[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 34 (Monday, February 25, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2089-H2096]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE GREEN NEW DEAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rose of New York). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Newhouse) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority
leader.
General Leave
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of my Special
Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to lead a Special
Order alongside my colleagues to discuss, frankly, a reckless and
misguided and radical proposal recently introduced by some of my
Democratic colleagues, the Green New Deal.
Tonight, together with many of my fellow members of the Congressional
Western Caucus, we will be taking the time to share with the American
people the details of the ill-advised and bizarre provisions included
in this green manifesto and the grave impacts that they would have on
our Nation's economy.
{time} 2000
We will also share what we, as Republicans in the people's House,
believe when it comes to our national strategy to innovate, diversify,
and strengthen America's energy sector.
Mr. Speaker, the Green New Deal is a bad deal for the American
people. This so-called deal calls for cutting of greenhouse gas
emissions to net zero in only 10 years.
And while many studies are still working to grasp the perilous
impacts and the enormous costs of this proposal, one independent
estimate, led by a team of Stanford engineers, suggests it would cost
our Nation in the neighborhood of $7 trillion to convert all of
America's power to renewable power sources.
[[Page H2090]]
To quote the former Secretary of Energy under President Obama, Ernest
Moniz, he said: ``I'm afraid I just cannot see how we could possibly go
to zero carbon in the 10-year timeframe. It is just impractical.''
Mr. Speaker, the Green New Deal goes much further than just the
energy sector, however. It also mandates the guarantee of a job for
everyone, paid vacations for everyone, free college for everyone. It
dictates that every existing building in this country must be upgraded
and retrofitted for ``comfort.''
It calls for a drastic overhaul of our transportation systems across
the country, threatening not only our trucking and airline industries,
but also the daily lives of the 85 percent of Americans who drive every
morning or evening to get to work.
Mr. Speaker, while calling for all of these implausible mandates, the
Green New Deal would also insert the Federal Government into seemingly
every aspect of our daily lives.
By expanding our Federal bureaucracy far beyond anything we have ever
seen in history and undermining the federalist principles our country
was founded upon in the Constitution, this proposal would jeopardize
the future of America as we know it. It would sacrifice the American
energy, manufacturing, and transportation sectors; jeopardize
businesses small and large across the Nation; and lead our country down
the path of socialist nations like Venezuela, North Korea, and Cuba.
As the Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin said after reading the
proposal: ``What in the heck is this?''
Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more.
My State, the great State of Washington, consistently ranks among the
top of the list of States with the cleanest energy production. Do you
know why that is? It is because of the strong reliance on our
incredible system of hydroelectric dams, many of which are in my
congressional district along the Columbia and the Snake Rivers.
Nearly 70 percent of our power comes from hydropower, a clean,
renewable, reliable, and affordable source of baseload energy.
It also comes from our use of nuclear power. The Columbia Generating
Station, which is also in the Fourth Congressional District which I
represent, is the only nuclear power plant in the greater Northwest
region. It too provides clean, reliable power for the Pacific
Northwest.
On top of these sources, Washington State uses a variety of other
energy sources, including natural gas, coal, wind, solar, and biomass.
It is because we use an all-of-the-above mix of energy sources, but
largely concentrated on clean, renewable, reliable hydropower, that
Washington State continues to demonstrate how we can lead in the use of
clean energy while still diversifying and thereby strengthening our
energy portfolio.
Unfortunately, the Green New Deal negates this ability to do so. Not
once is the word ``hydropower'' mentioned in the legislation. And in
the frequently asked questions document that was released to accompany
the introduction of the Green New Deal, it stated that ``The plan is to
transition off of nuclear.''
Mr. Speaker, if we are going to continue to strengthen America's
energy independence and increase our use of clean sources of energy, we
must absolutely include hydropower and nuclear power. The science says
so, the facts say so.
So when Democrats in Congress release a sweeping, colossal overhaul
of our Nation's energy policies and do not include these clean energy
sources, it is clear that this is far more about politics and not about
sound science.
Mr. Speaker, my fellow House Republicans and I continue to advocate
for sound, comprehensive approaches to energy policy. We must continue
to explore every opportunity to develop viable alternative energy
sources, which is why under Republican control of the House in recent
Congresses, we have made serious investments in advanced nuclear and
basic science research, grid-scale energy storage, and equipped our
national laboratories with robust resources to lead the way in
research, development, and innovation.
National laboratories, like the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
in my district, play a crucial role in developing the basic science
research needed to pave the way for these alternative sources. Then
when private industry can utilize this research, the open marketplace
can put these new sources to use.
That is exactly what our country needs: more collaboration, more
innovation; not a top-down mandated system of bureaucratic dictates
based upon a green manifesto.
Mr. Speaker, I often share with my constituents that as a third
generation farmer, I consider myself to be a conservationist and on the
front lines of being a good steward of our natural resources. I know
that we must respect our environment, we must ensure clean air and
clean water for our citizens, and we must encourage innovative ways to
produce energy through a variety of reliable, renewable traditional and
alternative sources.
