[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 51 (Monday, March 25, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2787-H2793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        OPPOSING GREEN NEW DEAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include materials on the topic of my Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lead a Western Caucus Special 
Order to voice our vehement opposition to the Green New Deal before it 
is put out of its misery by a vote in the U.S. Senate later this week.
  With an estimated price tag of $93 trillion over the first 10 years, 
the Green New Deal costs more than four times the U.S. public debt. The 
Green New Deal is a Soviet-style takeover of our entire economy that 
will radically transform America into a country that will be very bleak 
and unrecognizable from the country that we know and love today.
  The proponents of the Green New Deal like to make it out to be a 
program to improve our environment, but in reality, it is just a 
socialist experiment on a grand scale.
  Included in the Green New Deal is a job guarantee, even if you don't 
want to work; a housing guarantee; a healthcare guarantee; and an 
education guarantee. The cost of these guarantees will put a major 
burden on the American taxpayer, with the healthcare guarantee alone 
costing taxpayers $32 trillion in the first 10 years.
  None of these guarantees have anything to do with improving our 
environment but, rather, are socialist talking points dating back 
centuries. In fact, only 15 percent of the estimated cost of the Green 
New Deal applies to the environment.
  Pair this additional tax burden with the cost of complying with all 
the new one-size-fits-all regulations included in the Green New Deal, 
which is estimated to cost $650,000 per household over 10 years, and 
the annually disposable income for an average household just vanishes.
  In total, Americans will have to spend $155.5 billion to replace 
furnaces, $11.9 billion to replace gas dryers, $50 billion to replace 
water heaters, and $26 billion to replace stoves.
  In the words of Michael Zehr from the Consumer Energy Alliance: 
``American consumers need practical energy solutions that come from our 
Nation's existing mix of affordable energy resources. As it stands, the 
Green New Deal does not offer cost-efficient or sustainable solutions 
for hardworking families and businesses across our country.''
  The Green New Deal is a job killer. The Green New Deal would 
eliminate 10.3 million jobs in the oil and gas industry, 600,000 jobs 
in the aviation industry, 1.4 million hydroelectric jobs, 100,000 jobs 
in nuclear energy, and 50,000 jobs in coal.
  Mr. Speaker, while it is important to point out the most obvious and 
radical policies of the Green New Deal, such as the elimination of 
conventional energy sources and industries, there are several other 
policy consequences that should be highlighted.
  Mr. Speaker, did you know that, according to the think tank Data 
Progress, the Green New Deal will reinstate the Obama administration's 
WOTUS, the waters of the U.S., and the so-called Clean Power Plan rules 
as part of this terrible policy? These two burdensome regulations in 
and of themselves did more to strip Americans of their property rights 
and shackle baseload power than any other regulations before them. Data 
Progress also reports that the Green New Deal will ban plastic straws 
and ban hydraulic fracturing.

  The democratic 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? How are we going to domestically produce 
the critical minerals needed for this endeavor and renewables when 
democratic socialists and extreme environmentalists vehemently oppose 
mining?
  As for America's farmers, the Green New Deal would also reduce 
current farming practices and land use by 70 percent by 2050 and ban 
groundwater irrigation by large-scale agribusiness. For many of my 
colleagues, that means unemployment for many and a significantly 
decreased standard of living for all. How are we going to feed 
ourselves? How are we going to feed the world?
  When it comes to the Green New Deal, I think all of us must ask 
ourselves a simple question: Are we so arrogant to think that 
Washington, D.C., should control and dictate every aspect of the lives 
of the American people? My answer to that question is emphatically no. 
No, we should not. And, no, we will not allow the flawed policies of 
the Green New Deal to be adopted.
  Renewables are playing, and will continue to play, an important role 
in our energy future, but they cannot exclusively be relied upon to 
provide all our energy and electrical needs.
  Let's deal in reality and put an end to the socialist Green New Deal 
once and for all.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin).
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona for 
yielding.
  I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in strong opposition to H. Res. 109, the 
Green New Deal. This resolution is nothing short of a socialistic 
takeover of our energy, our transportation, and our agricultural 
industries that aims to change every single aspect of our lives, 
including how Americans eat, travel, stay warm, build their homes, and 
even what jobs we take.
  As a fiscal conservative, I believe that the Green New Deal is 
entirely irresponsible. Recently, our national debt exceeded $22 
trillion, and we have no realistic plan for paying that off. The Green 
New Deal would add trillions more to our debt, while simultaneously 
destroying the American economy.
  It would also transfer tremendous costs onto the taxpayers, a total 
of $93 trillion over 10 years. For example, every home and every 
building would need to be retrofitted at the cost of $2.5 trillion over 
the next decade.
  Additionally, the Green New Deal's stated goal is to achieve net-zero 
greenhouse gas emissions in that same timeframe, which will cost the 
taxpayer $11 trillion. Our current tax base could not support this 
catastrophic level of new spending. Therefore, taxes will need to be 
raised on every single American and business, inflicting massive damage 
on our economy due to the loss in take-home pay for the average family 
and resulting in job losses in the private sector.
  Proponents of the Green New Deal also want to see all our American 
power come from wind or solar or batteries. This is completely 
unsustainable, currently, and will lead to blackouts, a dwindling food 
supply, and an all-out assault on private property rights.
  The Green New Deal also contains no plan on what we will do with all 
the refuse and the trash that will be resulting from the millions of 
appliances, batteries, and buildings that need to be replaced or 
retrofitted.
  This proposal, as grand in its scope as it is absent in its 
specifics, betrays a shocking naivete and a total absence of 
understanding of basic economic principles or even of our electric grid 
and infrastructure.
  Most importantly, the authors of this proposal fail to appreciate the 
love of liberty and freedom that the American people share. Americans 
will never stand for such a radical, socialistic restructuring of our 
economy, and it must be strongly and emphatically rejected.
  Over the last century, we have seen socialist governments around the 
world make the same empty promises of unlimited peace and prosperity if 
only their citizens would just relinquish control of their affairs and 
give up their freedoms and liberty to an overbearing government. The 
result has inevitably been the same: barren fields, crumbling 
infrastructure, broken economies, oppressed peoples, and, eventually, 
fleeing populations, as we

