John Thune

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

Mr. THUNE

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I am sure everyone remembers the Democrats' ObamaCare promise: ``If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.'' That promise was named PolitiFacts' ``Lie of the Year'' in 2013 after it became clear that millions of Americans would not, in fact, be able to keep their healthcare plans. There are no worries about being deceived on the question of keeping your insurance this time around because Democrats are loudly and proudly announcing their intention of getting rid of private insurance with their Medicare for All plan. At a CNN townhall in February, the junior Senator from Vermont was asked: ``Will these people be able to keep their health insurance plans, their private plans through their employers, if there is a Medicare for All program that you endorse?'' The answer of the Senator from Vermont was no. Another Democratic candidate for President, the junior Senator from New York, was recently asked: ``Should ending private insurance, as we know it, be a Democratic . . . goal? And do you think it is an urgent goal?'' Her response: ``Oh yeah, it is a goal . . . an urgent goal.'' If you like your health insurance, you definitely will not be able to keep it. In fact, the employer-sponsored insurance that you have today would be illegal under the Democrats' plan. In the minds of Democrats, Americans are supposed to be enthusiastic about Medicare for All because it would give them free healthcare. The problem, of course, is it will not really be free. Americans are still going to be paying for healthcare; it will just be in the form of much higher taxes. A left-leaning think tank modeled a version of the Medicare for All plan proposed by the junior Senator from Vermont and found that it would cost a staggering $32 trillion over 10 years. To put that in perspective, the entire Federal budget for 2019 is less than $5 trillion. That is Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, defense spending, education spending, law enforcement, infrastructure-- everything. In other words, Democrats are talking about increasing Federal spending by more than 60 percent each year just for healthcare. One Medicare expert estimates that doubling the amount of individual and corporate income tax collected would not be enough to cover the cost of Medicare for All. I don't know about my Democratic colleagues, but I don't know a lot of working families who could afford to have their tax bill literally double. Of course, this is assuming that the cost of the program would be limited to $32 trillion. The Medicare for All proposal the House Democrats released last week could substantially exceed the $32 trillion estimate because, unlike the Vermont Senator's plan, it includes funding for long-term care, a notoriously expensive part of the healthcare system. Democrats' last attempt to have the government fund long-term care fell apart before it was even implemented because the program was not financially viable. It is not just the cost of Medicare for All that is completely unrealistic; the timeline for implementation is as well. House Democrats' proposal would put every American on Medicare for All within 2 years. We have 2 years to completely do away with healthcare as we know it and create an entirely new healthcare program to cover almost every single American. I am sure most Americans remember the fiasco that was ObamaCare implementation. The Obama administration had 3\1/2\ years to get ObamaCare up and running, and they couldn't even build a working website in that amount of time. The ObamaCare exchanges were intended only to cover a tiny fraction of the number of people who would be covered under Medicare for All. The idea that the Federal Government could smoothly transition all Americans over to an entirely new government-run healthcare program in 2 years is absolutely ludicrous. Making the attempt would cause Americans an incredible amount of pain. Every aspect of this proposal would cause Americans an incredible amount of pain. There are the heavy taxes that would be required to even partially pay for this program and the bureaucracy and inefficiency that would come with any government attempt to take over healthcare. Then there is the rationing of care that would inevitably come along. Democrats are promising that these would be plans with generous coverage, but what happens when Democrats don't have the money to pay for that coverage? Well, they can raise taxes higher, of course. Yet they will also undoubtedly turn to the rationing of care that we have seen in other countries with socialized medicine. The majority leader noted on the floor last week that Britain's National Health Service canceled 25,000 surgeries in the first quarter of last year alone. I could go on. I could talk about the long wait times Americans would experience under Medicare for All. I could talk about the fact that the Democrats' proposal would end the prohibition on government funding for abortion, meaning that your tax dollars would go toward ending the lives of preborn babies, whether you want them to or not. I can talk about the threat that Medicare for All represents for seniors because, make no mistake, this program would do away with Medicare as we know it and the promises that have been made to seniors in this country. Seniors would receive care under the new plan, but it would not be the plan they signed up for, and there is no guarantee that they would receive the benefits the Democrats are promising. If I went on about all the ways that Medicare for All is a bad idea, none of my colleagues would have a chance to speak for the rest of the day or probably tomorrow, for that matter, either. Suffice it to say that Medicare for All would be a very bad deal for the American people. Let's hope that our colleagues across the aisle halt their mad rush toward socialism before the American people get stuck with this government-run nightmare. