Floor Statements

Mr. President, we are doing a number of important things in the Senate this week.

Last night, we passed the Natural Resources Management Act. This is a bipartisan package of more than 100 individual bills that will help protect our natural resources, spur economic development, increase access to public lands, and much more.

I was very pleased that my Custer County Airport Conveyance Act, which I introduced with the other Members of the South Dakota delegation, was included in this bill. This legislation will give Custer County Airport full ownership of the land on which it operates and allow the airport to make improvements to its facilities.

Custer County Airport supports business and recreational aviation and fire suppression efforts in the Black Hills region, and I am pleased that this bill will increase the airport's ability to serve this area of South Dakota.

I am grateful to Chairman Murkowski for her leadership on this important lands package, as well as to Ranking Member Manchin and all of those who worked on these bills at the committee level.

Mr. President, last night, the Senate moved forward on William Barr's nomination to be Attorney General. We will have the final vote on that nomination later this week.

The President made an outstanding choice with Mr. Barr. Mr. Barr is eminently qualified to be Attorney General. In fact, he has already been Attorney General--under President George H.W. Bush. He also served as Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice and as Deputy Attorney General.

He has won respect from both sides of the aisle. He has been confirmed by the Senate without opposition--not once, not twice, but three times. He was unanimously confirmed as Attorney General under George H.W. Bush in a Democrat-controlled Senate. Then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden described him as ``a heck of an honorable guy.''

Senator Leahy also spoke at that time, expressing his belief that Mr. Barr would be ``an independent voice for all Americans.''

Today, Mr. Barr continues to earn respect from Democrats. The ranking member on the Judiciary Committee noted in January:

He's obviously very smart. He was attorney general before.

No one can say he isn't qualified.

Mr. Barr is extremely smart and eminently qualified. He would be a judicious, thoughtful, and independent Attorney General, whose allegiance would be to, as he said, ``the rule of law, the Constitution, and the American people.'' I hope the Senate will quickly confirm him in a bipartisan fashion.

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

Madam President, last Thursday, Democrats released their plan for a Green New Deal, although ``plan'' might be a bit of a stretch. It is more like a wish list because while Democrats announced their desired outcomes like getting rid of fossil fuels or upgrading every single building in the United States, they provided no details at all about how to get there. In particular, they failed to provide any details on how to pay for the staggering costs of what they are proposing to do.

Take just one provision of the Democrats' green wish list: ``Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.'' That is a direct quote from the so-called plan, upgrading all existing buildings--all existing buildings.

Well, the cost of that provision alone is practically inconceivable, but that is just a small fraction of what the Democrats want to do. Their wish list also includes ``meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources and by deploying new capacity; overhauling

transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible'' and much, much more, and they don't limit themselves to energy initiatives either. They also announced that a Green New Deal must include guaranteeing every person in the United States a job, healthcare, paid vacations, and more.

It is possible the reason the Democrats didn't provide any details about how to pay for their plan is because they knew that outlining the actual cost would sink their plan from the very beginning. I cannot even imagine the staggering amount of money that would be required to pay for the ideas on their wish list, and that money will come from the pockets of the American people.

Like other socialist fantasies, this is not a plan that can be paid for by merely taking money from the rich. Actually implementing this so-called Green New Deal would involve taking money from working families--and not a little bit of money either.

Before the introduction of last week's absurd resolution, the Green New Deal was modeled and projected to cost American families up to $3,800 a year in higher energy bills, and $3,800 a year in higher energy costs would be hard enough for most working families I meet, but that would be just the tip of the iceberg under the Democrats' plan because, of course, if your electricity costs are higher, then so are your business's electricity costs, your doctor's electricity costs, the electricity costs at neighborhood restaurants, and the electricity costs at your gym, and all of these places are going to charge more money to cover their cost increases so you are going to be paying more in electric bills and more on everything else as well.

Then there is the fact that the government will not be able to pay for one-quarter of what is outlined in the Green New Deal without raising your taxes by a lot. There is no question that socialist fantasies sound nice--they always do--until they end up victimizing the very people they are meant to help.

As Ronald Reagan is reported to have said, ``Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it, and hell where they already have it.''

Democrats' gauzy, nebulous proposal may sound appealing on the surface, but it would devastate our economy and be paid for on the backs of working families in this country. The Green New Deal would be a very bad deal for the American people.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, imagine going into a U.S. prison and announcing that a substantial number of the prisoners had to be released immediately--no exceptions, even if the prisoners in question had participated in serious crimes or committed violent offenses. That is an unthinkable scenario, and no one would seriously suggest going into our Nation's prisons and immediately releasing thousands of prisoners, including violent offenders onto the streets. Yet that is exactly what Democrats are proposing as part of a border security agreement.

