[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 6, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1680-S1682]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           The Green New Deal

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Iowa, 
Senator Ernst, for organizing this opportunity for several of us in the 
Senate to discuss the Green New Deal and to do it this week.
  To put it mildly, the Green New Deal is ambitious. To frame it more 
accurately, it is an unworkable, pie-in-the-sky attempt to reshape 
every aspect of everyday Americans' lives.
  First, let me say that I am proud of my record in successfully 
advancing the availability and affordability of renewable energy. Many 
have called me the father of the Wind Energy Incentives Act. I suppose 
after--what?--probably 26 years, that makes me the grandfather of the 
Wind Energy Incentives Act. My legislation sought to give this 
alternative energy source the ability to compete against traditional, 
finite energy sources. At that time, we never knew about fracking for 
natural gas and for oil. We thought we were going to be completely 
dependent upon Saudi Arabia for our energy. Now we know that is not 
true, but back in 1992 and before, we did everything to think up every 
alternative energy we could in order to be less dependent upon the 
Saudis. One of those acts that I was involved in was wind energy.
  The wind energy bill--now law--has been extremely successful. Iowa 
supplies more than 35 percent of its own electricity from wind. We were 
the first State in the country to generate more

[[Page S1681]]

than one-third of its electricity from wind. Wind energy employs 
approximately 7,000 Iowans, and the nearly 3,000 wind turbines in Iowa 
generate millions of dollars in economic activity. So I want to make it 
very clear that I am speaking as someone who has a very successful 
track record of advancing clean energy.
  Think about what the Green New Deal is about. Presumably, they don't 
know we have been this successful because the Green New Deal, on the 
other hand, is nothing more than a grab bag of vague aspirations. In 
fact, the Green New Deal was initially introduced in the House and 
Senate by its authors as a nonbinding, symbolic resolution--in other 
words, a lot of hot air. That means that even if it were to pass as 
introduced, it would not become law. I am glad that Senate Majority 
Leader McConnell reintroduced the text in a format that could become 
law so we Senators could go on record as to whether we would want to 
make this the policy of the United States.
  It would be one thing if the policy and goals remained on topic--
namely, reducing pollution and cutting our Nation's carbon emissions. 
Those are worthy goals. Yet the resolution reads like a utopian 
manifesto that seeks to implement every liberal policy priority from 
the past many decades.
  We have seen extreme leftwing agendas that rely on the power of the 
State and that usurp the role of individuals. How will those policies 
turn out? We have plenty examples. Look at the former Soviet Union. 
Look at Cuba over the last 60 years. Look at what has happened to 
Venezuela in the last 15 years. It has gone from the richest country in 
South America to a destitute country in which they die of malnutrition 
and people can't get medicine. In more instances than in the three I 
have just given you, these utopian ideas never turn out very well.
  Sure, the Green New Deal includes goals that are related to energy 
and the environment, but for the most part, they are wholly 
unrealistic. For example, their calling for the upgrading of all 
existing buildings or, in another statement, their meeting 100 percent 
of the power demands of the United States through clean, renewable, 
zero-emission energy sources--all within the next 10 years--is simply 
not feasible.
  Of course, no concrete proposals are put forward on how this is to be 
achieved. The Green New Deal just leaves us scratching our heads 
thinking about how all this would work.
  There are a lot of questions. Would it require the government to 
mandate that every building owner in the United States make costly 
building improvements to meet national standards set here in 
Washington, DC?
  Another question is, would every homeowner have to submit to 
government inspection to ensure that his or her home meets the 
standards dictated by the government?
  Another question is, what government expenditures would have to be 
made, assuming all of this is even technologically possible, to go from 
about 17 percent of U.S. electricity generation coming from renewables 
today to a total 100 percent in 10 years?
  The last question I will raise is, are the backers of the Green New 
Deal willing to support nuclear energy as a means to reach their goal? 
On this last point, I would conclude that a summary of the Green New 
Deal initially put out by the chief author in the House suggests a lack 
of support for nuclear energy.
  As I have said before in my remarks today, I have been a leader on 
renewable energy production for decades, not just wind, as I have said, 
but geothermal, solar, biofuels, et cetera. So I am not just talking 
about being the author of the wind energy production tax credit.