[[Page H2788]]

have seen firsthand in Venezuela, Cuba, the Soviet Union, and many 
other failed socialistic states.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Marshall). The gentleman represents many agricultural producers whose 
livelihoods are greatly threatened by this legislation.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I had a young family in my office this morning, a 
wonderful, nice-looking 11-year-old boy who was in my office today with 
his dad, his mom, and several other people from southwest Kansas. He 
looked at me and he said: Congressman Marshall, will I be able to run 
cattle when I get older? My great-grandfather ran cattle; my 
grandfather ran cattle; my daddy ran cattle; and I would like to run 
cattle someday, but this Green New Deal scares me.
  He said: Will the Green New Deal keep me from running cattle?
  I had to say: Unfortunately, yes, it would.
  The Green New Deal would be the end of agriculture as we know it in 
Kansas. Agriculture makes up 40 percent of the economy of Kansas. For 
all practical purposes, it would be the end of the Kansas economy.
  Another large part of our economy is oil and gas, and the Green New 
Deal would be the end of that.
  I always try to think about the impact of something like the Green 
New Deal. First of all, it would triple your taxes. I think that would 
be well proven. But I always am especially concerned for that young 
family, maybe that family that I delivered 5 or 10 or 15 years ago, and 
they have two or three kids at home. How would the new Green New Deal 
impact them? First of all, their grocery bill is going to double or 
triple, I suppose. They would have to replace all the appliances in 
their home. Their utility bill is going to go up.

