John Thune

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Jacob Tarrell, an intern in my Aberdeen, SD, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Jacob is a graduate of Hot Springs High School in Hot Springs, SD. Currently, he is attending Presentation College in Aberdeen, where he is majoring in sports and event management. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jacob for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

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 I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, sometimes attempting to block a Presidential nominee is justified. If a President nominates a candidate who clearly is unfit for the office for which he or she has been nominated, then, as Senators, we should try to stop the confirmation of that nominee. But that is the exception. The Senate's advice and consent power is not supposed to be used to slow-walk all of a President's nominees simply because one party doesn't like the President who is doing the nominating. In the past, once Presidential nominees had been vetted and approved by the appropriate committee, their confirmation was pretty painless. Cloture votes designed to end filibusters of candidates and allow their nominations to come to a vote were rare because Senators only tried to block nominees in extreme cases. But that is no longer the case. Since President Trump took office, Democrats in the Senate have engaged in a systematic campaign of obstruction, pointlessly delaying qualified nominees for no reason other than the fact that Democrats dislike this President. But wait, you say. Not so fast. Maybe Democrats obstructed all of these nominees because they didn't believe any of them were qualified for the positions for which they had been nominated--except we all know that is not the case because again and again Democrats have delayed and obstructed nominees they have ultimately supported. One egregious example occurred in January of 2018, when Democrats forced the Senate to spend more than an entire week considering four district court judges even though not one single Democrat voted against their confirmation. That is right--Democrats forced the Senate to spend more than a week of our floor time considering the nomination of four judges even though not one single Democrat opposed their confirmation. These judges could have been confirmed in a matter of minutes by voice vote, but Democrats forced the Senate to spend more than a week on their consideration--time that could have been spent on genuinely controversial nominees or on some of the many important issues facing our country. Another ugly example occurred during my chairmanship of the Commerce Committee last Congress, when Democrats pointlessly delayed the confirmation of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, Derek Kan. Mr. Kan, who had been confirmed by voice vote just 2 years earlier as a member of the Amtrak board of directors, was delayed for months in 2017, with Democrats ultimately requiring the filing of cloture--but not because Democrats had any problem with his qualifications. When the vote on his nomination finally came, he was confirmed by an overwhelming margin of 90 to 7. Once again, Democrats obstructed for obstruction's sake. During President Obama's first 2 years in office, his nominees were subjected to a total of 12 cloture votes. Do you want to know how many cloture votes President Trump's nominees faced during the President's first 2 years in office? One hundred and twenty-eight--more than 10 times as many cloture votes as President Obama's nominees faced over the same period--128 to 12. Democrats' slow-walking of nominees is obviously a problem for this President and his administration. Essential positions have stayed vacant for months longer than they should have, making it more challenging for the administration to carry out its responsibilities. But Democrats' actions are not just a problem for this administration; they are setting a terrible precedent that could derail the work of the Senate and inhibit the President's ability to govern for many years into the future. Just imagine if Democrats' behavior over the past 2 years becomes the norm. Presidents could be waiting years to adequately staff their administrations, and the Senate would be perpetually tied up on unnecessary cloture votes, leaving less and less time to actually do the business of governing. Democrats and Republicans need to curb this rampant obstruction before it becomes a permanent precedent here in the Senate. Later today, we will have a chance to do so when we vote on the Blunt- Lankford resolution. Back at the beginning of President Obama's second term, Democrats and a number of Republicans, including me, passed a measure streamlining the confirmation process for lower level positions, such as district court judges and Assistant Secretaries. This was obviously something that benefited President Obama and only President Obama since the rules change expired at the end of that Congress, but Republicans signed on because we believe that Presidents should be able to staff their administrations in a timely fashion. So we worked with Democrats to streamline consideration of lower level administration nominees. The Blunt-Lankford resolution is very similar to the rules change we passed in 2013. Like the 113th Congress rules change, the Blunt- Lankford resolution would streamline the process for consideration of lower level nominees, while preserving the current rules for high-level nominee positions, such as Cabinet officials and Justices. Thirty-four