[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 37 (Thursday, February 28, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1558-S1559]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           The Green New Deal

  Madam President, yesterday, I came down and talked about the so-
called Green New Deal, which is a fantasy put forward by a number of 
our colleagues on the other side. I think 11 Democratic Senators have 
cosponsored that legislation, which the early analysis shows would cost 
somewhere between $51 trillion and $94 trillion over the next decade. 
To put that into more personal terms, that is $600,000 per family in 
this country--the cost of the Green New Deal.
  My colleague from Illinois, the Democratic whip, was asked about it 
on an interview recently, and he responded by saying that he had read 
and reread the proposal and still doesn't know what the heck it is. 
Well, that is an honest answer. But I think what we do know is that 
this is a proposal that will dramatically, massively drive up costs for 
American families. It would be a disaster for the pocketbooks of the 
people of this country, which brings me to my topic for today.
  On Tuesday, POLITICO released an article with this headline: ``House 
Democrats to release `Medicare for All' bill--without a price tag.'' 
That was the headline.
  This is becoming par for the course for Democrats. First we get the 
Green New Deal resolution without a pricetag. Now we get Medicare for 
All, also without a pricetag. Why? Well, because there is no way to 
actually pay for these socialist fantasies. They sound nice, until you 
actually look at the staggering costs.
  Imagine if you decided that you needed to repair the plumbing at your 
house, and the plumber came and suggested that not only should you 
repair the plumbing, you should rebuild the house from the ground up. 
Then he wanted you to sign on for demolition and reconstruction without 
telling you how much it would cost.
  That is what Democrats are trying to do on a grand scale here. They 
want to overhaul large parts of the economy and rebuild them on 
socialist lines, all without telling you what it will cost or how they 
will pay for it.
  Of course, while it is irresponsible, it is not surprising that 
Democrats don't want to discuss the pricetag for their fantasies, 
because there is no way to pay for these massive government takeovers 
without taxing ordinary Americans.
  Democrats make vague suggestions that these programs can be paid for 
by taxing the rich. That is always the line. But the truth is that 
taxing millionaires at a 100-percent income tax rate would not pay for 
these programs. Taxing Americans making much less than $1 million at a 
100-percent rate wouldn't pay for these programs.
  The cost of these programs will never be borne just by millionaires. 
These programs will be paid for on the backs of working families in 
this country. That is the pure and simple reality.
  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--$32 trillion--and 
it is possible that the House Democrats' plan could cost even more.
  POLITICO noted in their story that, unlike the plan of the Senator 
from Vermont, the House Democrats' plan would also ``fund long-term 
care, a particularly expensive part of the health system.''
  But moving away from the staggering pricetag, let's talk about what 
life would be like under Medicare for All.
  For starters, of course, it would mean that Americans would lose 
their private insurance, even if they like their private insurance. 
Democrats have been very clear about this.
  At a CNN townhall just this week, 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 Senator from Vermont's response: ``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's an urgent goal?

  Her response:

       Oh yeah, it is a goal. An urgent goal.

  So if you like your health insurance, you definitely will not be able 
to keep it. You will be forced into the government healthcare plan, 
whether you like that plan or not. Then, of course, you will be facing 
long wait times and likely a limited choice of doctors and hospitals, 
and you will have fewer options if the government decides a particular 
treatment isn't cost-effective and shouldn't be covered.
  Democrats can talk all they want about generous coverage, but what 
happens when they don't have the money for that generous coverage? We 
already know this program is likely to cost more than $30 trillion over 
just 10 years, and government programs aren't exactly known for staying 
under budget.
  What happens if it ends up costing more or if the government can't 
even pay the $32 trillion that we know it is going to cost? Well, there 
will be still more taxes, undoubtedly, but also reductions in coverage 
and care.
  Our Nation's current Medicare Program is going bankrupt. If action 
isn't taken, in 2026 Medicare will not be able to pay the benefits that 
are promised under current law. Yet Democrats are suggesting that we 
more than quintuple the size of the program and that somehow we will be 
able to pay for that.
  If we ever do pay for Medicare for All, we will pay for it by taking 
the money from the American people through devastating tax increases 
that will permanently reduce Americans' standard of living and 
permanently damage our economy.
  Like all socialist dreams, Medicare for All would quickly become a 
nightmare for the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Senator Udall and Senator Collins pertaining to the 
submission of S.J. Res. 10 are printed in today's Record under 
``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  Ms. COLLINS. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Schumer pertaining to the introduction of S.J. 
Res. 9 are printed in today's Record under

[[Page S1559]]

``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')