Tonight I am looking forward to hearing from my friends and my
colleagues in the Congressional Western Caucus on why the Green New
Deal would be catastrophic for their constituents and what we in our
Nation's capital should really be prioritizing in order to continue
America's energy independence dominance.
So with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my first speaker, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the gentleman that represents the Eighth
District of that great State.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues in
opposition to the Green New Deal.
This disastrous plan, cooked up by out-of-touch Washington elites,
simply does not work for Minnesota families.
According to the Energy Information Administration, 68 percent of
Minnesota's energy consumption comes from a combination of coal,
natural gas, nuclear, hydropower, and gasoline, all of which are to be
banned completely by the Green New Deal in 10 years.
Allowed under this radical pipe dream are wind, solar, and biomass,
which barely account for 15 percent of Minnesota's energy consumption.
Picture a family in Ely, Minnesota, where wind chill temperatures
reached 71 below zero this January, waking up in a warm house heated by
natural gas.
They start a hot pot of coffee, powered by our affordable electric
grid; take a hot shower, again, heated by natural gas; drive their kids
to school in their van, powered by reliable, affordable gasoline; go to
work, possibly at a mine or a local hospital; drive home again in that
same gasoline-powered car; make dinner for their family, using their
gas-powered stove; and then wake up again and do it all over.
The little things that we take for granted every day are powered by
conventional energy.
The Green New Deal would have a severe impact on our everyday lives,
something that northern Minnesotans do not want or need.
The Green New Deal would force every Minnesota family to turn in
their cars for electric vehicles and retrofit their homes to run on
renewable sources, like solar or wind.
I understand elites from D.C. and New York City may love this plan,
but I know the reality. I encourage my colleagues, especially those who
support this plan, to go back to their districts, like I did last week
and really listen to their constituents, listen to their concerns,
listen to how this plan would devastate the middle class and devastate
hardworking Minnesota families.
Retrofitting homes, buying electric cars, and ending the mining,
airline, and much of the shipping industries may be fun ideas for the
ultra-wealthy, but I know what it really means for middle-class
families in northern Minnesota.
We cannot let these unrealistic ideas get in the way of actual
progress. We must develop renewable forms of energy, but at the same
time, not shut out conventional, affordable energy sources on which
millions rely.
Do not let the Green New Deal distract from what northern Minnesotans
care about: expanding rural broadband for better internet access,
bringing good paying jobs back to our communities, and protecting
Social Security and Medicare.
With the projected cost of tens of trillions of dollars, the Green
New Deal puts all of this at risk.
I will not risk the future of Medicare and Social Security. I will
not risk the future of middle-class families.
[[Page H2091]]
However, I will stand up for the farmers, our miners, our small
business owners, manufacturers, and workers threatened by this Green
New Deal.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Minnesota for expressing so eloquently how Americans around the country
would be affected by this if this legislation was adopted into law.
People from different parts of the country with extreme weather, as you
have heard, depend on reliable sources of energy.
From minus 71 to hopefully a little warmer climate, the next speaker
I am going to yield to is the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the
chairman of our Western Caucus and the representative from the Fourth
Congressional District.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Washington, for organizing this important Special Order on the Green
New Deal.
Mr. Speaker, America's energy renaissance is the backbone of our
economy. It is a story of freedom, prosperity, and opportunity.
After decades of reliance on other countries to meet our energy
needs, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that America
will export more energy than it imports starting in 2020. We are no
longer dependent on volatile foreign sources produced in Russia or
Saudi Arabia.
Recent innovation and technology improvements associated with
fracking and horizontal drilling have allowed shale resources,
previously deemed uneconomical, to be developed, and are the main
reason the U.S. was the world leader in carbon emissions reductions in
2015, 2016, and 2017.
That is right. Fracking, demonized by environmental extremists
without justification, has proven to be the best energy solution for
our environment.
Abundant oil and natural gas has reduced electricity bills, kept gas
prices low, and provided the largest share of U.S. electric power
generation in recent years.
The oil and gas industry supports more than 10.3 million jobs and
nearly 8 percent of our economy.
The United States is the world's top energy producer, and the
American Dream is thriving.
January 2019 saw the hundredth consecutive month of positive jobs
growth in America, the longest period of continuous jobs growth on
record.
The U.S. job market is strong, and in December, employers posted 7.3
million open jobs, a new record.
Now, despite America's energy renaissance and the aforementioned
emissions reductions, we continue to hear hyperbolic statements about
pending climate catastrophe and the need for radical change to stave
off future disaster.
The Democrat socialists pushing the Green New Deal want to get rid of
all energy sources except wind, solar, and batteries by 2030. How are
we going to do that when wind and solar only produced 7.6 percent of
our electricity in 2017?
The Green New Deal would drive energy production and jobs to
countries like China and India that have much worse environmental
standards. Global greenhouse gas emissions will increase as a result,
in direct contradiction to the main talking point of the Green New
Deal.
The socialist Green New Deal says it will provide higher education,
higher quality healthcare, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing
to all.
{time} 2015
The Mercatus Center estimates that the cost of the single-payer
healthcare provision alone would cost $32 trillion in the first 10
years, something that I think is probably on the low side.