  Then I think about the price of gas. I always noticed in my 
obstetrical practice that whenever the price of gasoline got about $3 a 
gallon, women would suddenly ask: Do we have to come back this often? 
Quite a few of my patients live 60 or 90 miles from me, and it was 
quite a challenge to come visit us. When the price of gasoline got 
about $3 a gallon, they didn't want to come quite as often.
  I can't help but think what the Green New Deal would do to the cost 
of gasoline, if there is such a thing. I suppose we would all be 
driving electric cars.
  Where I am from, I only wish that we could hop on a train and take 
public transportation, but there are just not enough trains to go 
around in Kansas. We are lucky to have roads in most places where we 
live, so public transportation just isn't an option.
  All that being said, Mr. Speaker, I think, like the gentleman from 
Arizona, I want to leave this country and I want to leave the State of 
Kansas cleaner than I found it. I am so proud that Kansas waters and 
Kansas air are cleaner today than when I was growing up. I am very 
proud of that. I want to keep going in that direction.
  I am very proud that the carbon imprint from the United States is 
less today than it was in 2004, and I want to keep going in that 
direction. But it is my belief that innovation is what is going to 
drive this and keep us going in that direction.
  I am so proud of what the American entrepreneurs have done in Kansas 
and across this country, our ability to get more natural gas and to 
make all of our refineries cleaner. Where we produce electricity, so 
many of them are 97 percent cleaner.
  The issue of ecology is a worldwide problem. It is a problem that the 
United States cannot cure by itself. We need to be a leader and keep 
going in the direction we are going.
  I look forward to working with folks across the aisle to come up with 
real solutions that will really work for this country. I think that the 
American innovator will do great things and that better days are ahead 
for America.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to recognize the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. Bishop is the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee 
and has been a steadfast leader in opposing the Green New Deal.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar) taking the lead this evening and talking about this 
important issue.
  Look, one of the things we always need to do is learn the lessons of 
history, so we simply do not repeat them.
  In the late 1800-1900s, communism was the new government concept that 
excited the elites of that particular era to the point that it was such 
an expansive idea, that part of the reason that Woodrow Wilson wrote 
his 14 points was to intellectually challenge communism and restate the 
significance of democracy and republican forms of government.
  When communism did obviously take root in the Soviet Union and China, 
it was not a philosophical statement, it was simply an excuse for the 
good, old-fashioned dictators to tell people how to live their lives.
  So as Lenin called it, it was important to have the vanguard of the 
proletariat, so the government would tell people how to think until 
people realized that the government was right in the first place.
  Those are some of the parts of history that we never want to repeat 
again.
  Now, if the Green New Deal, this toothless wish, was merely a one-
and-done manifesto, then maybe that would be one thing, but my fear is, 
it becomes an opening salvo into the dangers that are stated when we 
decide that the government must find the solutions, the government must 
tell people what to think and what to do, that elites are the ones who 
have all the ideas; when in reality, history has shown us that 
solutions always come from people who were empowered to find and make 
decisions for themselves, and find solutions for themselves.
  People need to be given options. People need to be given choices, 
people need to be able to chart their own destiny.
  My fear is elitism enriches and empowers would-be autocrats, 
denigrates the roles of individuals, and those are dangerous attitudes 
that must be discussed and must be understood in some way.
  And let's face it, some of the people--the cheerleaders for the Green 
New Deal--they simply don't get it.
  When they live in areas where commutes, family errands are measured 
in blocks and subway stops, that is different from other people in 
America who, when they take a drive into town to buy school clothes 
that is going to take the entire afternoon.
  It is different than people who realize that they have to make a 
choice between healthcare and heating their home; and that is a real 
responsibility for them, and a real problem.
  The burdens imposed by the Green New Deal, which have been outlined 
by several speakers already, are those that land squarely on the 
shoulders of humble, hardworking Americans while the elites pat 
themselves on the back.
  For the rural west, my State of Utah, it is not really a Green New 
Deal; it is, rather, a green raw deal for them to live.
  Now, recently in my committee where I am the ranking member, we had 
an amendment that Mr. Graves made to one of the rules that would 
request an analysis of economics before any bill was considered.
  Now, one of the freshmen Democrats spoke to that issue, and I want to 
just restate what he said. I thought what he said was profound.
  He stated, I think we have to be very mindful of the people, their 
jobs, their ability to pay their bills, because of the changes that we 
make.
  And this is a discussion that should always be had. We shouldn't just 
be speaking in the theoretical.
  Now, ironically, even though I thought his words were spot on, that 
motion to have that policy was defeated.
  Nonetheless, I recently joined other ranking members in asking 
Speaker Pelosi that if there was serious discussion, that unlike H.R. 
1, this is going to be heard by many committees, many voices will have 
a chance at talking about what will actually happen.
  These hearings ought to ask how this Green New Deal might impact 
energy prices and home prices and jobs and healthcare.
  So far, those who have done the series of studies--so far they're 
from the

[[Page H2789]]

outside--the outlook looks pretty bleak on what the potential could 
indeed be.
  There are already many complex examples of negative impacts that 
would happen if this was actually to become a reality.
  So as stated in our plea to Speaker Pelosi, I do fear that this Green 
New Deal would hurt Americans struggling to make ends meet, the very 
people it purports to help. And worst of all, it could permanently put 
the American Dream out of reach for millions of people.
  We need to really look very carefully at this and not just assume 
statements that are being made taking place. We need to learn from 
history and not repeat those same mistakes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of having the opportunity of being 
here as part of this Special Order to try and talk about some of the 
realities of this purported deal.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's response, and 
thank him.
  I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
  Mr. Griffith represents the heart of Virginia coal country, an 
industry that would be eliminated if the Green New Deal would become 
law.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, you know I would like to engage in colloquies and talk 
about issues.
  Mr. GOSAR. Sure.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. And you know what is interesting about this is, I do 
represent a coal district, but if we shut down all of this, as we have 
discussed in the Green New Deal, are the Indians going to stop using 
coal?