Over the weekend, Democrats proposed capping the number of illegal immigrants who could be detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Incredibly, they are refusing to allow an exception to the cap for violent criminals. Under Democrats' proposal, if Immigration and Customs Enforcement needed to detain more than 16,500 violent criminals in the interior of our country, they simply wouldn't be able to do it. Instead, immigration enforcement officers would have to choose which violent criminals to release back into our communities. Think about that.

Obviously, everyone who has come here illegally has broken our laws, but in a lot of cases in question, we are talking about people who have violated other laws, like laws against assault, rape, murder, theft, drug trafficking, and more. We are talking about limiting law enforcement's ability to make sure that those individuals are detained.

It isn't just about future detentions either. If the Democrats' enforcement cap went into effect, Immigration and Customs Enforcement would be forced to release criminals already in detention onto our Nation's streets.

Additionally, there are an estimated 180,000 criminal illegal aliens in the United States who currently are not in custody.

So, under the Democrats' proposal, not only would Immigration and Customs Enforcement be forced to release violent criminals, for all practical purposes, it would also be prohibited from trying to take additional dangerous criminals off of our streets.

Let's be very clear about what we are talking about here. We are talking about limiting the ability of a law enforcement agency to enforce criminal laws. No administration of either party would accept an arbitrary limit on the number of criminals it would be able to detain. No administration would or should sign off on a law that would force law enforcement agencies to leave violent criminals on our Nation's streets.

As of a couple of days ago, the Republicans, I would say, were encouraged by the bipartisan nature of the negotiations to prevent another government shutdown. Then the Democrats came forward with this absurd proposal to limit law enforcement's ability to detain even dangerous criminals.

Are Democrats trying to derail negotiations with a poison pill at the eleventh hour and force another shutdown? The question has to be asked since no one could seriously think that any President of either party would sign a deal that would limit his administration's ability to enforce the law.

We still have a few days left. I hope the Democrats will abandon this preposterous proposal to release dangerous criminals onto our Nation's streets. We can achieve a deal to avert another shutdown, but we can't do it by jeopardizing law enforcement's ability to protect the American people.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).

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

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from TX (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from TX (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from ND (Mr. Hoeven), and the Senator from NE (Mr. Sasse).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from TX (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from ND (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Stephanie Miller, detailee with the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, be granted floor privileges through May 15.

Madam President, I want to congratulate the Senator from Alaska on doing a wonderful job pulling together pieces of legislation that have been lingering around here for a long time. They have gone through the committee process and have been vetted--sometimes multiple times--but have never ultimately made it across the finish line. We have an opportunity here, when we get a chance to vote, to complete that work and to do something that will be very meaningful for Senators on both sides of the aisle who represent a wide swath of our country.

As the Senator from Alaska pointed out, she and her staff were very helpful to us. We have a little issue in Custer, SD. The city of Custer wants to have an airport--to expand their airport operations, and the Forest Service wants to transfer some of the land in order for them to do that, and it takes action by Congress to make that happen. So we are grateful to Senator Murkowski and her team for all they have done to advance this legislation and to give us an opportunity, once and for all, to get a number of things across the finish line that have been waiting for a long time.

The Economy

Madam President, Democrats like to present themselves as the party of working Americans, but if that were ever true, it is certainly not true anymore. You don't have to look any further than recent Democratic policy to see how disconnected the Democratic Party is and has become from ordinary Americans.

Let's take the so-called Green New Deal. This proposal, which would require that all U.S. energy production be renewable, could raise electricity bills for families by more than $3,000 per year--$3,000 per year.

It is difficult to see how anyone who understands the challenges faced by working families would propose adding $3,000 per year to their electricity bills. When I am home in South Dakota, I regularly hear from South Dakotan families who are working hard to make ends meet. I can think of few families in my State--or anywhere else, for that matter--who could easily absorb an additional $3,000 a year in energy costs. With last week's polar vortex or even the average cold winters we get on the Great Plains, it is frightening to think about how many people would be at risk if it weren't for reliable and affordable energy.

Then, of course, there is the Democrats' Medicare for All proposal. This sounds like a simple solution--who doesn't want to increase access to healthcare?--until you hear the price tag. The so-called Medicare for All would cost an estimated $32 trillion over 10 years. That is equivalent to the entire Federal discretionary budget more than two times over.

Democrats like to present the fiction of free healthcare. Well, that is precisely what it is--fiction. There is just no such thing as a free lunch, and there is certainly no such thing as free healthcare. Nurses have to be paid. Lab technicians have to be paid. MRI and x ray technicians have to be paid. The people who cook for patients and keep our hospitals clean have to be paid. Pharmacists have to be paid. Medical supplies have to be purchased. Someone has to pay all those costs.