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the more you look at the Green New Deal, the worse it looks. Last week, one think tank released a first estimate of what the Green New Deal would cost. Here is the answer: between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years. Between $51 trillion and $93 trillion. That is an unfathomable amount of money. The 2017 gross domestic product for the entire world, for the whole planet, came to $80.7 trillion--more than $10 trillion less than what Democrats are proposing to spend on the Green New Deal. Mr. President, $93 trillion is more than the amount of money the U.S. Government has spent in its entire history. Since 1789, when the Constitution went into effect, the Federal Government has spent a total of $83.2 trillion. That is right--it has taken us 230 years of American history to spend the amount of money the Democrats want to spend in 10 years. Look at it this way: $93 trillion is enough money to buy more than 7,000 Ford-class aircraft carriers. To put that in perspective, guess how many aircraft carriers the Navy currently has in its entire fleet. Eleven. It is like the Democrats are playing pretend. It is like they are on a road trip, and they are trying to pass the time, and they say, ``What would you do if you won the lottery?'' or ``What would you do if you had all the money in the world?'' It is a fun game to play for a few minutes, but this is not a game. The government doesn't have all the money in the world. That $93 trillion is going to have to come from somewhere. Democrats like to suggest that we can pay for it and pay for just about anything simply by taxing the wealthy, but the truth is, taxing the wealthy or even the merely well-off isn't going to pay for this proposal. Taxing all the millionaires in the United States at a 100- percent tax rate for 10 years wouldn't add up anywhere close to $93 trillion. Taxing every household making more than $200,000 a year at a 100-percent tax rate for 10 years wouldn't get Democrats anywhere close to $93 trillion. Let's take it a step further. Taxing every family making more than $100,000 a year at a 100-percent tax rate for 10 years would still leave Democrats far short of $93 trillion. The Green New Deal is not a plan that can be paid for merely by taxing the rich. Actually implementing the Green New Deal would involve taking money not just from the well-off but from working families--and not a little bit of money either. Ninety-three trillion dollars breaks down to over $650,000 per household over 10 years. That is more than $65,000 per household, per year--more that the median household income in the United States. In other words, the cost per household for just 1 year of the Green New Deal is more than the yearly income of 50 percent of American households. Let's leave aside the stratospheric cost for just a minute and talk about the other consequences of the Green New Deal. Democrats' Green New Deal would put the government in charge of a large portion of the economy and significantly shrink Americans' freedom. Under this bill, the government will impose new and stringent regulations on your appliances, your car, your house, and your place of business. It will limit your electricity options. It will put the government in charge of your healthcare. I know that is not really energy-related, but the Green New Deal's authors went beyond energy to include a full socialist wish list. Your options for travel may be limited. A fact sheet released--and later deleted--by one of the authors of the Green New Deal called for a plan to ``build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.'' Well, that might work between DC and Boston, but it is not going to work so well if you have family in Hawaii. I don't think the high-speed rail is going to reach that far. I would say that you could make the trip by passenger ship, but, of course, we don't know whether ships as we know them would exist under the Green New Deal. After all, the plan's authors want to eliminate fossil fuels, which power ships, as well as your car and your home. Incidentally, while we are on the subject, it is worth mentioning that the Governor of California recently scaled back California's high- speed rail project. Why? Because it was costing too much money. Under the Green New Deal, if you like your car, you probably won't be able to keep it. If you like your healthcare, you probably won't be able to keep it. If you like your house, you may not be able to keep that either. That same fact sheet from one of the Green New Deal's authors says that we need to ``upgrade or replace every building in [the] U.S.'' There is no question that we need to protect our environment. There is no question that we should be developing clean energy sources and building on our existing clean energy technologies. I would tell the Chair that my home State of South Dakota is leading the way on this issue. In fact, my colleagues may be surprised to know that according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, South Dakota generates an average of two-fifths to half of its electricity from hydroelectric facilities along the Missouri River. Combined with our abundant wind generation, which provides roughly 30 percent of our electricity, South Dakota's net