  Of course not.
  Are the Chinese going to stop using coal?
  Mr. GOSAR. No.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. No. The rest of the world will continue to use these 
sources.
  And, in fact, industries that are dependent upon our natural 
resources--coal, oil, natural gas--well, they will just move to the 
countries that will let them use it, and it will not have any effect on 
the environment.
  But this really is not a proposal that should be taken seriously. It 
was clearly thrown together quickly in an attempt to get some press; 
and, unfortunately, 100 Members of the body decided to sign on to it.
  But when you read it, you know it is not there. We have heard all the 
things that could happen if we take a watered-down version of the Green 
New Deal. But if we pass the Green New Deal and we actually do what it 
says, and you read the words, it says, remove greenhouse gases from the 
atmosphere. It doesn't say, reduce. It doesn't say, remove hazardous 
greenhouse gases.
  So, I would ask my friend who holds a degree in the science field, 
and with whom we have lots of discussion about science on the floor and 
at various meetings; what happens if we eliminate the greenhouse gases 
of water vapor and carbon dioxide; eliminate them, remove them, as the 
Green New Deal calls for?
  What happens if that occurs?
  Mr. GOSAR. Well, photosynthesis; this is the key component of 
cellular growth in plants. They take carbon dioxide; they take dirty 
water; they have sunlight, and it produces oxygen and clean water. That 
is what we actually get with photosynthesis.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, and if you eliminate carbon dioxide--the 
gentleman is correct--we won't have any plants. If we don't have any 
plants, oxygen plummets in the atmosphere.
  And as I told a group of high school students recently, and you know 
what that means for us?
  And all, if not most, life forms that currently rely on either carbon 
dioxide or oxygen will die and all that will be left are the life 
forms, the microbial life forms that live near hot vents in the ocean 
or the edges of volcanoes, because they don't rely on that. The rest of 
life would be wiped out.
  Now, I know that is not what the Democrats meant when they introduced 
this, but isn't that the scientific conclusion of removing greenhouse 
gases from the atmosphere; not reducing, removing? Isn't that correct?
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, it absolutely would be correct.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, and so while I know they weren't thinking 
about it or they probably didn't mean to go that far, it shows you that 
even if we modified it, it won't work for the people.
  Jobs would be eliminated, jobs will be cut, and we really won't have 
any impact on the environment unless we go the full bore, in which 
case, we no longer have air to breathe and we won't have to worry about 
the global temperature in 20 years or 30 years or 40 years, because 
none of us will be here.
  And it is just fascinating to me how they can get the science so 
messed up and, yet, lecture to us about the science.
  Mr. GOSAR. Absolutely.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. In fact, the gentleman brings up 
a great point.
  There is an article by Michael Shellenberger and it is, ``Why 
Renewables Can't Save the Planet.'' In this discussion--it is a 
wonderful article; it is in Quillette--he talks about renewable energy, 
particularly solar and wind.
  They are low density. They don't have what they call basal power. 
They only produce when the sun is shining and when the wind is blowing. 
So you need batteries. And as he states so eloquently here, the new 
renaissance for batteries isn't coming any time soon.
  In fact, we see many of the same people who propose the Green New 
Deal are obstinate in trying to allow mining for these critical and 
rare earths that are required for battery development.
  In fact, over 90 percent of the world's market for critical 
minerals--or these rare earths--are dictated by China. So they are not 
going to come any time soon.
  And then, let's talk about the ecological damage.
  In fact, wind is the largest destroyer of large birds.
  Now, small, little birds, cats will take care of, but what ends up 
happening, raptors--like condors and eagles and hawks--are the ones who 
are killed most often by these big rotary blades or turbines that turn. 
These are the birds that are most at peril right now in our world.
  So once again, we are dooming the future because we are predominating 
selection to the government, and that is a sad thing.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Will the gentleman yield for a second?
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman may recall, I am a 
birdwatcher.
  Mr. GOSAR. Yes, the gentleman is.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. So when the gentleman started talking about birds, I 
came back to the mike.
  We hope science will solve these problems, and that is why we need to 
have more research and development on all of this.
  Instead of saying, stop everything, we need to do research and 
development. But isn't there also a problem today with solar and some 
of the larger solar arrays that they actually fry birds as they fly; 
whether it be large birds or small birds?
  Mr. GOSAR. Absolutely.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Because the birds don't see the heat, and they fly into 
it, and they are fried to a crackly crunch.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly right.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. And so there are lots of things we need to worry about 
in that regard.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman bringing that up today, 
because what we want to do is have a balanced approach.
  We want renewables. We want all of the above. But we also have to 
make sure that we are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and 
in the end, killing off our large predator birds or killing birds with 
technologies that are not quite ready for prime time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely right. The 
renewables are very important, because what it allows us to do is take 
this wonderful wealth that we have of coal and nuclear and oil and gas 
and hydro, and really extend it into the future, where the best way 
that we can have an impact on this world is our democracy, our 
republic, our way of entrepreneurially changing things; not having 
dictations coming by the Federal Government. It is the entrepreneurial 
spirit of individuals.

[[Page H2790]]

  So it is a wonderful aspect to use all the above. And I think that is 
what everybody would like to see.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Hear, hear, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that we are 
working on some technology right now that allows us to extract rare 
earth minerals out of some of our coal deposits to the United States 
and be able to take some of that business away from the Chinese and 
bring it back to the United States
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is exactly right.
  Mr. Speaker, in fact, the gentleman is very astute in regard to the 
overburden area, where many of these rare earths can be extracted; so 
we are not dependent upon the whims and wiles of the Chinese 
Government.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I just have to bring this up: I was 
meeting with some folks at Virginia Tech recently who are working on 
this very area. And as a part of the spinoff of the research and the 
technology they are doing to refine it and to try to get the other 
minerals out, they have also found a way of using that same technology 
to improve the steel industry. And they are now licensing some steel 
companies in India, which would lower their carbon footprint.
  So we have the research into coal that is now going to help the steel 
industry in an area that doesn't have anywhere near the regulations we 
have to lower their carbon footprint.
  This is the way we should be going in the United States: Use our 
entrepreneurial spirit; use our research; put some Federal money behind 
that research, but use our research to find ways to make the 
environment, worldwide, better instead of proclaiming broad edicts that 
we are not going to have cows in 10 years, or we are not going to do 
this in 10 years.
  Instead, let's let our research and our entrepreneurial spirit and 
our ingenuity solve these problems for us and the world.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman also brings to my mind another 
opportunity that we actually see where the pulverization of coal is 
then injected into spaces within oil; we get a 50 percent additional 
better burn and a cleaner burn at that.
  So once again, the technology is there for all these abundances of 
wealth that we have in the energy sector.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Absolutely.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  You know, when the gentleman talks about rare earths, they sit all 
over our western frontier.

