as a drag on economic growth. Small businesses faced heavy tax burdens that frequently made it difficult for them to expand and create jobs or even to get their businesses off the ground in the first place. America's global businesses faced the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, which put them at a competitive disadvantage on the international stage.

Of course, all of that had real consequences for American workers. A small business owner facing a huge tax bill was highly unlikely to be able to expand her business or to hire a new employee. A larger business was going to find it hard to create jobs or improve benefits for employees while struggling to stay competitive against foreign businesses paying much less in taxes. So we reformed our Tax Code to make it easier for businesses to grow, create jobs, and expand opportunities for American workers. Now we are seeing the results-- economic growth, low unemployment, higher wages, a record-high number of job openings, and more.

Importantly, the benefits of this growth are being experienced widely. The Wall Street Journal reports:

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.

Again, that is from the Wall Street Journal.

The Obama administration was characterized by a weak recovery and years of economic stagnation. There were predictions that 2 percent growth would be the new normal. But Republican economic policies have turned the economy around. Now we need to focus on ways to extend the benefits of tax reform even further and to secure the gains we have made for the long term.

Unfortunately, our colleagues across the aisle are more focused on dismantling the policies that created the growth we are experiencing today. Apparently, it doesn't matter to them that workers are doing better after years of economic stagnation or that jobs and opportunities are increasing. They are set on dismantling tax reform and raising rates to fund their socialist fantasies. They want to spend $93 trillion--more money than the GDP of the entire world--to put the government in charge of Americans' healthcare, energy usage, and more.

I wish I were joking, but Democrats' turn toward socialist insanity is all too real. The kinds of tax hikes that would be required to pay for Democrats' proposals would cripple our economy and severely downgrade America's standard of living--not to mention robbing Americans of their freedom to make their own decisions about all the various aspects of their lives.

It is mind-boggling that more and more Democrats are embracing socialism and the less free and less prosperous future it would bring. Let's hope their socialist fantasies stay just that--fantasies--because our economy might never recover from the reality of Democrats' proposals.

I yield the floor.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Madam President, just in getting started this morning, I wanted to take a minute to mention the good news on economic growth we received this morning.

While headlines mentioned the very solid 2.9 percent growth number for

2018, if we use the measure that economists prefer, the news is even better--3.1 percent growth from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2018. This is just more evidence that Republican economic policies are working.

We lifted burdensome regulations and passed a comprehensive reform of our Tax Code to put more money in Americans' pockets and make it easier for businesses to grow and expand jobs. Now we are seeing the effects.

Unemployment is low. January marked the 11th straight month that unemployment has been at or below 4 percent. That is the longest streak in nearly five decades. The number of job openings hit a record high in December, and, once again, there were more job openings than job seekers. Wage growth has accelerated. Wages have now been growing at a rate of 3 percent or greater for 6 straight months. The last time wage growth reached this level was in 2009. Median household income is at an all-time, inflation-adjusted record of $61,372. The list goes on.

What does all of this mean? It means more money in American families' bank accounts, more jobs and opportunities for American workers, more Americans feeling hopeful about their future.

Republican economic policies are making life better for American families, which is why it is particularly disturbing that Democrats are currently advancing policies that would not only destroy the economic progress we have made but would severely damage our economy for the long term.

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, in a document later removed from her website, one of the Green New Deal's sponsors had this to say about the Green New Deal: ``The question isn't how we will pay for it, but what we will do with our new shared prosperity.''

``The question isn't how we will pay for it . . .'' That was the quote. That is a pretty staggering statement when you consider that the Green New Deal plans to upend most of American society as we know it, from transportation to healthcare, but I suspect there was a simple reason the Green New Deal authors didn't want to talk about how to pay for it--because they couldn't figure out how.

This week, one think tank released a first estimate of what the Green New Deal would cost, and here is the answer: between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years--between $51 trillion and $93 trillion. Those numbers are so large that they are almost impossible to process.

Just for perspective, consider the fact that the entire Federal budget for 2019 is less than $5 trillion. That is the entire Federal budget--defense spending, domestic priorities, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, everything.

The Green New Deal could end up costing $9.3 trillion each year-- double the current Federal budget--and the government would still have to pay for a lot of other priorities on top of that. That money wouldn't cover defense spending, or Social Security, or a number of other urgent needs.

The Green New Deal would assuredly raise Americans' energy bills, but that is just a tiny fraction of what Democrats' Green New Deal, which goes far

beyond mere energy policy, would cost American families. It is difficult to even imagine the staggering tax hikes that would be required to pay for this plan.