utility-scale energy generation is over 75 percent renewables. I am proud of South Dakota's renewable energy achievements, and I think we should be encouraging improved domestic energy production, increasing America's renewable energy supply, and reducing consumption through improved deficiencies. What we should not be doing is adopting a wildly irresponsible, completely unworkable, and utterly unrealistic proposal that would drive taxes through the roof, reduce Americans' standard of living, and permanently damage our economy. We are going to be voting on the Democrat's Green New Deal proposal in the coming weeks, and it will be interesting to see where all of my colleagues stand on this socialist fantasy. You just heard the Democratic leader, the Senator from New York, say that it is a gimmick and we shouldn't be voting on this. It is the first time I think I have ever heard a leader of one of the parties here in the Senate come forward and say that we shouldn't vote on something that 11 of his Democratic colleagues have cosponsored. He doesn't want to vote on a piece of legislation that is put forward by 11 Democrats here in the Senate. Well, I think it is important for the American people to know. I think it is important for Members of the Senate to go on record on whether they think this is a good idea or whether they think, as I think most Americans would believe, this is a crazy idea that would wreck the economy, cost Americans' jobs, and punish working families in this country with higher costs for literally everything they face in their daily lives. For the sake of our economy and for working families, I hope that when this vote comes, at least some Democrats will slow their party's headlong rush to become the Socialist Party and not what we have historically known as the Democratic Party in this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, last week, we learned that the economy grew at a rate of 3.1 percent from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2018. That is the strongest economic growth in over 10 years. Economic growth for the fourth quarter of 2018 smashed market expectations. In January, the economy created more than 300,000 jobs. More than 5.3 million jobs have been created since President Trump was elected. Job openings hit a record high of 7.3 million in December, substantially exceeding the number of those looking for work. The Department of Labor reports that the number of job openings has exceeded the number of job seekers for 10 straight months. Unemployment is low. January marked the 11th straight month that unemployment has been at or below 4 percent. That is the longest streak in nearly five decades. Wage growth has accelerated. Wages have now been growing at a rate of 3 percent or greater for 6 straight months. The last time wage growth reached this level was in 2009. Median household income is at an alltime high. U.S. manufacturing has rebounded. The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday: America's factories are hiring again. After years of job losses, U.S. manufacturing employment has risen for 18 straight months among those holding production or nonsupervisory jobs, the longest stretch of gains since the mid-1990s. That is from the Wall Street Journal. The list goes on. The economic growth we are experiencing is the direct result of Republican policies. Economic growth has accelerated over the past 2 years, thanks to the lifting of the burdensome regulations and a historic reform of our Tax Code. Before we passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, our Tax Code was acting as a drag on economic growth. Small businesses faced heavy tax burdens that frequently made it difficult for them to expand and create jobs or even to get their businesses off the ground in the first place. America's global businesses faced the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, which put them at a competitive disadvantage on the international stage. Of course, all of that had real consequences for American workers. A small business owner facing a huge tax bill was highly unlikely to be able to expand her business or to hire a new employee. A larger business was going to find it hard to create jobs or improve benefits for employees while struggling to stay competitive against foreign businesses paying much less in taxes. So we reformed our Tax Code to make it easier for businesses to grow, create jobs, and expand opportunities for American workers. Now we are seeing the results-- economic growth, low unemployment, higher wages, a record-high number of job openings, and more. Importantly, the benefits of this growth are being experienced widely. The Wall Street Journal reports: Racial minorities, those with less education and people working in the lowest-paying jobs are getting bigger pay raises and, in many cases, experiencing the lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for their groups. They are joining manufacturing workers, women in their prime working years, Americans with disabilities and those with criminal records, among others, in finding improved job prospects after years of disappointment. Again, that is from the Wall Street Journal. The Obama administration was characterized by a weak recovery and years of economic stagnation. There were predictions that 2 percent growth would be the new normal. But Republican economic policies have turned the economy around. Now we need to focus on ways to extend the benefits of tax reform even further and to secure the gains we have made for the long term. Unfortunately, our colleagues across the aisle are more focused on dismantling the policies