Under the government-run healthcare plan of the Senator from Vermont, the government would be paying all the healthcare bills. So the government would pay all those costs, but the government is going to have to get all that money from somewhere. Where is that money going to come from? Well, it is going to come from the American people, and the government would need a lot more money from ordinary Americans to cover the cost of Medicare for All. Doubling the amount of individual and corporate income tax collected would still not be enough to pay for the mammoth costs of this plan.

Make no mistake--this is not a plan that would be paid for solely from the coffers of the rich; the so-called Medicare for All would be paid for on the backs of middle-class Americans.

Americans would see stratospheric tax hikes, to say nothing of the loss of their employer-sponsored health insurance. Under Medicare for All, if you like your health insurance, you will not be able to keep it because Medicare for All would do away with all employer-sponsored insurance. One hundred and seventy-five million Americans would lose their healthcare coverage and be forced into a government-run replacement--a replacement where the government sets the prices and makes the decisions about what gets covered. So you will still be paying for your healthcare via new and higher taxes, but the government will have the final say.

I could go on. I could talk about other Democratic proposals, such as the proposal to raise the top marginal tax rate to 70 percent--a rate we haven't seen since 1965--which would be a tax hike not only on individuals but on small and medium-sized businesses as well. Then there is the House Democrats' proposal to substantially increase the corporate tax rate even though lowering it to make American businesses more competitive globally has helped grow our economy. It has helped keep businesses and jobs in the United States, and it has produced new benefits and opportunities for American workers.

Suffice it to say that the Democratic agenda is not an agenda for the middle class. It is an agenda crafted by and for elites and far-left special interest groups. It is an agenda for people who don't have to worry about the size of their energy bill or a hike in their taxes. It is not an agenda for working families.

Republicans know that working families had a tough time in recent years. Years of economic stagnation during the Obama administration left wages essentially flat, and jobs and opportunities were few and far between. For too many families, getting ahead has been replaced with getting by.

Since Republicans took office 2 years ago, we have made huge progress at turning the economy around. Tax reform has made life better for ordinary Americans. It has put more money in their pockets and in their paychecks. It has reduced utility bills. It has expanded the jobs and opportunities available to workers.

Today, the economy is growing, unemployment is low, and wages are rising at the best pace in a decade. But there is still more work to be done, and Republicans are committed to accomplishing that work. We want to expand the benefits of tax reform even further. We want to lower the cost of living. We want to make healthcare more affordable. We want to help Americans save for their children's education and for their retirement. We intend to do it all while leaving Americans in charge of their own decisions. We know that Americans are the best judge of what they and their families need and where their money should go, and Republicans are committed to keeping Americans in charge of their own destinies.

We have made a lot of progress so far for American families, and we are committed to making a lot more. We will oppose every attempt by Democrats to advance an agenda that will result in fewer jobs, lower paychecks, and increased burdens for American families.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).

Mr. President, in last night's State of the Union Address, the President highlighted the strength of the economy. After years of stagnation under the Obama administration, our economy has come roaring back, thanks in substantial part to Republican economic policies.

After the Presidential election 2 years ago, Republicans made it our mission to get our economy going again. We cut excessive regulations, and we passed a historic comprehensive reform of our outdated Tax Code.

The Tax Code plays a huge role in the health of our economy. It helps determine how much money individuals and families have to spend and save. It helps to determine whether a small business can expand and hire. It helps determine whether larger businesses hire, invest, and stay in the United States.

A small business owner facing a huge tax bill is highly unlikely to be able to expand their business or to hire a new employee. A larger business is going to find it hard to create jobs or improve benefits for employees if it is struggling to stay competitive against foreign businesses paying much less in taxes. A larger business is unlikely to keep jobs and investment in the United States if the Tax Code makes it vastly more expensive to hire American workers.

Before we passed tax reform a year ago in December, our Tax Code was not helping our economy. It was taking too much money from American families, and it was making it harder for businesses, large and small, to create jobs, increase wages, and grow. That is why, after months of work, we passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

This legislation cut tax rates for American families, doubled the child tax credit, and nearly doubled the standard deduction. It lowered tax rates across the board for owners of small- and medium-sized businesses, farms, and ranches. It 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. It 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. It 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.

Our goal with this bill was simple. We wanted to make life better for the American people; we wanted to let Americans keep more of their hard-earned money; and we wanted to spur economic growth to give workers access to good jobs, better wages, and more opportunities.

I am proud to report that our policies are working. The economy grew at a robust 3.4 percent in the third quarter of 2018. January marked the 11th straight month that unemployment has been at or below 4 percent. That is the longest streak in nearly five decades.