This plan would never be paid for just by taxing the well-off. That is always the argument we hear. Taxing every household making more than $200,000 a year at a 100-percent rate for 10 years would leave the Democrats far short of $93 trillion. Taxing every family making more than $100,000 a year at a 100-percent rate for 10 years would still leave Democrats far short of $93 trillion. In short, actually implementing this so-called Green New Deal would involve taking money not just from the well-off but from working families in this country-- and not a little bit of money either.

Ninety-three trillion dollars breaks down to over $600,000 per household. That is over 10 times the median household income in my State of South Dakota.

Should the Democratic Green New Deal come to pass, ordinary Americans would see incredible tax hikes. Middle-class Americans would see a substantial and permanent reduction in their standard of living.

When we talk about Democrats' socialist fantasies, we tend to quickly fasten on the staggering costs of these programs, but it is important to also remember what else they would cost Americans.

Socialism just doesn't come with a staggering pricetag; it also comes with less freedom, fewer choices, and less control of your own destiny.

Socialized medicine like Medicare for All wouldn't mean just big tax hikes; it would mean giving up your private insurance plan, even if you like your coverage. It would mean being forced onto the government's healthcare plan, whether you like it or not. It would mean waiting in long lines. It would mean long wait times you can't do anything to avoid.

The Green New Deal would mean higher electricity bills and higher taxes, but it would also mean limited transportation choices, including no airplane travel, increased government control over your housing options, less reliable energy, and the list goes on.

Democrats' socialist fantasies would cost Americans untold amounts of money and permanently damage our economy, but the loss of choice and freedom would cost Americans even more. Democrats' green dream would be a green nightmare for Americans and American families.

I yield the floor.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

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

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

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

Madam President, last night, for the second time in a month, Democrats objected to a bill to ban infanticide.

That statement to me is absolutely chilling, but for the second time in a month, Democrats objected to a bill that would do nothing more than state that a living, breathing baby born in an abortion clinic is entitled to the same protection and medical care as a living, breathing baby born in a hospital is entitled to.

It is a pretty basic bill. It just says that living, breathing, born human beings are entitled to protection even if they are born in an abortion clinic, but apparently that is not something Democrats are prepared to say. This is where Democrats' support for abortions has led them--to being unable to condemn infanticide.

Let's remember why we voted on this bill last night. We voted on this bill because the Democratic Governor of Virginia implicitly endorsed infanticide--because the Democratic Governor of Virginia got up and said that you could keep a living, breathing baby comfortable while you decided what to do with it.

There is only one answer to what you do with a living, breathing baby, and that is to provide it with the care it needs. A baby born alive in an abortion clinic is no less valuable and deserving of protection than a baby born in a delivery room.

It is horrifying that we are actually having a debate about this. Honestly, it is horrifying that the Democratic Party can't get up and say that infanticide is wrong. My Democratic colleagues like to talk about protecting the vulnerable, but how can they claim to care about helping those in need if they harden their hearts toward the most vulnerable among us? If they are willing to deny living, breathing babies basic medical care, do you really stand for the vulnerable if you can't stand up and say that infanticide is wrong?

It is terrible enough that we have so far betrayed our founding principles as to deny the right to life of living, breathing unborn babies, but we are not even talking about abortion here. We are talking about withholding essential care from babies who are born alive. My Democratic colleagues can't even bring themselves to say this is wrong.

I would say to my Democratic colleagues, do you really want to be the party of Governor Northam? Do you really want to be the party of infanticide?

The American people don't agree with the Democratic Party on abortion and on infanticide. Most Americans believe that babies born alive after an abortion should be provided with medical care. Most Americans think there should be at least some limits on abortion. In fact, most countries in the world think there should be some limits on abortion. The United States is just one of a tiny handful of countries that allow elective abortion past 20 weeks of pregnancy. Among the others on that list are China and North Korea--not exactly the company we want to be keeping when it comes to protecting human rights.

A recent poll found that 71 percent of Americans oppose abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Yet the Democratic Party is aggressively embracing an agenda of zero restrictions on abortion, ever, up to--and now, apparently, after--the moment of birth.

I hope last night is not the last time we vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. I hope my Democratic colleagues have a chance to recast their votes. I hope, next time, they will decide to vote against infanticide. I hope, next time, they can affirm what should be a basic, foundational principle, and that is that every baby, wherever he or she is born, deserves to be protected.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

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

Mr. President, later today, we hope we will have an opportunity to vote on legislation that will fund the government and provide much needed support for border security. While no agreement is perfect and not everybody gets everything one wants, this makes a significant downpayment on a border wall as well as on other border security measures. At the same time, it funds all of the appropriations bills for this fiscal year.

I hope, as our Members review the text, they will have an opportunity to conclude that we will be able to get the votes that will be necessary to move the legislation through the Senate and, hopefully, ultimately, through the House and to the President and that the President will be able to sign it into law. So stay tuned on that. Hopefully, that will all transpire later today.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).