that created the growth we are experiencing today. Apparently, it doesn't matter to them that workers are doing better after years of economic stagnation or that jobs and opportunities are increasing. They are set on dismantling tax reform and raising rates to fund their socialist fantasies. They want to spend $93 trillion--more money than the GDP of the entire world--to put the government in charge of Americans' healthcare, energy usage, and more. I wish I were joking, but Democrats' turn toward socialist insanity is all too real. The kinds of tax hikes that would be required to pay for Democrats' proposals would cripple our economy and severely downgrade America's standard of living--not to mention robbing Americans of their freedom to make their own decisions about all the various aspects of their lives. It is mind-boggling that more and more Democrats are embracing socialism and the less free and less prosperous future it would bring. Let's hope their socialist fantasies stay just that--fantasies--because our economy might never recover from the reality of Democrats' proposals. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, just in getting started this morning, I wanted to take a minute to mention the good news on economic growth we received this morning. While headlines mentioned the very solid 2.9 percent growth number for 2018, if we use the measure that economists prefer, the news is even better--3.1 percent growth from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2018. This is just more evidence that Republican economic policies are working. We lifted burdensome regulations and passed a comprehensive reform of our Tax Code to put more money in Americans' pockets and make it easier for businesses to grow and expand jobs. Now we are seeing the effects. Unemployment is low. January marked the 11th straight month that unemployment has been at or below 4 percent. That is the longest streak in nearly five decades. The number of job openings hit a record high in December, and, once again, there were more job openings than job seekers. Wage growth has accelerated. Wages have now been growing at a rate of 3 percent or greater for 6 straight months. The last time wage growth reached this level was in 2009. Median household income is at an all-time, inflation-adjusted record of $61,372. The list goes on. What does all of this mean? It means more money in American families' bank accounts, more jobs and opportunities for American workers, more Americans feeling hopeful about their future. Republican economic policies are making life better for American families, which is why it is particularly disturbing that Democrats are currently advancing policies that would not only destroy the economic progress we have made but would severely damage our economy for the long term.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in a document later removed from her website, one of the Green New Deal's sponsors had this to say about the Green New Deal: ``The question isn't how we will pay for it, but what we will do with our new shared prosperity.'' ``The question isn't how we will pay for it . . .'' That was the quote. That is a pretty staggering statement when you consider that the Green New Deal plans to upend most of American society as we know it, from transportation to healthcare, but I suspect there was a simple reason the Green New Deal authors didn't want to talk about how to pay for it--because they couldn't figure out how. This week, one think tank released a first estimate of what the Green New Deal would cost, and here is the answer: between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years--between $51 trillion and $93 trillion. Those numbers are so large that they are almost impossible to process. Just for perspective, consider the fact that the entire Federal budget for 2019 is less than $5 trillion. That is the entire Federal budget--defense spending, domestic priorities, Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, everything. The Green New Deal could end up costing $9.3 trillion each year-- double the current Federal budget--and the government would still have to pay for a lot of other priorities on top of that. That money wouldn't cover defense spending, or Social Security, or a number of other urgent needs. The Green New Deal would assuredly raise Americans' energy bills, but that is just a tiny fraction of what Democrats' Green New Deal, which goes far beyond mere energy policy, would cost American families. It is difficult to even imagine the staggering tax hikes that would be required to pay for this plan. This plan would never be paid for just by taxing the well-off. That is always the argument we hear. Taxing every household making more than $200,000 a year at a 100-percent rate for 10 years would leave the Democrats far short of $93 trillion. Taxing every family making more than $100,000 a year at a 100-percent rate for 10 years would still leave Democrats far short of $93 trillion. In short, actually implementing this so-called Green New Deal would involve taking money not just from the well-off but from working families in this country-- and not a little bit of money either. Ninety-three trillion dollars breaks down to over $600,000 per household. That is over 10 times the median household income in my State of South Dakota. Should the Democratic Green New Deal come to pass, ordinary Americans would see incredible tax hikes. Middle-class Americans would see a substantial and permanent reduction in their standard of living. When we talk about Democrats' socialist fantasies, we tend to quickly fasten on the staggering costs of these programs, but