In 2018, for the first time ever, the number of job openings outnumbered the number of job seekers, and 2018 saw the most impressive job growth in the manufacturing industry since 1997. 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--a decade ago. Median household income is at an alltime inflation-adjusted record of $61,372, and on and on.

Continuing with something that is working is usually a good strategy. If your economic policies are working, continuing them is a pretty logical thing to do.

Democrats apparently have a different opinion. Instead of continuing the policies that are producing economic growth and opportunities for American workers, they want to end them. Instead of reducing taxes, they want to raise taxes. Instead of getting government out of your way, they want to put government in charge of your healthcare, your electricity options, and more.

I wish I were joking, but Democrats are increasingly uniting around policies that would not only undo the progress our economy has made but would damage our economy for the long term.

One of the most dangerous proposals is the so-called Medicare for All proposal, which would abolish our current system of employer-sponsored private insurance and replace it with government-run healthcare--paid for on the backs of the middle class. The cost for this program would be staggering, an estimated $32 trillion over the next decade. That is equivalent to the entire Federal discretionary budget more than two times over.

Doubling the amount of individual and corporate income taxes collected would still not be enough to pay for the mammoth costs of this plan. Doubling all the revenue collected from income taxes in this country on the individual and business side would not be enough to pay for the mammoth costs of this plan.

Passing any version of Medicare for All would lead to stratospheric tax hikes for Americans in addition to the loss of their employer- sponsored insurance.

Then, of course, there is the so-called Green New Deal, which could raise Americans' energy costs by more than $3,000 a year. I don't know what families Democrats are talking to, but I have a hard time thinking of working families who can afford to spend $3,000 more each year on their energy bills.

Then there are the plain old tax hikes--like a proposal to raise the top marginal tax rate to 70 percent, a rate we haven't seen since 1965. It would be a tax hike not only on individuals but on small- and medium-sized businesses as well.

Take the House Democrats' proposal to substantially increase the corporate tax rate. They want to raise the corporate tax rate 40 percent on businesses from what it is today. Before the passage of tax reform, America's global companies faced the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. That put American businesses at a serious disadvantage on the global stage, which, in turn, put American workers at a disadvantage.

Since we lowered the corporate rate, we have seen economic growth, money returning to the United States, and new benefits and opportunities for American workers.

It is difficult to understand what would possess Democrats to jeopardize economic growth and opportunities for American workers by hiking the corporate rate again. Right after we lowered it to get more competitive internationally, they are talking about raising it 40 percent.

I said before, I wish I were joking about some of the Democrats' outrageous proposals. In addition to the money Democrats would be taking directly out of Americans' pockets to pay for their programs, it would also be permanently damaging to economic growth. If Democrats succeed in passing proposals like Medicare for All, Americans will be facing a future not just of higher taxes but of lower wages, fewer jobs, and diminished opportunities.

Republicans are going to do everything we can to ensure that doesn't happen. We will continue pushing for policies that will create jobs and increase wages, build on the progress we have made in the last couple of years. We will continue pushing for policies that expand opportunities for workers, that increase access to good jobs and to fulfilling careers, and we will continue pushing for policies that lower the cost of living, including the cost of healthcare and prescription drugs. We will continue pushing for policies that help hard-working families keep more of their income and save for education and retirement. We are committed to giving every American access to a future of freedom, opportunity, and security.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, last night, our colleague from Nebraska, Senator Ben Sasse, brought a bill to the floor to protect infants who are born alive during abortions.

The legislation is simple. In the words of the bill, it finds:

If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the

infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of

the United States, and entitled to all the protections of

such laws. Any infant born alive after an abortion . . . has

the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise

for any newborn.

In other words, any living, breathing baby outside of its mother's body should be protected. That is a pretty basic standard of decency. One would assume that there is no human being alive who would object to such a bill--that even my colleagues across the aisle who don't think that living, breathing unborn babies should be protected could get behind this bill--but you would be wrong because, last night, Senate Democrats objected to the consideration of this bill. They objected to the consideration of legislation to protect babies who are born alive.

Let's take a step back and remember why Senator Sasse brought this bill up in the first place.

Last week, the Democratic Governor of Virginia was asked about an extreme proposal from a Virginia Democrat to remove restrictions on late-term abortions. In his comments on the bill, the Virginia Governor had this to say:

If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would

happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be

kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's

what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion

would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

In other words, the Democratic Governor of Virginia not only endorsed

late-term abortions--abortions performed on babies old enough to survive outside of the mothers--he left open the door to infanticide. He left open the possibility of killing a baby born alive.