The Green New Deal is an alarmist pipe dream that seeks to
fundamentally transform America without a blueprint. This socialist
manifesto changes by the day, and important details on how a transition
of the Green New Deal's magnitude will occur are missing, including how
we will pay for this pie in the sky aspiration.
If one needs to have more evidence that the Green New Deal is not
plausible, look no further than the country of Australia where
electricity prices are the highest in the world and the Aussies'
obsession with renewables has destroyed their electric grid. Mass
blackouts and mass power cuts are the new norm, and a massive Tesla
battery backup system ran dry this past month as the Aussie power grid
crashed in summer temperatures. Ninety thousand Aussie homes had no
air-conditioning for the next 2 weeks of blistering heat.
Let's learn from Australia's mistakes. Let's not repeat them.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to enlightening everyone on this
legislation further in the coming days.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the good gentleman from Arizona
for expressing his thoughts on how this would impact the people not
only in Arizona, but also around the country.
Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents continue to ask me what is
actually in this Green New Deal legislation. Unfortunately for the
American people, the Members of Congress who introduced the resolution
had, I guess, several hiccups along the way during their rollout and
released conflicting documents to accompany the bill.
One significant piece of legislation that my constituents have asked
me about is whether the related resolution mandated a job for everyone
in the United States. Well, that is, in fact, true. A part of the
frequently asked questions document that was released with the
legislation even stated that economic security would be provided for
those who are ``unwilling to work.'' Many of my constituents think that
is an amazing statement.
After an adviser to the Green New Deal accused Republicans of
doctoring this document, The Washington Post later reported that he
erroneously made that accusation. In fact, this document was released
by Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez's office.
Representative Ocasio-Cortez has since retracted the frequently asked
questions document, but the message I hope my constituents and the
American people hear clearly is that we know the motives behind this
legislation. We know the intent. From ending the airline industry to
shutting down all nuclear power, unfortunately, some people on the
other side of the aisle, my colleagues on the Democratic side, are
threatening the American economy.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the frequently asked questions
document that was released by Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez's office.
LAUNCH: Thursday, February 7, at 8:30 a.m.
Overview
We will begin work immediately on Green New Deal bills to
put the nuts and bolts on the plan described in this
resolution (important to say so someone else can't claim this
mantle).
This is a massive transformation of our society with clear
goals and a timeline.
The Green New Deal resolution a 10-year plan to mobilize
every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since
World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and
create economic prosperity for all. It will:
Move America to 100% clean and renewable energy
Create millions of family supporting-wage, union jobs
Ensure a just transition for all communities and workers to
ensure economic security for people and communities that have
historically relied on fossil fuel industries
Ensure justice and equity for frontline communities by
prioritizing investment, training, climate and community
resiliency, economic and environmental benefits in these
communities.
Build on FDR's second bill of rights by guaranteeing:
A job with a family-sustaining wage, family and medical
leave, vacations, and retirement security
High-quality education, including higher education and
trade schools
Clean air and water and access to nature
Healthy food
High-quality health care
Safe, affordable, adequate housing
Economic environment free of monopolies
Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to
work
There is no time to waste.
IPCC Report said global emissions must be cut by 40-60% by
2030. US is 20% of total emissions. We must get to 0 by 2030
and lead the world in a global Green New Deal.
Americans love a challenge. This is our moonshot.
When JFK said we'd go to the by the end of the decade,
people said impossible.
If Eisenhower wanted to build the interstate highway system
today, people would ask how we'd pay for it.
When FDR called on America to build 185,000 planes to fight
World War 2, every business leader, CEO, and general laughed
at him. At the time, the U.S. had produced 3,000 planes in
the last year. By the end of the war, we produced 300,000
planes. That's what we are capable of if we have real
leadership
This is massive investment in our economy and society, not
expenditure.
[[Page H2092]]
We invested 40-50% of GDP into our economy during World War
2 and created the greatest middle class the US has seen.
The interstate highway system has returned more than $6 in
economic productivity for every $1 it cost
This is massively expanding existing and building new
industries at a rapid pace--growing our economy
The Green New Deal has momentum.
92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans
support the Green New Deal
Nearly every major Democratic Presidential contender say
they back the Green New Deal including: Elizabeth Warren,
Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Jeff Merkeley, Julian Castro,
Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Jay
Inslee.
45 House Reps and 330+ groups backed the original
resolution for a select committee
Over 300 local and state politicians have called for a
federal Green New Deal
New Resolution has 20 co-sponsors, about 30 groups (numbers
will change by Thursday).
FAQ
Why 100% clean and renewable and not just 100% renewable?
Are you saying we won't transition off fossil fuels?
Yes, we are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels
and zero greenhouse gases. Anyone who has read the resolution
sees that we spell this out through a plan that calls for
eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from every sector of the
economy. Simply banning fossil fuels immediately won't build
the new economy to replace it--this is the plan to build that
new economy and spells out how to do it technically. We do
this through a huge mobilization to create the renewable
energy economy as fast as possible. We set a goal to get to
net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we
aren't sure that we'll be able to fully get rid of farting
cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up
renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every
building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul
transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and
restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero.
Is nuclear a part of this?