it is important to also remember what else they would cost Americans. Socialism just doesn't come with a staggering pricetag; it also comes with less freedom, fewer choices, and less control of your own destiny. Socialized medicine like Medicare for All wouldn't mean just big tax hikes; it would mean giving up your private insurance plan, even if you like your coverage. It would mean being forced onto the government's healthcare plan, whether you like it or not. It would mean waiting in long lines. It would mean long wait times you can't do anything to avoid. The Green New Deal would mean higher electricity bills and higher taxes, but it would also mean limited transportation choices, including no airplane travel, increased government control over your housing options, less reliable energy, and the list goes on. Democrats' socialist fantasies would cost Americans untold amounts of money and permanently damage our economy, but the loss of choice and freedom would cost Americans even more. Democrats' green dream would be a green nightmare for Americans and American families. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, last night, for the second time in a month, Democrats objected to a bill to ban infanticide. That statement to me is absolutely chilling, but for the second time in a month, Democrats objected to a bill that would do nothing more than state that a living, breathing baby born in an abortion clinic is entitled to the same protection and medical care as a living, breathing baby born in a hospital is entitled to. It is a pretty basic bill. It just says that living, breathing, born human beings are entitled to protection even if they are born in an abortion clinic, but apparently that is not something Democrats are prepared to say. This is where Democrats' support for abortions has led them--to being unable to condemn infanticide. Let's remember why we voted on this bill last night. We voted on this bill because the Democratic Governor of Virginia implicitly endorsed infanticide--because the Democratic Governor of Virginia got up and said that you could keep a living, breathing baby comfortable while you decided what to do with it. There is only one answer to what you do with a living, breathing baby, and that is to provide it with the care it needs. A baby born alive in an abortion clinic is no less valuable and deserving of protection than a baby born in a delivery room. It is horrifying that we are actually having a debate about this. Honestly, it is horrifying that the Democratic Party can't get up and say that infanticide is wrong. My Democratic colleagues like to talk about protecting the vulnerable, but how can they claim to care about helping those in need if they harden their hearts toward the most vulnerable among us? If they are willing to deny living, breathing babies basic medical care, do you really stand for the vulnerable if you can't stand up and say that infanticide is wrong? It is terrible enough that we have so far betrayed our founding principles as to deny the right to life of living, breathing unborn babies, but we are not even talking about abortion here. We are talking about withholding essential care from babies who are born alive. My Democratic colleagues can't even bring themselves to say this is wrong. I would say to my Democratic colleagues, do you really want to be the party of Governor Northam? Do you really want to be the party of infanticide? The American people don't agree with the Democratic Party on abortion and on infanticide. Most Americans believe that babies born alive after an abortion should be provided with medical care. Most Americans think there should be at least some limits on abortion. In fact, most countries in the world think there should be some limits on abortion. The United States is just one of a tiny handful of countries that allow elective abortion past 20 weeks of pregnancy. Among the others on that list are China and North Korea--not exactly the company we want to be keeping when it comes to protecting human rights. A recent poll found that 71 percent of Americans oppose abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Yet the Democratic Party is aggressively embracing an agenda of zero restrictions on abortion, ever, up to--and now, apparently, after--the moment of birth. I hope last night is not the last time we vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. I hope my Democratic colleagues have a chance to recast their votes. I hope, next time, they will decide to vote against infanticide. I hope, next time, they can affirm what should be a basic, foundational principle, and that is that every baby, wherever he or she is born, deserves to be protected. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, later today, we hope we will have an opportunity to vote on legislation that will fund the government and provide much needed support for border security. While no agreement is perfect and not everybody gets everything one wants, this makes a significant downpayment on a border wall as well as on other border security measures. At the same time, it funds all of the appropriations bills for this fiscal year. I hope, as our Members review the text, they will have an opportunity to conclude that we will be able to get the votes that will be necessary to move the legislation through the Senate and, hopefully, ultimately, through the House and to the President and that the President will be able to sign it into law. So stay tuned on that. Hopefully, that will all transpire later today.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. 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.