I would think those would be comments that my Democratic colleagues would be recoiling from in horror. I would think they would be rushing to make it very clear that they absolutely do not support the killing of a baby born alive. Yet, yesterday, my Democratic colleagues objected to a bill that would do nothing more than declare that any infant who is born alive during an abortion is entitled to be protected--to be given the basic medical care that would be afforded any other baby.

Most Americans think there should be, at least, some limits on abortion. Most countries in the world think there should be some limits on abortion. Only China, North Korea, the United States, and two other countries allow elective abortions through all 9 months of pregnancy-- not a list we ought to be on. At least some of my Democratic colleagues used to be a little bit more moderate on the issue of abortion. Safe, legal, and rare was their claim, which you always heard them say, but, yesterday, my Democratic colleagues made it very clear that they have decided to dispense with moderation and espouse the most radical and extreme position possible--no restrictions at all on abortion, ever, up to and, apparently, now after the moment of birth.

Chuck Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship, once noted: ``A government cannot be truly just without affirming the intrinsic value of human life.''

I think it is fair to say that pretty much every great injustice in human history sprang from a failure to affirm the intrinsic value of every human life--from a decision that certain individuals' rights were not equal to those of others or that their life or liberty could be sacrificed for the greater good.

Today, we unfortunately see another great injustice with the failure to affirm the value of the lives of the most vulnerable among us.

I am horrified by my Democratic colleagues' decision to object to legislation to protect babies born alive, and I will continue to fight to ensure that the right to life of every human being, born and unborn, is protected.

The Economy

Madam President, here are just some of the news stories we saw at the end of last week. This is from the Guardian: ``U.S. jobs growth smashes expectations''; from CNBC: ``Worker wage gains just broke 3% for the first time in more than 10 years''; from Fox Business: ``U.S. employers added 304,000 jobs in January, soaring past expectations''; from the Wall Street Journal: ``U.S. Stocks Post Best January in 30 Years''; from USA Today: ``Employers add booming 304,000 jobs in January, marking 100th straight month of employment gains''; and from the Associated Press: ``A robust job gain in January shows US economy's durability.'' The list goes on. Simply put, the U.S. economy is flourishing.

After years of stagnation under the Obama administration, the economy has come roaring back. Job creation is strong, and unemployment is low. January marked the 11th straight month that unemployment has been at or below 4 percent. That is the strongest streak in nearly five decades.

The economy grew at a robust 3.4 percent in the third quarter of 2018. In 2018, for the first time ever, the number of job openings outnumbered the number of jobseekers. The Department of Labor reports that for 9 straight months there have been more job openings than people looking for work.

Wage growth is accelerating. 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 $6,372.

Small business optimism hit record highs in 2018. The year 2018 saw the most impressive job growth in the manufacturing industry since 1997.

The list goes on and on and on. My point, very simply, is that Republican economic policies are working.

When Republicans took office 2 years ago, the economy had been underperforming for years, and American families had been feeling the effects. We were determined to remove the obstacles that were holding the economy back, like burdensome regulations and an outdated Tax Code that was acting as a drag on economic growth. So, along with the President, we got right to work, lifting excessive regulations.

In December 2017, we passed a historic, comprehensive reform of our Tax Code. We cut taxes 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 previously 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 that they can invest in their operations and in their workers. And we brought the U.S. international tax system into the 21st century so that American businesses are not operating at a competitive disadvantage next to their foreign counterparts.

Now we are seeing the effects: a thriving economy, good jobs, higher wages, and low unemployment.

So what is the Democratic response to all of this good economic news and economic growth? Is it to continue the policies that are creating prosperity for American families and look for ways for grow these policies to expand the economic benefits even further? No.

Democrats want to reverse the policies that are producing economic growth. They want to undo the tax cuts that are creating jobs and opportunities for American workers, and they want to increase-- increase--the tax burden of American families.

That is right. Democrats are currently advocating various proposals that would not only reverse the gains the economy has made but would severely damage economic growth for the long term. For example, there are the proposals to impose a government-run healthcare system, like the so-called Medicare for All plan, whose price tag is so staggeringly large--by one estimate, more than $32 trillion--that no one has even come close to figuring out how to pay for it. Doubling the amount of individual and corporate income tax collected would still not be enough to pay for the mammoth cost of this plan.

Think about that. All of the revenue collected--income tax on the individual side and on the corporate side, double it--double it--and you still wouldn't be able to pay for this massive, massive plan.

The Democrats' promise that if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it will be broken again. More than 175 million Americans get their health insurance through their jobs. That will be no more under this proposal. The Vermont Senator's government-run Medicare for All plan, which many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have cosponsored, would eliminate private sector insurance for millions of families who like the coverage they currently have.