A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable
energy production and would not include creating new nuclear
plants. It's unclear if we will be able to decommission every
nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition
off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible. No
one has put the full 10-year plan together yet, and if it is
possible to get to fully 100% renewable in 10 years, we
will do that.
Does this include a carbon tax?
The Green New Deal is a massive investment in the
production of renewable energy industries and infrastructure.
We cannot simply tax gas and expect workers to figure out
another way to get to work unless we've first created a
better, more affordable option. So we're not ruling a carbon
tax out, but a carbon tax would be a tiny part of a Green New
Deal in the face of the gigantic expansion of our productive
economy and would have to be preceded by first creating the
solutions necessary so that workers and working class
communities are not affected. While a carbon tax may be a
part of the Green New Deal, it misses the point and would be
off the table unless we create the clean, affordable options
first.
Does this include cap and trade?
The Green New Deal is about creating the renewable energy
economy through a massive investment in our society and
economy. Cap and trade assumes the existing market will solve
this problem for us, and that's simply not true. While cap
and trade may be a tiny part of the larger Green New Deal
plan to mobilize our economy, any cap and trade legislation
will pale in comparison to the size of the mobilization and
must recognize that existing legislation can incentivize
companies to create toxic hotspots in frontline communities,
so anything here must ensure that frontline communities are
prioritized.
Does a GND ban all new fossil fuel infrastructure or
nuclear power plants?
The Green New Deal makes new fossil fuel infrastructure or
nuclear plants unnecessary. This is a massive mobilization of
all our resources into renewable energies. It would simply
not make sense to build new fossil fuel infrastructure
because we will be creating a plan to reorient our entire
economy to work off renewable energy. Simply banning fossil
fuels and nuclear plants immediately won't build the new
economy to replace it--this is the plan to build that new
economy and spells out how to do it technically.
Are you for CCUS?
We believe the right way to capture carbon is to plant
trees and restore our natural ecosystems. CCUS technology to
date has not proven effective.
How will you pay for it?
The same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank
bailout and extended quantitative easing programs. The same
way we paid for World War II and all our current wars. The
Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and
investments and new public banks can be created to extend
credit. There is also space for the government to take an
equity stake in projects to get a return on investment. At
the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that
should grow our wealth as a nation, so the question isn't how
will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared
prosperity.
Why do we need a sweeping Green New Deal investment
program? Why can't we just rely on regulations and taxes and
the private sector to invest alone such as a carbon tax or a
ban on fossil fuels?
The level of investment required is massive. Even if every
billionaire and company came together and were willing to
pour all the resources at their disposal into this
investment, the aggregate value of the investments they could
make would not be sufficient.
The speed of investment required will be massive. Even if
all the billionaires and companies could make the investments
required, they would not be able to pull together a
coordinated response in the narrow window of time required to
jump-start major new projects and major new economic sectors.
Also, private companies are wary of making massive
investments in unproven research and technologies; the
government, however, has the time horizon to be able to
patiently make investments in new tech and R&D, without
necessarily having a commercial outcome or application in
mind at the time the investment is made. Major examples of
government investments in ``new'' tech that subsequently
spurred a boom in the private section include DARPA-projects,
the creation of the internet--and, perhaps most recently, the
government's investment in Tesla.
Simply put, we don't need to just stop doing some things we
are doing (like using fossil fuels for energy needs); we also
need to start doing new things (like overhauling whole
industries or retrofitting all buildings to be energy
efficient). Starting to do new things requires some upfront
investment. In the same way that a company that is trying to
change how it does business may need to make big upfront
capital investments today in order to reap future benefits
(for e.g., building a new factory to increase production or
buying new hardware and software to totally modernize its IT
system), a country that is trying to change how its economy
works will need to make big investments today to jump-start
and develop new projects and sectors to power the new
economy.
Merely incentivizing the private sector doesn't work--e.g.
the tax incentives and subsidies given to wind and solar
projects have been a valuable spur to growth in the US
renewables industry but, even with such investment-promotion
subsidies, the present level of such projects is simply
inadequate to transition to a fully greenhouse gas neutral
economy as quickly as needed.
Once again, we're not saying that there isn't a role for
private sector investments; we're just saying that the level
of investment required will need every actor to pitch in and
that the government is best placed to be the prime driver.
Resolution Summary
Created in consultation with multiple groups from
environmental community, environmental justice community, and
labor community
5 goals in 10 years:
Net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just
transition for all communities and workers
Create millions of high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and
economic security for all
Invest in infrastructure and industry to sustainably meet
the challenges of the 21st century
Clean air and water, climate and community resiliency,
healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment
for all
Promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing
future, and repairing historic oppression of frontline and
vulnerable communities
National mobilization our economy through 14 infrastructure
and industrial projects. Every project strives to remove
greenhouse gas emissions and pollution from every sector of
our economy:
Build infrastructure to create resiliency against climate
change-related disasters
Repair and upgrade U.S. infrastructure. ASCE estimates this
is $4.6 trillion at minimum.
