[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 13, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1811-S1812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           The Green New Deal

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, desperate to distract from the $93 trillion 
price tag of their so-called Green New Deal, the Democratic leadership 
here in the Senate has been coming down to the floor to claim that 
Republicans are ignoring climate change.
  On February 14, the Democratic leader came to the floor and said: 
``Since Republicans took control of this Chamber in 2015, they have not 
brought a single Republican bill to meaningfully reduce carbon 
emissions to the floor of the Senate. Not one bill.'' That is a quote 
from the Democratic leader just a month ago.
  That would be news to me, and I think it would be news to some 
Democratic Senators here, as well. On January 14 of this year, for 
example, the President signed into law the Nuclear Energy Innovation 
and Modernization Act. That legislation, led by Republican Senator 
Barrasso and cosponsored by both Republicans and Democrats, paves the 
way for new advanced nuclear technologies, which will help further 
reduce carbon emissions.
  Here is what the Democratic ranking member of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee had to say about this bill:

       Nuclear power serves as our nation's largest source of 
     reliable, carbon-free energy, which can help combat the 
     negative impacts of climate change and at the same time, 
     foster economic opportunities for Americans. . . . This is 
     another important step in our fight against climate change.

  That is from the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Environment 
and Public Works Committee. Let me repeat that. ``This is another 
important step in our fight against climate change.'' That is coming 
from a key Democrat on a key committee that deals with this issue. That 
is not a Republican talking; that is the Democratic ranking member of 
the Environment and Public Works Committee.
  Then, of course, there is the Furthering Carbon Capture, Utilization, 
Technology, Underground Storage, and Reduced Emissions Act. Granted, 
that is a fairly long title. Several Republicans are original 
cosponsors of that. It became law as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act 
of 2018. The FUTURE Act, as it is referred to, extends and expands tax 
credits for facilities with carbon capture, utilization, and 
sequestration technologies, which are referred to as CCUS technologies.
  Here is what the Clean Air Task Force had to say about this 
legislation:

       [T]he U.S. Congress took a landmark step by passing one of 
     the most important bills for reducing global warming 
     pollution in the last two decades.

  That is a quote from the Clean Air Task Force and what they had to 
say about that legislation.
  Then there is the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act, led by 
Republican Senator Mike Crapo, which

[[Page S1812]]

became law in September. This legislation will help support the 
development of advanced nuclear reactor designs, which will increase 
America's supply of clean and reliable energy.
  Here is what the junior Democratic Senator from Rhode Island had to 
say about this legislation:

       Partnerships between the private sector and our world-class 
     scientists at national labs will help bring new technologies 
     forward to compete against polluting forms of energy. . . . I 
     am proud to have worked with Senator Crapo to get this 
     bipartisan energy legislation over the finish line.

  Here is what the junior Democratic Senator from New Jersey had to 
say:

       Reducing our carbon emissions as quickly as possible 
     requires prioritizing the development and commercialization 
     of advanced nuclear reactors, which will be even safer and 
     more efficient than current reactors. Passage of this 
     legislation will provide critical support to startup 
     companies here in the United States that are investing 
     billions of dollars in these next generation reactor designs.

  Here is what the Democratic whip himself had to say:

       I was proud to join Senator Crapo on this bipartisan bill.

  I could go on. I could talk about the 2018 farm bill, which, in the 
words of Earth Justice, contains ``a number of provisions that 
incentivize more climate-friendly practices.'' I serve on that 
committee. I was involved in the conservation title and the drafting of 
that, including a number of provisions in there. I could talk about the 
provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 to ensure the completion 
of our first two new nuclear reactors in a generation, which will 
prevent 10 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually; or the 
extension of wind and solar clean energy tax credits; or the bipartisan 
America's Water Infrastructure Act, which will help advance hydropower 
projects--a significant source of emission-free energy.
  Suffice it to say that Republican Senators have passed more than one 
bill to protect our environment and help America achieve a clean energy 
future, and we are not stopping here. So why all the misdirection on 
the part of the Democrats? I am sure Democrats think it is politically 
advantageous to portray themselves as the only party that is invested 
in clean energy.
  Then, of course, Democrats are desperate to distract from the details 
of the $93 trillion Green New Deal that their Presidential candidates 
have embraced. That is right--I said $93 trillion. One think tank has 
released the first estimate of what the Green New Deal will cost, and 
the answer is between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years. That 
is an incomprehensible amount of money.
  For comparison, the entire Federal budget for 2019 is less than $5 
trillion. The 2017 gross domestic product for the entire world, the 
entire planet, came to $80.7 trillion--more than $10 trillion less than 
Democrats are proposing to spend on the Green New Deal. Ninety-three 
trillion dollars 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 to spend the amount 
of money Democrats want to spend in 10.
  Even attempting to pay for the Green New Deal would devastate working 
families, who would be hit with incredibly high new taxes. Let's be 
very clear about this. This is not a plan that can be paid for by 
taxing the rich. Taxing every family 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. Taxing every family making more than $100,000 a 
year at a 100-percent tax rate for 10 years would still leave Democrats 
short of $93 trillion.
  Of course, the amount of money we are talking about, as horrifying as 
it is, is just one negative aspect of the Green New Deal. Democrats' 
Green New Deal is a full-blown socialist fantasy that would put the 
government in charge of not just energy but healthcare and all the 
other various aspects of the American economy.
  One of the Green New Deal's authors posted and then deleted a 
document from her website noting that the Green New Deal would provide 
economic security for those unable or unwilling to work. That is 
right--in the Democrats' socialist fantasies, apparently the government 
will provide you with economic security if you are unwilling to work. 
Let's hope there are enough willing workers to fund those who are 
unwilling to work. After all, that $93 trillion has to come from 
somewhere.
  It is no wonder that Democrats are trying to change the subject when 
it comes to the Green New Deal. They don't want to have to defend the 
specifics of their plan because their plan is, frankly, indefensible.
  If the Democrats would like to have a serious discussion about 
energy, they should repudiate the unfathomably expensive Green New Deal 
and join Republicans in focusing on ways to secure a clean energy 
future without devastating the economy or bankrupting working families.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.