  During my leadership of the Senate Finance Committee in the 2000s, 
when I was chairman there, I oversaw the establishment, the 
enhancement, and renewal of numerous tax incentives that promote 
everything from wind and solar to renewable fuels like biodiesel, to 
energy-efficient homes, buildings, and appliances.
  Unlike the unrealistic goals of the Green New Deal, these initiatives 
I just read are not only law, but they are real, proven, bipartisan 
actions that I shepherded into law to make the United States more 
energy independent and also, at the same time, improve our environment. 
Unfortunately, many of these key energy incentives I just mentioned are 
currently expired, and some of them have been expired for more than a 
year.
  We had a real opportunity to extend these energy incentives as part 
of the appropriations deal reached earlier this month, but that was 
ultimately blocked by House Democrats--probably some of the same people 
who are promoting the Green New Deal. They seem overly focused on the 
lofty goals of the Green New Deal or, as Speaker Pelosi called the 
Green New Deal, ``The green dream or whatever they call it, no one 
knows what it is.''
  The House Democrats could not be bothered a month ago with extensions 
of existing and successful provisions that incentivize the type of 
investment they claim to have backed and not only tend to incentivize, 
actually have incentivized alternative energy over the last two and 
one-half decades--provisions that support millions of jobs for people 
who are actually willing to work.
  Perhaps this just shows that the Green New Deal is less about 
tackling energy and environmental issues and more about remaking 
America into a dreamy new progressive paradise.
  No sector of the economy is left unchecked by the Green New Deal--
make no mistake about thinking otherwise. The authors of the Green New 
Deal are intent on reshaping every aspect of American life through a 
``national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization,'' and those 
last six words are in quotations.
  Shaping American life through ``national, social, industrial, and 
economic mobilization'' that is eerily reminiscent of the 5-year plans 
of the former Soviet Union or of the Great Leap Forward under Chairman 
Mao of China.
  Even the family farmer is not spared from its grand plans. The Green 
New Dealers want to remove what they call pollution and greenhouse gas 
emissions in agriculture through sustainable farming and building a 
more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy 
food. Now, I am not against farmers taking actions to prevent soil 
erosion and minimizing pollution because we farmers do that already. We 
have been doing it for decades.
  The recently passed farm bill invests more in conservation programs 
than any farm bill before. I trust that farmers know more and have more 
common sense about how to take care of their land than some bureaucrat 
in Washington, DC, or politicians from New York City. We all know 
Washington, DC, is an island surrounded by reality. So you put forth 
legislation like this, and it is just like 535 Members of Congress have 
all the knowledge in the world to tell 310 million other people what 
they ought to be doing.
  I don't believe all those smarts rest in the Congress of the United 
States or even the bureaucracy of this government. Over the last 
several years, when it comes to farming, we have seen farmers readily 
adopt the use of cover crops to prevent nutrient runoff and to 
sequester carbon in the soil through what we call minimum or no 
tillage.
  Today farmers may go down as the first group in history to leave the 
land better than they found it for future generations. Moreover, every 
indication is that these calls for sustainable farming and a 
sustainable food system go well beyond farmers being good stewards of 
our natural resources. It appears to be intent on changing everything 
from how we farm to what we farm.
  A fact sheet released by the House author, shortly after 
introduction, made this perfectly clear. It notes a desire--now, listen 
to this--it notes a desire to rid the planet of methane gas-emitting 
cows. In case the authors are unaware, all cows and all people emit 
methane. It is part of the natural digestive process. The only way to 
stop these emissions is to ban animal agriculture. That proposal 
couldn't be more disconnected or out of touch with Americans.
  That is what makes the taxpayers feel there is nobody in Washington, 
DC, who has any common sense, but don't worry. According to the authors 
of the Green New Deal in the House, ``It is not to say you get rid of 
agriculture or force everybody to go vegan.'' This doesn't instill much 
confidence in the

[[Page S1682]]

farmer about the real intentions behind the Green New Deal.
  I am amazed by the scope of what the authors would have the 
government impose on the American people.
  I will end by noting that I am interested in working with my 
colleagues on sensible policies to secure our energy independence and 
improve our environment, but I fear this will not be possible as long 
as my Democratic colleagues remain intent on handing over the country 
to the government to remake it in Washington, DC's, image.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.