Meet 100% of power demand through clean and renewable
energy sources
Build energy-efficient, distributed smart grids and ensure
affordable access to electricity
Upgrade or replace every building in US for state-of-the-
art energy efficiency
Massively expand clean manufacturing (like solar panel
factories, wind turbine factories, battery and storage
manufacturing, energy efficient manufacturing components) and
remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from
manufacturing
Work with farmers and ranchers to create a sustainable,
pollution and greenhouse gas free, food system that ensures
universal access to healthy food and expands independent
family farming
Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding
electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations
everywhere, build out high-speed rail at a scale where air
travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public
transit available to all, with goal to replace every
combustion-engine vehicle
Mitigate long-term health effects of climate change and
pollution
Remove greenhouse gases from our atmosphere and pollution
through afforestation, preservation, and other methods of
restoring our natural ecosystems
Restore all our damaged and threatened ecosystems
[[Page H2093]]
Clean up all the existing hazardous waste sites and
abandoned sites
Identify new emission sources and create solutions to
eliminate those emissions
Make the US the leader in addressing climate change and
share our technology, expertise and products with the rest of
the world to bring about a global Green New Deal
Social and economic justice and security through 15
requirements:
Massive federal investments and assistance to organizations
and businesses participating in the green new deal and
ensuring the public gets a return on that investment
Ensure the environmental and social costs of emissions are
taken into account
Provide job training and education to all
Invest in R&D of new clean and renewable energy
technologies
Doing direct investments in frontline and deindustrialized
communities that would otherwise be hurt by the transition to
prioritize economic benefits there
Use democratic and participatory processes led by frontline
and vulnerable communities to implement GND projects locally
Ensure that all GND jobs are union jobs that pay prevailing
wages and hire local
Guarantee a job with family-sustaining wages
Protect right of all workers to unionize and organize
Strengthen and enforce labor, workplace health and safety,
antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards
Enact and enforce trade rules to stop the transfer of jobs
and pollution overseas and grow domestic manufacturing
Ensure public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and
eminent domain is not abused
Obtain free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous
peoples
Ensure an economic environment free of monopolies and
unfair competition
Provide high-quality health care, housing, economic
security, and clean air, clean water, healthy food, and
nature to all
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the other gentleman from the
great State of Arizona (Mr. Biggs), who represents the Fifth District
and I believe served on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee
very well.
Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I applaud and give my thanks and gratitude to
the gentleman from Washington for his efforts in leading this today,
and to the Congressional Western Caucus and the members who are
exposing what is really not a Green New Deal, but really is a green
socialist manifesto.
Here is what we need to understand about this. This is so broad and
expansive, as Mr. Newhouse has said, it will, basically, invade every
aspect of every American's life, and it will cost tens of trillions of
dollars to implement.
How will we pay for that? We are going to pay for that with crushing
new taxes on individuals, families, and companies. We are going to
destroy the current foundation of our entire American economy.
There will be more borrowing, not just from the public sector, but
from the private sector. The public sector is in trouble because the
Federal Government just hit $22 trillion of national debt.
The question is, what will the impact of this be on the environment?
It would do little to solve the alleged problem of carbon in the
atmosphere because the United States is no longer the primary source of
carbon emissions.
Between 2005 and 2017, our Nation has reduced CO2
emissions by 862 million tons. Today, the U.S. is responsible for only
15 percent of global CO2 emissions. During roughly the same
period, China increased its emissions by 4 billion tons and India by
1.3 billion tons.
Needless to say, the GND doesn't explain how we would compel other
nations to change their behavior. But domestically, as I have said, we
are going to emasculate our economy. The coal, nuclear, natural gas,
petroleum, and air travel industries will be wiped out, and all of the
industries that support those industries. That means hundreds of
thousands of people will lose their jobs almost instantly.
At the same time, the Green New Deal, or the green socialist
manifesto, is going to guarantee a wage. It is going to guarantee
income for everyone.
As Representative Ryan said, we can't green the economy without the
power of the free market system. He is right. That is the ultimate
point of what I want to say today.
We know that science doesn't support the green socialist manifesto,
but we know something that is really critical to understand. This
proposal, which today is so vast, so encompassing, and so primitive in
its creation, is also so destructive to our economy and multiple
industries, multiple sectors of our economy, that I would say there is
only one way that you can implement such an outlandish and reckless
idea, and that is to use the awesome, overreaching power of government
to not just induce, but to coerce implementation of this faulty idea.
In its scope, breadth, and depth, this plan is authoritarian in
nature. It will require government flexing its muscles to mandate
activities and forbid other actions in every American's life.
We can't afford this plan. This plan will not provide what it says it
is going to do. Moreover, in a free, constitutional Republic, you can
never allow this kind of socialism to be combined with
authoritarianism.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Biggs for sharing his thoughts
on the direction that this would take our Nation and the dangerous path
it would lead us upon. Those are things that we need to make sure that
we don't allow happen, and I think the American people would agree with
us.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the
good doctor from Kansas' First District who serves on the Agriculture
Committee. I know this is going to have a huge impact on many
industries, but particularly agriculture.
Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that, back home, the Green New Deal means
that John Deere dealers are having a new combine sale.