                              {time}  2015

  In fact, in Arizona, they line our deserts.
  These are geos, and typically, in the past, to extract those rare 
earths that are required for these batteries for solar and wind, it is 
very caustic by utilizing high concentrations of sulfuric acid. But we 
have got the entrepreneurial spirit of people back in Arizona who are 
using high concentrations of citric acids, like from limes and lemons, 
and actually extracting the same rare earths in that aspect.
  Once again, the power of those entrepreneurial individuals out there 
in America are the ones who are changing the dynamics of the way our 
energy portfolio looks.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for some 
additional comments.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of 
speaking one more time here especially because this is such a 
significant issue that you are addressing to the people and because, as 
leader of the Congressional Western Caucus, you have held a whole lot 
of forums to discuss the implications of what could be there.
  So in one of the last forums, we had policy think tanks and industry 
and conservation groups that were there testifying. I was struck by the 
comments of Thomas Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, 
when he said: ``For nearly a decade now, the United States, long 
blessed with vast natural resources, has benefited from the greatest 
energy expansion in the history of the world. Our energy producers have 
delivered the low-cost, affordable, and reliable energy that has fueled 
economic growth and opportunity for all Americans, no matter their 
race, sex, creed, or color.''
  Now, it is interesting, as we talk about this concept, that, 
according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, by 2020 the 
United States will become a net exporter of energy for the first time 
since 1953. That means no longer are we going to be reliant upon 
questionable foreign powers like Russia or Saudi Arabia for our energy.
  Even the concepts that we have developed, the fracking and horizontal 
drilling, those concepts have allowed us not only to expand what we are 
doing, but also have allowed us to have a carbon emission reduction at 
the same time. We were the world leader in carbon reduction in 2015, 
2016, and 2017, and we are still on that same track again.
  In fact, one of the things I find unique about the Green New Deal is 
it fails to realize that, because of what we have been able to do in 
oil and natural gas, energy prices are down for those who are most 
vulnerable in our society. We can afford to cook our food and heat our 
homes better than ever before.
  And while this production has risen significantly, methane emissions 
have decreased at the same time. In fact, the EPA reported that U.S. 
greenhouse gas emissions are already down 10 percent in the last 10 
years.
  So while the Green New Deal has every potential of destroying jobs 
for millions of people, it still also ignores other alternatives for 
green energy. For example, it says absolutely nothing about nuclear or 
hydropower.
  Let's face it, 10 percent of our energy today stills comes from 
hydropower, and hydropower is clean. It leaves behind no waste. It is 
considered one of the most effective ways of producing electricity. And 
yet it is absurd to believe that we can achieve zero net carbon 
emissions without dealing with nuclear or without dealing with 
hydropower as part of the mix. That is part of the reality that needs 
to be brought out here.
  We have grown our economics. We have cleaned our environment. We have 
lowered the cost of living for so many people.
  We should not denigrate everything that the current system is already 
doing that for some people, for some elitists, they simply want to try 
to ignore that and ignore the fact that, if we want to continue on this 
path, what we need to do is empower people to be able to come up with 
solutions on their own. It is not going to happen by the government 
telling people how to live and what to think. We need to empower 
people, not empower the government.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity of expressing 
that idea again.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I want to engage the gentleman in a colloquy.
  The gentleman and I went on a codel over to Europe. We saw Germany, 
Lithuania, and Norway. We saw the power of the influence that our 
energy can actually provide, particularly in Lithuania.
  Can the gentleman highlight that for us?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, one of the problems that Baltic 
countries have--Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania--is they are right next-
door to the monolith Russia, that has used its energy potential to 
blackmail and intimidate these other countries. Even today, they have 
finally broken away from their oil and gas dependency on Russia. Their 
electrical grid is still tied to Russia.
  What Lithuania was able to do is import a natural gas mobile station. 
They were able to get off of the Russian dependency so they could, once 
again, have their own resources coming in there.
  Estonia does the same thing with their oil shale. They have been able 
to produce their own energy, which allows them to have independence and 
not be bullied by large countries, in this case, by Russia.
  That is one of the things we are doing in what we are already doing. 
That is one of the futures that we are having. In fact, it is 
interesting that some of the countries we visited that were very proud 
of what they were doing with alternative energy, they always have to 
have a backup system.
  Mr. GOSAR. That is right.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. And that backup system is based on coal. Without 
that, they could not guarantee baseloads that they have to have just to 
keep their countries going.

[[Page H2791]]

  

  Mr. GOSAR. Well, the first country we visited wa Germany, and they 
were very proud of what they were getting rid of in coal and nuclear; 
and yet their baseload was going to be dependent upon Russia, on Nord 
Stream 1 and 2--absolutely crazy. We want to be less dependent on 
Russia.

