[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 6, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1673-S1674]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           The Green New Deal

  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

[[Page S1674]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Ohio.