I stand before you this evening to tell you exactly why the Green New
Deal is a sham. Rather than setting realistic goals to reduce carbon
emissions and incentivize cleaner energy development, this so-called
deal stalls innovation and drastically expands government involvement
in almost every aspect of everyday life, at a price tag of more than
$50 trillion.
Over the past 2 years, we have unleashed our economy by reducing
government overregulation, allowing more Americans to invest in their
families, futures, and pursuits. The Green New Deal will throw the
brakes on our economy, as well as the world's economy. Nothing will
increase worldwide carbon production more than a stalled economy.
Additionally, this Green New Deal reverses our success by imposing
harsher regulations that will put American workers and American
companies at an extreme disadvantage. This socialist proposal that
Democrats are championing completely ignores the cost to American
taxpayers and fails to address the negative impacts that other
countries have on global climate change. It implements policies that
will dramatically increase taxes, burdens, and energy bills for
families.
This deal will absolutely devastate our economy with its outrageous
demands for new green infrastructure, new green labor practices, and
new green taxes. It will crush American manufacturing and
transportation industries. It would completely halt domestic energy
production that has had record exports under the Trump administration.
I am a firm believer that we must focus on leaving this world better
than we found it for the next generation. For my children, for your
children, and for our grandchildren, we need to be good stewards of the
resources and the planet we have been given, but any reasonable
solution will require us to use common sense when approaching the
issues.
We must also be careful not to fall into the trap of believing that
the U.S. Government is the answer to correct all our problems. America
has always been a nation of innovators, and instead of imposing new
regulations and taxes, we must continue to lead the world and partner
with American industries to develop creative solutions and new
innovative technologies. Innovation will do more to impact climate
change than any law Washington, D.C., can write.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Marshall for sharing with us
his thoughts from the great State of Kansas.
Some of the proponents of the Green New Deal have criticized others
for criticizing the Green New Deal, saying that we don't have any room
to talk if we are not going to offer something toward the issues that
we face as a world and as a country.
Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, we do have options, and we do have
solutions
[[Page H2094]]
that we have been offering. Let me share a piece written by my
Republican colleagues just recently who lead the Energy and Commerce
Committee. Mr. Greg Walden, Mr. Fred Upton, and Mr. John Shimkus
shared an article that was published in several newspapers around the
country. Some of the things that they say go like this: ``America's
approach for tackling climate change should be built upon the
principles of innovation, conservation, and adaptation. Republicans
have long championed realistic, innovative, and free-market strategies
to promote a cleaner environment and to reduce emissions. The results
are clear: The United States is leading the world in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions thanks to vibrant energy sector competition
and innovation.''
They go on to say: ``We should continue to encourage innovation and
renewable energy development. We should promote carbon capture and
utilization, renewable hydropower, and safe nuclear power, which is
emissions-free. We should also look to remove barriers to energy
storage and commercial batteries to help make renewable sources more
viable and our electricity grid more resilient. And we must encourage
more research and business investments in new clean energy
technologies. These are bipartisan solutions that we must seize on to
deliver real results for the American people.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cloud) from the
27th District.
{time} 2030
Mr. CLOUD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Newhouse).
Mr. Speaker, the Green New Deal is a bad deal for the people of
America. Just days ago, we passed $22 trillion in debt for which we
have no plan to begin paying off. The Green New Deal would only add
trillions more while simultaneously destroying the American economy,
which not only means families across our Nation would lose their
ability to sustain themselves, but it would also shut down the
innovation engine of the world.
The 27th District of Texas, which I represent, has a better approach.
We are home to a diverse energy portfolio, which includes wind,
nuclear, LNG, oil production--not to mention our fair share of cows and
airplanes.
We are home to a safe, reliable nuclear power plant in Matagorda
County that generates 2.7 gigawatts of power, and that is a power of
nearly 2 million Texas homes and businesses. It would take 8.4 million
solar panels to replace that kind of energy. Even President Obama's
Secretary of Energy said, ``It's just impractical.''
We are also home to the leading export energy port in the Nation. We
have been a great part in the success of what we have seen as a nation
of going from an energy-dependent nation to an energy-dominant nation.
And what that new American energy dominance means, it means global
stability and peace in the world as our allies are able to buy energy
from us rather than from countries who don't have our best intentions
in mind.
But as the world's need for energy grows, American companies are more
likely to care about being good stewards of our creation compared with
those from other energy-producing nations.
The United States cut carbon emissions by 14 percent since 2005 while
global emissions rose 26 percent over the same period. Of all the G20
countries, we have the best record recently on carbon emissions and
reductions.
In Texas our market-based approach to energy is leading the way even
as our economy continues to boom. Furthermore, a thriving economy is
absolutely essential to creating and deploying the innovative solutions
we need to face the environmental challenges of the future.
So when it comes to the Green New Deal, let's stop looking to
socialism for answers and start looking to places like Texas.
This Green New Deal would be devastating to American jobholders,
harmful to our allies around the world, and it is also
counterproductive to advancing protections to our environment.
Mr. Speaker, I will continue to firmly oppose this outlandish and
unrealistic idea.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Cloud) for giving us great thoughts about the impacts of what the Green
New Deal would actually mean for Americans and jobs in the United
States of America.