  This whole country has gone through this whole Russia this and 
Russiagate that. So we want to see that dependency being more 
entrepreneurial, and the United States is perfectly suited for that.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I guess what the gentleman is saying 
is, if you want the economy to grow, if you want people to be 
empowered, if you want to find solutions not only to environmental 
issues but also energy issues, empower people to come up with that. We 
are actually doing that.
  America's history is a history that is positive. Empower that to go 
forward. Don't try and stop it with some other elitist idea from the 
top-down theories.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I agree, absolutely.
  It also extends even far into our agricultural aspects. Never before 
in the world have we seen less aspects of poverty. Today the lowest 
aspects around the world are poverty; and at the same time, we see the 
lowest incidence of hunger. How is that possible? It is the 
entrepreneurial farmer. We reproduce more that we can supply around the 
world.
  And what do they need? They need abundant energy. They need abundant 
water. All of these things are plausible because, once again, it is the 
entrepreneur who actually solves these problems, not the government.
  If the government can give all, it can take all; and it has done so, 
whether it be the Soviet Union, whether it be Mao's China, or whether 
it be the Venezuela experiment that is going dramatically wrong today. 
It never works because you eventually run out of everybody else's 
money.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, that is true.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, once again, a lot of our proponents backstab 
us by saying: Listen, we lack a vision.
  America's energy renaissance is the backbone of our economy. We just 
talked about it. 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 foreign sources like Russia and Saudi Arabia.
  The innovations of 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.
  We have got to say it again. As Ranking Member Bishop said, 
reductions in 2015, 2016, and 2017--that is right, fracking that is 
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 
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 now the top energy producer, and the American 
Dream is thriving. January 2019 saw the 100th consecutive month of 
positive job growth in America, the longest period of continuous job 
growth on record. The U.S. job market is strong, and in December, 
employers posted 7.3 million open jobs--once again, a new record.
  Members of the Congressional Western Caucus support personal 
responsibility and less government intervention in our daily lives and 
freedoms. They defend property rights and believe that private 
ownership of property is a fundamental right in America. Our vision 
encourages innovation and less burdensome mandates.
  People want clean water. People want clean air, and they are striving 
for that. The people who depend on the land to provide security for 
their families and communities understand their resources the best. 
States and municipalities are better suited to deal with the local 
issues than distant, out-of-touch Washington bureaucrats.
  The caucus seeks to promote access to our Nation's energy and 
resources potential, while pursuing a true all-of-the-above energy 
approach that aims to ensure that the U.S. is the global energy leader. 
We know how to do this best. We ought to be doing it right.
  Our vision utilizes the current energy renaissance and the American 
energy dominance policy currently being implemented by the Trump 
administration in the State of Texas. Texas leads the country in wind 
production.
  According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Texas had more generating 
capacity than any other State last year and more installed wind power 
capacity than all but five countries in the world.
  Once again, think that through. Texas was the fifth largest in the 
world in power production by wind. The country's only large clean-
capture coal facility is found in Texas. The Petra Nova facility is the 
only carbon capture and storage coal-fired plant in the United States, 
and it is only one of two facilities that utilizes that technology in 
the world.
  Once again, American entrepreneurs are at it again, making things 
better, making things more achievable. Coal generates baseload power 
that prevents rolling blackouts when renewables fall short in extreme 
weather. Most people don't understand that.
  Alternative or intermittent power is when the wind doesn't blow and 
the Sun doesn't shine. In fact, you heard President Trump at one of his 
speeches talk about: Hey, honey, I would like to watch television. Is 
the wind blowing?
  If you didn't have baseload power and the wind wasn't blowing, you 
couldn't watch television. So what baseload is, it runs 24/7. That is 
called hydroelectric. That is called natural gas. That is called oil 
and coal. That is also nuclear, one of the largest density energy 
productions all around, and we, once again, could not do it without it.

  According to the third quarter 2018 report from the Solar Energy 
Industries Association, Texas is poised to become a nationwide leader 
in solar energy, with more than 4 gigawatts of capacity expected to be 
installed over the next 5 years.
  Now, think about this. Texas is the fifth largest in both solar and 
wind, once again, having a plethora of our baseload energy in oil and 
gas and coal. There are two operating nuclear power plants in Texas, 
and my home State of Arizona has the largest nuclear power plant.
  The U.S. Energy Information Administration previously reported that 
Texas is among the top 10 States with the greatest nuclear power 
generation capacity in the country.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Western Caucus' alternative vision to 
the vision currently being pursued by the Trump administration and the 
great State of Texas are concurrent. They are opposite of the Green New 
Deal. That is a pipe dream. If we go down this Green New Deal path, the 
United States will be walking in its own green mile.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents continue to ask me: What is 
actually in the Green New Deal?
  Confusion has arisen, given that it is light on details and Members 
ran from the summary document put out by Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez' 
office.
  One significant piece of information that my constituents asked me 
about is whether the Green New Deal includes a jobs guarantee for 
everyone in the United States, including those who are unwilling to 
work.
  As part of the frequently asked questions document that was released 
with legislation, it was stated that economic security would be 
provided for those who ``are unwilling to work.'' Many of my 
constituents just can't believe that that is actually in there and an 
objective of the people pushing the Green New Deal.
  Staff have since retracted Representative Ocasio-Cortez' frequently 
asked questions document.
  But the message I hope the American people hear is: We know the 
motives behind the Green New Deal and we know how its proponents plan 
to carry out its objectives. From ending airplane travel to shuttering 
down all nuclear power, hydropower, and even getting rid of all natural 
gas, some people, unfortunately, on the other side of the aisle are 
threatening our way of life and the American economy.