Then there is the so-called Green New Deal, which could raise families' energy bills by more than $3,000 each year. When I travel in my State of South Dakota, I hear a lot about the high cost of living and how it is still difficult for families to make ends meet. The last thing my constituents in South Dakota or any hard-working family needs is to have their energy costs go up by more than $3,000 a year.

Then there are the plain old tax bills that some of the Democrats are proposing to raise the top marginal tax rate to 70 percent or higher. House Democrats are also proposing to substantially increase business tax rates.

Prior to the passage of the tax reform, America's global companies faced the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. That put American businesses at a serious disadvantage on the global stage, which, in turn, put American workers at a disadvantage.

Part of the economic growth that we are experiencing now and all of the benefits for workers that come along with it are direct results of the lower corporate tax rate that we passed as part of the tax reform.

It is staggering--staggering--that Democrats can look at all of the benefits that come from lowering the corporate rate and all of the positive effects it is having on the economy and workers and then turn around and propose a tax rate hike.

In short, here is what our country would look like if the Democrats' far-left agenda is forced upon the American people: Government-run Medicare for All would eliminate employer-sponsored insurance for 175 million people, increase government spending by $32 trillion, jeopardize Medicare for today's seniors, and raise taxes on just about everyone under the sun. The Green New Deal would increase energy costs by up to $3,000 or more per year for our families, and Democrats' new taxes would slow economic growth, destroy jobs, and reduce economic opportunity for hard-working Americans.

Our economy is thriving, and that is bringing real benefits to American families and to American workers. We want to continue heading in the right direction with more policies to grow the economy, to reduce the cost of living, and to help Americans save for retirement. We will strongly oppose Democrats' attempts and proposals to undo the progress that our economy has made and to burden Americans with higher taxes, fewer jobs, and fewer opportunities.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

Madam President, I am pleased the Senate is finally debating S. 1 after three inexplicable Democratic attempts to filibuster the bill. This package of Middle East policy bills, all of which have bipartisan support, addresses a number of key issues.

For starters, this legislation will further strengthen our relationship with our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel. It authorizes 10 years of military support funding to Israel. It reaffirms the U.S. commitment to ensuring that Israel has better weapons and equipment than its enemies. It will also foster increased technical cooperation between Israel and the United States to support the security of both of our countries.

The legislation also strengthens our relationship with another close ally of ours in the Middle East, the Kingdom of Jordan. The Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Tuesday was a timely reminder of the importance of investing in our alliances. Senior intelligence officials testified that China and Russia are becoming increasingly aggressive in seeking to increase their influence, not just in their own regions but in other parts of the world. Russia's support in the Syrian regime is a prime example.

Now, more than ever, it is vital that we maintain close relationships with our allies. The legislation before us also contains the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act. This legislation will help hold accountable individuals who have supported the atrocities of the Assad regime. It directs the Treasury Department to investigate whether the Central Bank of Syria launders money for the Syrian Government.

The conflict in Syria has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and driven literally millions of Syrians from their country. While the United States cannot solve every conflict around the world, it is vital that we make it very clear the United States will not tolerate those who have contributed to the brutality of Bashar al-Assad's government.

Finally, the legislation we are considering today will protect the right of State and local governments to decline to do business with entities that have chosen to boycott Israel. As I said, all of the bills in the legislation before us today have bipartisan support, and I hope the Senate will pass this legislation with a strong bipartisan majority.

Amendment No. 65

Madam President, I also would like to take a few moments to talk about an amendment the leader has proposed. As I noted, this week, our intelligence community leaders gave a frank assessment of the threats we face to our national security and to our interests, from ISIS and al-Qaida to the danger posed by a growing alignment between Russia and China, to Iran's destabilizing activities in the Middle East. As intelligence officials made clear, the U.S. faces numerous persistent threats, and we should be wary of letting our guard down or becoming complacent about our strength. For that reason, I would like to state my support for Leader McConnell's amendment to express the sense of the Senate that we should be cautious about any premature withdrawal of our troops from Syria and Afghanistan.

We don't have to look back very far for a reminder that prematurely withdrawing our troops can create a power vacuum that terrorists and others will step in to fill. Our too-hasty withdrawal from Iraq, on a timeline we announced to our enemies, created the circumstances that allowed for the rise of ISIS. We need to be wary about allowing something like that to happen again.

Terrorist groups are not the only entities we have to worry about. Adversaries like Russia and Iran are already trying to flex their power in the Middle East and would be more than happy to take advantage of an early U.S. withdrawal to strengthen their foothold in the region.

While I understand and respect President Trump's desire to bring our troops home and to end these protracted wars, we must do so in a way that ensures enduring stability and protects our interests and those of our allies. The leader's amendment is an important reminder of the need for caution and reflection as we consider troop withdrawals and would reassure our allies that the United States does not intend to abruptly leave them in the midst of the battle.