As the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes) makes his way to the
microphone, I just want to share with you one study that was released
today by the American Action Forum. It says that the Green New Deal
will cost a startling $93 trillion over 10 years.
Now, put that into perspective: That is equivalent to $600,000 per
household.
To generate $93 trillion in income tax revenue, we would have to tax
every household earning more than $30,000 at a 100 percent rate for 10
years.
If every household earning over more than $200,000 were taxed at 100
percent for 10 years, it would still fall $58 trillion short. So you
can just see that this does not work.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes), a
member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. ESTES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Newhouse).
You know, those numbers are just shocking, as you related, in terms
of how it would devastate the American economy and American families.
Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to add my voice in opposition to this so-
called Green New Deal.
You know, this outrageous proposal would be a massive government
takeover of every facet of our daily lives. From how we eat, to how we
travel, this so-called Green New Deal calls to replace every building
and car in America within 10 years. It would cost up to $93 trillion.
That would cost every American household an extra $65,300 per year.
That might be crumbs in New York and California, but it is not in
Kansas, where the average family income is $56,422.
If the crushing tax increase on every family isn't bad enough, the
plan also calls for an eventual end to air travel.
As representative of the Air Capital of the World, clearly, this is
alarming.
According to the Kansas Department of Transportation, aviation is
responsible for 91,300 jobs in Kansas and has an economic impact on our
state of $20.6 billion.
Grounding air travel would decimate jobs in Kansas, just as the
entire Green New Deal would devastate the economy of our country.
The only thing this proposal accomplishes is exposing the priorities
of politicians who are determined to increase taxes and expand
government to impose their agenda on every family, farm, and business.
Kansans know how to protect our environment and quality of life
without being told to do so by government officials in Washington,
D.C., and I stand with them in opposing this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Newhouse for leading this special
order.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Estes). I appreciate very much him sharing his thoughts about the Green
New Deal and the impacts it would have on our country--something that
we just absolutely cannot afford. So I appreciate very much his time
this evening, and I thank him.
Mr. Speaker, I recently read an article from Reuters titled ``Labor
Unions fear Democrats' Green New Deal poses job threat.''
I didn't write that title. That is what they did. In it, a spokesman
for a major union in this country speaks on the legislation's language,
calling for a transition for union jobs. He says, ``We've heard words
like `just transition' before, but what does that really mean? Our
Members are worried about putting food on the table.''
Another labor union, the Laborers' International Union of North
America states, ``We will never settle for `just transition' language
as a solution to the job losses that will surely come from some of the
policies in the resolution.''
Mr. Speaker, hardworking Americans across the country deserve to be
heard. Unfortunately, as this article states, neither union was
contacted for input before the legislation was released.
And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield time to the gentleman from
California's First District (Mr. LaMalfa), my good friend and a fellow
farmer.
[[Page H2095]]
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, thank you to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Newhouse).
Indeed, what we know so far about the Green New Deal, it is more like
a green pipe dream. It would lead to a total government takeover of
just about every aspect of our lives.
Now, it is interesting to watch, since the deal was proposed not that
many days ago, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, many of
them are starting to back away from it. There were 67 coauthors on
that. We are seeing some starting to back away, saying, well, this
really isn't the dream or the deal; it is more of an aspiration.
Well, by the time you freaked out half the country with these ideas
that you put into legislation, maybe we need a little more heads-up on
what really is the goal here.
Some of the guarantees in it:
A government paycheck for those unwilling to work.
Is that really in there? What are we talking about here?
The cost of this implementation? $93 trillion, quadruple of what our
national debt is right now. The cost will be passed on, of course, to--
as always--the taxpayer, to families, to those struggling--especially
middle-income folks--who could see their energy bills going up from
already at a high point to an additional $4,000 annually per family.
We should really have our supporters of this bill benefit from the
lessons learned in California on the high-speed rail boondoggle that
tripled in a short amount of time soon after it was barely approved,
$10 billion by the taxpayers to a nearly $100 billion project, all
under the guise of saving greenhouse gases.
Except during the construction of the high-speed rail in California,
it will make a whole bunch of greenhouse gases with the equipment
involved, so we are going to plant trees to offset that. Yet, at the
same time, they are running the rails through hundreds of acres of
almond trees in the middle of California that they are supposed to be
offsetting.
It is a reckless attempt to undermine America's increasing
dominance--not just energy independence--but now dominance in energy
around the world.
It ignores the basic reality; a lot of what America was built upon
were indeed fossil fuels, those known reserves that we have in this
country.
Now, let's talk a little bit about the Paris accord that I think
President Trump rightfully withdrew the United States from. The goal
being greenhouse gas reduction, CO2 reduction.
Well, when you look at the stats, who is already leading the way
outside of the accord? The U.S.--of those western countries--is the
only one that has actually reduced its number of CO2 in that
amount of time.
We are the ones doing it. You know why? Because we have freedom;
because we have the ability to innovate here, to invent the new
technology, to invent the things that are going to help us do things
better and cleaner into the future.
I don't hear a lot of talk on this about new hydropower, which is
clean and ready to go any time you turn on the switch to the gates to
allow the turbines to flow.