currently serving Democratic Senators also served in the 113th Congress and voted for that rules change, and I am hearing that Democrats would be willing to support the Blunt-Lankford resolution as well. But there is one catch: Democrats apparently would only support the rules change if we delay the effective date of the resolution to 2021--in the hopes that they will have a Democrat in the White House by then. That is an outrageous demand, this ``We will take the rules change when it helps us, but we will do everything we can to make sure the other party doesn't get its share of the benefits, but that ``The rules don't apply to us'' attitude has unfortunately become pretty typical of the Democratic Party lately. Think about recent Democratic support for packing the Supreme Court. Why has that long-dead idea come back to haunt us? Because Democrats are angry that President Trump has gotten two individuals confirmed to the Supreme Court. Apparently, the only good Supreme Court Justices are the Justices nominated by Democrats. Take the Democratic proposal to abolish the electoral college. Democrats are still mad about their loss in the 2016 Presidential election. We get that. Their solution is not working harder to win in 2020 but changing the rules to favor their party. Simple intellectual honesty would dictate that the 34 current Democratic Senators who voted for the rules change in the 113th Congress vote for the rules change today. I hope they will. Nothing less than the future of the Senate is at stake here. Democrats have a choice to make: They can vote to restore the Senate's tradition of efficiently confirming noncontroversial nominees so the work of the government can get done, or they can continue to pursue a damaging, virulent partisanship that will negativity affect the Senate's ability to function for decades to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Brayden Hilton, an intern in my Aberdeen, SD, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Brayden is a graduate of Roncalli High School in Aberdeen, SD. Currently, he is attending Northern State University in Aberdeen, where he is majoring in criminal justice. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Brayden for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. McSally), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. McSally), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, when Republicans took office after the 2016 Presidential election, we had one goal in mind: make life better for American families. We knew a big part of that was getting our economy going again. After years of sluggish economic growth, family budgets were stretched thin. Getting ahead had frequently been replaced by getting by. Wages were stagnant and jobs and opportunities were often few and far between. So the Republicans and the President got right to work. We repealed burdensome regulations that were hamstringing economic growth, and we passed a comprehensive reform of our outdated Tax Code. You might ask, Why the Tax Code? Well, the Tax Code has a huge effect on American families' prosperity. It helps determine how much you bring home in your paycheck and how much you have left over to spend or save. It helps determine what kind of jobs, wages, and opportunities are available to you. A small business owner struggling to afford a heavy tax bill is unlikely to have the money to hire a new worker or to expand her business. A larger business is going to find it harder to create jobs or improve benefits for employees if it is struggling to stay competitive against foreign businesses paying much less in taxes. Prior to the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, our Tax Code was not helping American workers. It was taking too much from Americans' paychecks, and it was making it difficult for businesses to grow and to create jobs. We passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to put more money in Americans' pockets, spur economic growth, and expand opportunities for American workers. We cut tax rates for American families, doubled the child tax credit, and nearly doubled the standard deduction. We lowered tax rates across the board for owners of small- and medium-sized businesses, farms, and ranches. We lowered our Nation's massive corporate tax rate, which, up until January 1 of last year, was the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. We expanded business owners' ability to recover the cost of investments they make in their businesses, which frees up cash they can reinvest in their operations and in their workers, and we brought the U.S. international tax system into the 21st century so American businesses are not operating at a competitive disadvantage next to their foreign counterparts. Now we are seeing the results. Our economy is thriving. Economic growth in the fourth quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2018 was 3.1 percent, the strongest growth we have seen literally in 13 years. The unemployment rate dropped to 3.8 percent in February, the 12th straight month the unemployment rate has been at or below 4 percent. That is the longest streak in nearly 50 years. The number of job openings has once again exceeded the number of job seekers. In fact, the Department of Labor reports that January was the 11th straight month with more job openings than people looking for work. The economy has added more than 5.3 million jobs since President Trump was elected. Job growth has averaged 209,000 jobs a month over the past 12 months, exceeding the 2017 average by 30,000 jobs a month. Wage growth is accelerating. Wages