I hope all my colleagues will support the leader's amendment when we vote on it later this afternoon.

USS ``South Dakota''

Madam President, before I close, I would like to mention the commission of the Navy's newest Virginia-class attack submarine, the USS South Dakota, which will occur this Saturday, February 2, 2019, in Groton, CT. Designated SSN 790, the USS South Dakota will be the 17th submarine of her class, pushing the envelope of U.S. maritime technology and undersea dominance.

We are proud the State of South Dakota will once again be represented in the fleet by this engineering marvel, which will project America's strength and protect our national interests throughout the maritime domain and beyond.

In March 2012, I led the South Dakota delegation, which then included Senator Tim Johnson and Congresswoman Kristi Noem, in writing Secretary of the Navy Mabus to request that the Navy name its next attack submarine the USS South Dakota. I join them and all South Dakotans in saying we are excited to see this honor come to fruition.

The South Dakota will build off the legacy of her forebears, a Pennsylvania-class armored cruiser that served as a troop escort in World War I and a battleship that was one of the most decorated battleships in World War II. The battleship South Dakota was a proud representative of the 68,000 South Dakotans who answered their country's call to serving the war, earning 13 battle stars in the Pacific theater.

The South Dakota led with her nine 16-inch guns in the battles of the Santa Cruz Islands and Guadalcanal, which earned her a reputation as a fighting machine by defending U.S. aircraft carriers and disabling the enemy's.

In her second Pacific tour, the South Dakota supported marine landings on the Marshall Islands with shore bombardments before joining the Battle of the Philippine Sea and fighting through a bomb hit in order to defend our fast carriers. As information on U.S. military action was limited at the time, she was often referred to as ``Battleship X'' and ``Old Nameless.''

The submarine South Dakota will continue this distinguished tradition of service, and as is the nature of the submarine force, the accomplishments of this new boat and her crew may be even more secretive than those of her battleship predecessor's. In fact, it could be decades until we fully appreciate all the South Dakota might do in her 30-plus-year service life. We may very well read about her exploits in a sequel to ``Blind Man's Bluff''--the daring account of early U.S. submarine espionage and power projection.

Because of the nature of their work, the so-called Silent Service is often an undersung hero of the U.S. military's. I have certainly never seen a submarine at an airshow or coming down Main Street in a parade. The nature of the sub force's mission is as secretive as it is high stakes, but at any given moment, the U.S. submarine force is patrolling the depths of the ocean and is monitoring littoral waters for threats against our Nation and our allies.

The South Dakota will project power at sea and ashore with her payload of torpedoes and Tomahawk cruise missiles, which can be delivered without warning. Undetected, she will carry out the seven core competencies of the submarine force--anti-submarine warfare, anti- surface warfare, the delivery of special operations forces, strike warfare, irregular warfare, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and mine warfare--all while keeping adversaries on their toes.

While Saturday will be a time for our Navy and the country to celebrate this milestone, the South Dakota won't just be talked about here at home; around the world, our adversaries are taking note as this submarine will further strengthen our global presence and ability to protect the interests of the U.S. and our allies. Our adversaries are already undertaking significant efforts to challenge U.S. military capabilities and international order.

While they can try to copy our designs, mimic our operational concepts, or even try to replicate the way we train, one thing they will never be able to do is to imitate our people. The commissioning crew has proven its aptitude and professionalism in the months leading up to this point. The men and women of our submarine force, like those who serve in the ranks across the Department of Defense, are the root of America's military strength.

As Americans, we are grateful for all who have answered the call to serve and the families who support them, especially those who endure spending months apart during long deployments. The lives of submariners are not easy, and they are not easy for their loved ones. We thank them for their sacrifice.

The South Dakota's complement of 135 talented officers and sailors will put its population in line with those of South Dakota towns like Isabel, Pierpont, and Java. Like South Dakota's rural towns, the USS South Dakota will be a tight-knit community of its own, albeit one that is uniquely confined to a submersed vessel just over a football field long and with a nuclear reactor.

The indigenous inhabitants and early pioneer settlers of the State of South Dakota instilled a resourceful and resilient ethic in the culture of our State that continues to this day. This was driven by the remote, austere, and often unforgiving conditions on the Great Plains. I am confident that such hardiness will be replicated in all officers and crew members of the South Dakota as they live up to the boat's motto, which means ``Under the sea, we rule.''

As boat sponsor Deanie Dempsey brings the boat to life on Saturday, we thank the officers and crew of the South Dakota for their dedicated service to our country.

May God bless the USS South Dakota and keep watch over her as she patrols the seas.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on the McConnell amendment occur at 3 p.m. today, and the filing deadline for second-degree amendments apply as if the vote occurred at the originally scheduled time of 3:30 p.m.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

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

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

Mr. President, Republicans started out the last Congress with one goal, and that is to make life better for American families.