[[Page H2792]]

  


                              {time}  2030

  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the links for the two most 
frequently asked questions documents, which I have in my hand, that 
were released by Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez's office to the press and 
posted on her website.
  The first link is: https://westerncaucus.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
green-new-deal-faq_provided_to_npr_v2.pdf
  The second link is: https://web.archive.org/web/20190207191119/
https:/ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/blog-posts/green-new-deal-faq
  Mr. Speaker, I want to focus on how the Green New Deal will affect 
our agriculture industry. It has been the lifeblood of our rural 
communities the Western Caucus represents, and the Green New Deal 
stands to decimate it. The Green New Deal is nothing short of an all-
out attack on agriculture by the socialist left.
  Reading directly from the text of the bill, the Green New Deal seeks 
to eliminate ``pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the 
agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible.''
  We had a nice conversation with my friend from Virginia (Mr. 
Griffith). The agriculture industry supports more than 21 million jobs, 
11 percent of the U.S. jobs, according to the Farm Bureau. 
Representative Ocasio-Cortez has attacked agriculture, cows, 
hamburgers, and factory farming in pushing the Green New Deal. In fact, 
in the fact sheet released by her office, it mentions a desire to get 
rid of farting cows.
  Ocasio-Cortez doubled down on agriculture, cows, hamburgers, and 
factory farming in an interview, stating, in the Green New Deal, ``what 
we talk about is . . . that we need to take a look at factory farming, 
period. It is wild. . . . Maybe we shouldn't be eating a hamburger for 
breakfast, lunch, and dinner. . . . We have to take a look at 
everything.''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked, this is a common bodily 
function of nearly every animal, and eliminating animals for this 
reason would mean an end to livestock in agriculture.
  Land needed for agriculture is also under assault under the Green New 
Deal. In fact, when it comes to land needed for agriculture, the 
agriculture, energy, and transportation industries are linked because 
of land needed to build high-speed rail and solar wind farms.
  Farmland will likely need to be seized by the Federal Government in 
order to build tracks for the high-speed rail and to build wind and 
solar farms. How does that work going across an ocean, I wonder? 
Sailboats. That would be fun for those in Guam and Hawaii.
  The elimination of farmland in order to build these projects will 
cost us jobs and put our food supply in jeopardy. As I highlighted, in 
the world today is the lowest poverty rate, the lowest rate ever of 
people going unfed. It is unbelievable.
  The Green New Deal also aims to ban groundwater mining by large-scale 
agribusinesses, making irrigation needed to sustain this form of 
agriculture truly impossible.
  According to the think tank Data Progress, the Green New Deal will 
reinstate the Obama administration's WOTUS rule. This WOTUS rule by the 
previous administration expanded the definition of navigable waters 
beyond any reasonable interpretation intended by the Clean Water Act. 
It attempted to assert national regulatory jurisdiction over areas with 
even the least of connections to water resources, including man-made 
conveyances.
  Farmers, ranchers, and property owners suffer under this overreaching 
land and water grab.
  WOTUS contradicts the prior Supreme Court rulings and seeks to expand 
agency control over 60 percent of our country's streams and millions of 
acres of wetlands that were previously nonjurisdictional, once again 
empowering the government, not the entrepreneur and not the individual.
  Mr. Speaker, clearly, the Green New Deal would impose disastrous 
consequences on our agricultural sector. Ranchers and farmers would 
suffer significant harm, and private property rights would become a 
thing of the past. America's rural communities, where I am from, and 
agricultural economies, where I am also from, can't afford the Green 
New Deal. It should be rejected on that basis.
  Mr. Speaker, many Democrats are supporting the Green New Deal, so 
let's take a look. While many of us laugh at some of the policies in 
the Green New Deal and think they are just ridiculous, we must take 
them seriously, given the large amount of Democratic support for the 
Green New Deal. In fact, the Green New Deal currently has 90 House 
cosponsors and 11 Senate cosponsors, including Bernie Sanders, Kirsten 
Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Amy 
Klobuchar.
  There are 14 Democratic Presidential candidates--14 of the current--
who have endorsed the Green New Deal, including Senators Sanders, 
Gillibrand, Harris, Warren, Booker, and Klobuchar; former 
Representative Beto O'Rourke; Washington Governor Jay Inslee; 
Representative Eric Swalwell; Representative Tulsi Gabbard; former 
Representative John Delaney; author Marianne Williamson; former HUD 
Secretary Julio Castro; and South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg. Once 
again, everybody is supporting something that is not possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to now focus on the Green New Deal's 
effect and how it would affect our transportation system. The Green New 
Deal calls for the abolition of all gas and diesel engine vehicles and 
replacing them with electric vehicles, mass transit, and high-speed 
trains.
  Once again, this would require batteries, something that is not 
coming very soon, particularly with the other side's obstinance in 
trying to stop mining for these rare earths that are required for these 
batteries.
  In the forum that the Western Caucus held last month, we heard from 
several witnesses who spoke about the effects of the Green New Deal and 
how they would have an effect on our transportation infrastructure.
  To quote Thomas Pyle: ``The Green New Deal also envisions a massive 
build-out of high-speed rail across the country. High-speed rail, in 
order to reach said high speeds, must travel in a virtually straight 
line. In a wealthy, developed society like the United States, carving 
these straight lines means taking the homes and land in the path. There 
is just no way to even contemplate high-speed rail without sweeping use 
of eminent domain.''