are growing at a rate of 3.4 percent--the seventh straight month in which wages have grown at a rate of 3 percent or greater. Median household income is at an alltime high. Business investment is up, which means more jobs and opportunities for American workers. U.S. manufacturing is booming. Small business hiring recently hit a record high, and the list goes on. This is a big turnaround. After years of economic stagnation during the Obama administration, some were predicting that sluggish economic growth would be the new normal. When President Trump took office, the Congressional Budget Office predicted the economy would grow at a rate of 2 percent in 2018 and 1.7 percent in 2019. After Republicans cut burdensome regulations and passed a historic tax reform bill, the Congressional Budget Office substantially revised that projection, predicting 2.9 percent growth in 2018 and 2.7 percent in 2019--and the economy has delivered on that prediction. Importantly, the benefits of our thriving economy are being spread far and wide. The lowest wage earners saw the fastest wage growth in 2018. The Wall Street Journal recently reported: All sorts of people who have previously had trouble landing a job are now finding work. Racial minorities, those with less education, and people working in the lowest-paying jobs are getting bigger pay raises and in many cases experiencing the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for their groups. They are joining manufacturing workers, women in their prime working years, Americans with disabilities, and those with criminal records, among others, in finding improved job prospects after years of disappointment. Tax cuts and other Republican economic policies are making life better for American families. So what do Democrats want to do? Continue with the policies that are bringing relief to American families? That would make sense. Unfortunately not. Democrats want to raise taxes--by a lot--to pay for the socialist fantasies they are now embracing. Plans such as the Green New Deal and Medicare for All would result in massive tax hikes on just about everyone. Our economy would suffer and American families would see a permanent reduction in their standard of living. It is deeply alarming that the Democratic Party is rapidly turning into the Socialist Party. It is vitally important that we ensure that hard-working Americans never have to live under Democrats' socialist fantasies. Republicans are committed to protecting Americans from any attempt to undo the economic progress we have made, and we will continue working to strengthen our economy even further. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon, the Senate voted on the Green New Deal--the Democrats' $93 trillion socialist fantasy. How did the Democrats vote on this deal? They voted present. That is right. There were 43 out of 47 Members of the Democratic caucus who voted present. This may be the first time in my experience here that I have ever seen a piece of legislation and people who authored that legislation-- in this case, there were 13 Democrats who authored the bill, cosponsored the bill, introduced the bill, and indicated that action on the issue needed to be taken now--proceed to vote present. I have never seen that in my time either in the House or in the Senate. There was always an opportunity, as the Presiding Officer knows, in the House of Representatives, when you voted by electronic machine, to punch the yellow ``present'' option. You had red or green or present, but very rarely was that used. Yet I don't think I have ever seen, in the U.S. Senate, 13 U.S. Senators file a bill, introduce a bill, cosponsor a bill, talk about how important it is that we deal with it and deal with it immediately, and then proceed to vote present. That is what happened yesterday. I want to step back for a minute and talk about the Green New Deal-- the Democrats' plan to put the government in charge of everything from your energy to your healthcare. The costs of this plan would be staggeringly high. One think tank released its first estimate that found that the Green New Deal would cost somewhere between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over a 10-year period--between $51 trillion and $93 trillion. The 2017 gross domestic product for the entire world--the whole planet--only came to $80.7 trillion, which is more than $10 trillion less than the Democrats are proposing to spend on the Green New Deal. This $93 trillion is more than the amount of money the U.S. Government has spent in its entire history. So how do the Democrats plan to cover that $93 trillion? Well, they don't actually have a plan. The Green New Deal resolution itself makes a vague reference to ``community grants, public banks, and other public financing.'' Then, of course, the Democrats have their favorite funding source, which is taxing the rich. The problem is, there is no way taxing the rich would even come close to paying for the Green New Deal. One analyst found that three Democratic proposals--the New York Representative's proposed 70-percent top tax rate, the Massachusetts Senator's wealth tax, and the Hawaii Senator's financial transactions tax--would together pay for approximately 4 percent of the Green New Deal. Taxing every millionaire in the United States at a 100-percent rate for 10 years would bring in only a tiny fraction of $93 trillion. Taxing every household making more than $200,000 a year at a 100- percent rate for 10 years wouldn't get the Democrats anywhere close to $93 trillion. Taxing every family making more than $100,000 a year at a 