After years of economic stagnation in the Obama administration, too many families were struggling, wages were stagnant, and opportunities were few and far between. Republicans were determined to change that. We knew American workers and American businesses were as driven, creative, and innovative as ever. We also knew we were facing a lot of obstacles, including burdensome regulations and an outdated tax code that acted as a drag on economic growth. So we took action.

We eliminated excessive regulations. We undertook historic reform of our tax bill to put more money in Americans' pockets and get our economy going again. The Tax Code may not be the first thing people think of when they think about economic growth, but it is actually one of the key factors that determine how well our economy functions. The Tax Code can encourage growth and job creation or it can make it difficult for businesses to even operate, much less grow and create jobs.

Prior to the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, our Tax Code was not helping our economy. Large and small businesses were weighed down by high tax rates and growth-killing tax provisions and all the regulatory and compliance burdens that came along with it. Our outdated international tax rules left America's global businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the global economy. That had real consequences for American workers.

A small business owner struggling to afford the annual tax bill for her business was highly unlikely to be able to hire a new worker or raise wages. A larger business struggling to stay competitive in the global marketplace, while paying substantially higher tax rates than its foreign competitors, too often had limited funds to expand or increase investment in the United States.

In December of 2017, after months of work, we passed a comprehensive reform of our Nation's Tax Code. We took action to put more money in American families' pockets immediately by cutting tax rates, doubling the child tax credit, and nearly doubling the standard deduction. Then we focused on improving the playing field for American workers by improving the playing field for businesses. 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, 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. 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. The economy grew at a robust 3.4 percent in the third quarter of 2018. There were 312,000 jobs created in December, and more than 2.6 million jobs have been created since tax reform was signed into law. In 2018, we saw the most impressive job growth in the manufacturing sector since 1997, and 2018 also saw 19 States reach record-low unemployment rates. This month, initial jobless claims dropped below 200,000 for the first time since 1969.

In 2018, for the first time ever, the number of job openings outnumbered the number of job seekers. The Department of Labor reports that for 9 straight months, there have been more job openings than people looking for work. Think about that. There were more job openings than people looking for work for 9 straight months. Wage growth has accelerated, which was stagnant for so many years in the previous administration. Wages are now currently growing at the fastest rate since 2009. Small businesses had a record optimism in 2018, and the list goes on.

In human terms, this means job seekers are finding it easier to find jobs--and not just any job but jobs they actually want. Fewer families are having to choose between repairing the car or paying for a child's braces; more individuals are able to put money away for their retirement; more families can afford to take that family vacation or to put money away for their kids' college.

I am proud the work we have done is making life better for American families. Republicans are going to continue working to expand operations for Americans even further, and I hope our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle will work with us in order to make that happen.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, for weeks, Democrats repeated the same refrain: Open the government, and we will negotiate on border security.

On Friday, the government was reopened. Now it is time for Democrats to honor their promise and work with Republicans to provide adequate funding to address the security and humanitarian crisis at our border. The next 3 weeks will be a test of Democrats' seriousness about legislating. Do they really want to work with Republicans and the President on solutions? Are they willing to actually negotiate, which involves both sides making compromises, or are they more interested in obstruction? That is the question before the House.

Are they in Congress because they actually want to find solutions to challenges facing our country or are they here to score political points and oppose everything the President says or does? The answers should become pretty clear over the next 3 weeks. If Democrats meant what they said about negotiating on border security, we could produce a bill that will fulfill our responsibility to protect our borders. Make no mistake, it is a responsibility. Perhaps our greatest obligation as Members of Congress is to provide the funding and resources necessary to keep our Nation secure. No nation can be safe if it doesn't know who is coming across its borders.

Right now, we are facing a security crisis at our Nation's border. Tens of thousands of individuals try to cross our southern border illegally every single month. Illegal drugs flow into this country through ports of entry and unsecured areas of the border. The holes in our border security leave us susceptible to illegal entry by gang members, human traffickers, drug dealers, terrorists, weapons traffickers, and more. The flood of illegal immigration has also created a humanitarian crisis. Individuals attempting the journey to come here illegally are vulnerable to exploitation, illness, and abuse. Approximately, one out of every three women attempting the journey to the United States is sexually assaulted. Roughly, 70 percent of individuals become victims of violence along their way. Illness and other medical issues are also a serious problem. By failing to discourage illegal immigration, we are perpetuating this humanitarian crisis.

I hope, over the next 3 weeks, Democrats will honor their promise and come to the table on border security legislation in a real way, ready to engage in genuine negotiation and compromise so we can really address this crisis at our border.