  Sweeping eminent domain will be a complete infringement of the 
property rights of every American citizen and could easily be abused. 
As we have seen, certain existing high-speed light rail projects such 
as the bullet train project in California have turned into quagmires 
that have cost the taxpayers billions of dollars with no return.
  One of the main modes of shipping products into our country is by 
boat. In fact, most of the bulk commodities imported into this country 
are transported by ship. The large shipping vessels are powered by--you 
guessed it--diesel-burning engines, which there are currently no 
replacements for.
  Are we just going to scrap one of the main modes of transporting 
products into this country? If so, what are we going to replace it 
with?
  Along the same lines of ship transportation, what implications does 
the Green New Deal have for air travel? One would assume it would 
suffer the same fate.
  How would we see our colleagues from Hawaii, Mr. Speaker? For 
example, the dean of the House, Mr. Young from Alaska, would he have to 
take a train all the way to Washington, D.C., from Alaska? How would 
that affect the water, the air, and also the critters along the way?
  The airline industry employs 600,000 people. The Green New Deal would 
destroy these very jobs. The Green New Deal aims to get rid of all 
combustion engines. This means getting rid of all hotrods, classic 
cars, big trucks, tractors, large SUVs, and, yes, even mom's van.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. was the world leader in emissions reductions in 
2015, 2016, and 2017. We discussed this earlier. This was the 
renaissance of oil and gas production and the clean use of that. If we 
allow American innovation to continue to flourish and to continue to 
embrace a truly all-of-the-above energy strategy, we will continue to 
lead the world in emissions reductions without radically changing our 
way of life, being provocative on how we change

[[Page H2793]]

the rest of the world, and we won't get rid of our classic cars.
  Mr. Speaker, the Green New Deal is a proposal that should not be 
taken lightly. The Green New Deal would codify into law a one-size-
fits-all government healthcare system, offer free college for all, and 
create a Federal job guarantee.
  According to figures released by the American Action Forum, the Green 
New Deal would cost every household $600,000 over 10 years.
  The Green New Deal will implement the radical socialist utopian idea 
of Medicare for All, which would cost American taxpayers $36 trillion 
over a 10-year period. That means it would be Medicare for no one. The 
cost it would impose on the taxpayers would be so unsustainable that 
the Medicare for All proposal, once again, would be blamed and be 
renamed Medicare for None.
  The Green New Deal would cause harm to the American worker. This fact 
is even recognized by the AFL-CIO, which has come out strongly against 
the Green New Deal. They recognize that the only outcome of this bill 
is to take away good-paying jobs from their members and cause harm to 
their families.
  The United States is currently undergoing an energy renaissance, as 
we talked about earlier, with natural gas leading the way. The natural 
gas industry has brought millions of jobs to this country and helped us 
reduce our carbon footprint in 3 straight years, starting in 2015.
  Science shows that the Green New Deal will have a negligible impact 
on its stated goal of fighting climate change. In fact, the Green New 
Deal would actually cause climate change and emissions to worsen as 
energy production would leave the United States and go to countries 
like China and India that don't have the same environmental regulations 
and standards as the United States, producing more emissions in the 
process than if we did so cleanly and responsibly like we do here in 
the United States.
  This legislation only stands to lower temperatures by 0.137 degrees 
Celsius by 2100, according to the same metrics used by the United 
Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  This bill completely ignores the reality that the biggest sources of 
carbon dioxide are developing countries. The sponsors of the Green New 
Deal may say that the U.S. can become a leader in exporting new 
renewable technologies in the developing world, but would a developing 
nation give up cheap and abundant energy in return for a more expensive 
form of energy, Mr. Speaker?
  In fact, I quoted this Quillette article about how renewables can't 
fight climate change. Everyone who is engaged in a renewable-type 
energy sector has seen their energy portfolios go up three times--much 
more expensive--three times.
  Mr. Speaker, the Western Caucus looks forward to contributing to the 
debate on this important subject, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.

                          ____________________