Biomass. In my area of the country--the Western Caucus, my colleagues
here--we burn part of the west every year. We should be putting that
fuel into clean burning power plants to make electricity, cleaning our
forest, making it more fire-safe, better for the wildlife, better for
the environment, not having all that CO2 go up. And then
creating jobs in our backyard to get people to work from cleaning up
the over-inventory the U.S. forest and BLM has from allowing their
forest to run rampant with no management for the last 100 years.
These are things we should be talking about, not this green dream
thing. Instead, we are going to hear nothing but climate change,
climate change, climate change, with solutions that just harness or
handcuff the economy, the jobs, and the people of this country inside
this chamber and in the real world out there where people actually
produce things.
We need to focus on the things that we know can work, producing
energy with hydropower. Yes, with nuclear power, no emissions. With
biomass, help clean that inventory that burns hundreds of thousands of
acres every year of forest land, and put it to work for us.
That is what we are going to be successful at, because the United
States is always number one in developing the new technology, the new
ways to do cleaner, better, more efficiently, instead of handcuffing
our economy and that innovation and exporting it somewhere else.
I do agree with my colleagues that have spoken here tonight. And in
sending the message, we need to strongly oppose this bill and get back
to something that actually works for the working people of this
country.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time of the gentleman.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
LaMalfa). I appreciate very much him sharing his thoughts--and
California's thoughts--about what we have in front of us and the impact
it would have.
And if anyone is thinking that this is just a bunch of Republicans
that are thinking this way and have these thoughts, let me share with
you some quotes from some of my friends across the aisle, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Jeff Van Drew, a Democrat from New Jersey. He says of
the Green New Deal, ``It is not a serious policy proposal. It seeks the
complete reorganization of American society, which took hundreds of
years to build, in a matter of 10 years.''
Or the senior Senator from California--Mr. LaMalfa's state--just
stated last week that ``There's no way to pay for it.''
From my own State, my colleague, Representative Rick Larsen just said
recently, ``It is difficult to support the resolution right now when
one of the lead sponsors says one of the intentions is to make air
travel unnecessary.'' He is the chairman of the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation.
My neighbor from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, chairman of the House Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure, said, ``The idea that in 5 or 10
years we're not going to consume any more fossil fuels is
technologically impossible. We can have grand goals, but let's be
realistic about how we get there.''
Even our own Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi from California, said
of the proposal, ``The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody
knows what it is, but they're for it, right?''
So you can see, it is not just us, this is a bipartisan feeling about
the Green New Deal that it needs a lot more consideration.
Mr. Speaker, at this point, I yield to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Norman), my good friend from the Palmetto State, Fifth
District, and a member of the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Newhouse for leading the
effort on this.
And I rise to oppose the Green New Deal for many of the reasons that
have already been said, but this is the most amateurish resolution that
has come before this Congress in a long time, not from only my point of
view but many others who have served longer than I have.
We were asked to consider a policy that would change every aspect of
American life, deciding what we eat, how we travel, how we stay warm,
and even what jobs we can take and what homes we are allowed to live
in.
We are presented with a total overhaul of society, but with no
explanation how. There is no roadmap, no method of implementation, and,
of course, no price tag. All we know is that this will be dictated by a
cabal of better-knowing bureaucrats. Yet every estimate shows just how
unrealistic this green deal really is.
According to the American Action Forum, the total cost could run as
high as $93 trillion over 10 years.
{time} 2045
This totals 21 times our current Federal budget of $4.4 trillion.
That can only mean one thing for the American people: taxes, taxes, and
more taxes.
This resolution is so lacking in detail, we might as well vote on the
merits of a scrap of paper that says, ``solve the problem.'' This is no
way to govern.
[[Page H2096]]
The only details we do have are from a survey that enjoyed a brief
existence online before it was removed out of embarrassment and has
since been denied.
One source of embarrassment was the call to get rid of cows. To my
knowledge, this is the first time that a Member of this House has
called for bovine genocide.
That the deal's supporters are now hiding these facts reveals that
the true agenda behind the Green New Deal is too horrifying to be
shared with any of the public. As a rule of thumb, any law that cannot
be shared with the people cannot serve the people.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
for his input on this important issue. It underscores the cost to the
Nation if this were adopted and its impact on our economy. I thank the
gentleman for that tremendous help.
I thank all my colleagues, members of the Congressional Western
Caucus, for participating tonight to point out some of the fallacies of
the Green New Deal. Certainly, it is something that, as legislation is
proposed, this is the process: We talk about what we like, what we
don't like, and we offer alternatives, trying to find solutions in a
bipartisan way.
Republicans have always advocated to continue looking at these issues
of climate change, of energy use and production, of issues facing the
environment. We are always looking for ways to innovate, to adequately
fund research, but, basically, underscoring all of that, relying on the
use of sound science for any decisions that we make, to make sure that
the policies that we adopt are those that will be sustaining and good
for not only our country, but for the world.
So we base our decisions on science, not politics. As Republicans, as
members of the Congressional Western Caucus, which is a bipartisan
organization, we look forward to debating seriously and making serious
decisions in regard to these very important issues that face our
country, face the next generation, and face the world.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing debates on this important
topic, and I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________