100-percent rate for 10 years would still leave the Democrats far short of $93 trillion. The Green New Deal is not a plan that can be paid for by taxing the rich. This plan would be paid for on the backs of working families. The size of the tax hikes that would be required to even begin to finance this massive government expansion would sharply diminish Americans' standard of living and usher in a new era of diminished prosperity, and I haven't even mentioned the freedom of choice Americans would lose and give up under the Green New Deal. Your car's engine would likely soon become illegal. Washington planners could force you to rebuild your house to meet strict, new, energy-efficient guidelines. Your ability to travel by air might be restricted or entirely eliminated. The Green New Deal doesn't limit itself to massive government expansion in the area of energy. Among other things, it would also put the government in charge of your healthcare. So, if you like your health plan, get ready to give it up. Then there are the millions of current energy jobs that would be lost under this plan. Plus, there would likely be significant job losses in other industries as small businesses and larger companies would find themselves being unable to cope with the Green New Deal's mandates and taxes. For American families, the Green New Deal would mean smaller paychecks, fewer jobs, fewer choices, and a permanently reduced standard of living. You don't even have to take my word for it. Here is what the AFL-CIO, which represents 12\1/2\ million workers in a number of unions, had to say about the Green New Deal: The Green New Deal resolution is far too short on specific solutions that speak to the jobs of our members and the critical sectors of our economy. It is not rooted in an engineering-based approach and makes promises that are not achievable or realistic. We will not accept proposals that could cause immediate harm to millions of our members and their families. We will not stand by and allow threats to our members' jobs and their families' standard of living go unanswered. Let me repeat that: We will not accept proposals that could cause immediate harm to millions of our members and their families. We will not stand by and allow threats to our members' jobs and their families' standard of living go unanswered. Again, these are quotes from the AFL-CIO. That is what it is saying about the Democrats' Green New Deal. The American people have a right to know where the Democrats stand on this massive government expansion. Are they for it or are they against it? Their Presidential candidates have embraced this plan. There were 13 Senate Democrats, as I mentioned, who sponsored the original Green New Deal resolution in the Senate, and there were 92 Democrats who sponsored the original Green New Deal resolution in the House. Yet, yesterday, just four Members of the Democratic caucus had the courage to make their positions clear. As for the rest, well, it is actually understandable that most Democrats didn't want to go on the record as supporting, perhaps, the most irresponsible and costly resolution ever to come before the U.S. Senate. It is pretty difficult to tell your constituents that you support cutting their paychecks, eliminating millions of their jobs, and drastically reducing their choices. I am sure there are more than four Members of the Democratic caucus who don't support this plan, but the Democrats are more and more enthralled with the far-left wing of their party, and, clearly, some Democrats were afraid to actually reject this plan with their votes. So what happened? There were 43 out of 47 Members of the Democratic caucus here in the U.S. Senate who left the American people in limbo about their views, and they ended up voting present. I would love to think that every Democrat who voted present yesterday has realized how damaging the Green New Deal would be to working families. But the scary truth is that while some Democrats may have voted present simply because they wanted to avoid angering the far-left wing of their party, other Democrats really believe--they really believe--in the Green New Deal. The junior Senator from Vermont was asked if the Green New Deal goes too far. His answer? ``No. You cannot go too far on the issue of climate change.'' Really? You can't go too far? Not even if you saddle millions of families with exorbitant taxes and other costs just for miniscule gains? Not even if you permanently damage the American economy? One of the Green New Deal's authors has actually stated that it is a legitimate question whether people should have children because of climate change. Is that something the Green New Deal supporters want to legislate too? Really? The Democrats' Green New Deal extremism is disturbing, and I am deeply disappointed in yesterday's vote because the American people deserve to hear where every Democrat stands on this dangerous plan. Americans deserve to know whether Democrats are willing to hike their taxes, eliminate their jobs, and diminish drastically their freedoms. I hope more Democrats will join the four who rejected this massive government overreach and will work with Republicans to develop responsible solutions to protect our environment--solutions that don't hurt American families. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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.

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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.''

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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.''