[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 26, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H2799-H2800]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                CALLING FOR DEBATE ON THE GREEN NEW DEAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call for debate in 
this Chamber on H. Res. 109, referred to as the Green New Deal.
  This resolution lays out an agenda that is, frankly, anti-American 
and goes against everything our Constitution is all about.
  The resolution states: ``It is the duty of the Federal Government to 
create a Green New Deal.''
  The main components of this deal include: net-zero greenhouse gas 
emissions; creating millions of good, high-wage jobs; and upgrading all 
existing buildings and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy 
efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and 
durability. All of this is to be accomplished in 10 years' time.
  Among the things the Federal Government has meddled in beyond the 
scope of its limited powers, completely overhauling every building and 
method of transportation in the country would be, by far, its most 
egregious transgression to date.
  However, the Green New Deal certainly will require Congress' 
constitutional authority to levy taxes and borrow money to pay for it.

  This so-called ``deal'' would come at the cost of trillions to the 
middle class

[[Page H2800]]

and spend taxpayers' hard-earned money, as if they don't know best how 
to use their money and need the government to do it for them.
  The Green New Deal reflects zero understanding of moral hazard and 
the government's capacity for waste, suggesting the government assume 
the risks in the unchartered research and development this socialist 
experiment would require. The way the resolution's supporters see it, 
money will simply be put back into the economy and create millions of 
new jobs. They think nothing of the fact that these actions actually 
take power away from ``We the people.''
  Now, in light of the Senate taking up this resolution for a vote this 
week, I would like to offer some thoughts as to why it needs deeper 
thought and debate in the House.
  America is currently on a sustainable plan with its all-of-the-above 
energy strategy, including renewable, oil, gas, coal, and nuclear 
sources.
  Renewables presently make up 17 percent of U.S. electric power 
generation, and despite enormous subsidies, are far from capable of 
serving as exclusive energy sources that are reliant and affordable. 
Yet, since 2005, use of cheap natural gas has reduced carbon emissions 
from power generation by 30 percent.
  Our current approach encourages development of renewable sources and 
accounts for both environment and monetary costs.
  This resolution instead throws money exclusively at renewables and 
entirely eliminates the oil, gas, and coal industries.
  Secondly, if the goal is to build the middle class and create jobs, 
why go in completely the opposite direction of what has worked to 
create over 5 million jobs in the past 2 years?
  Reducing the Federal footprint with regulatory reform and middle-
class tax cuts have caused wages to rise, job growth to soar, and 
consistently low rates of unemployment. Allowing small businesses to 
keep more of their money has worked to create jobs and increase wages.
  We certainly don't need to raise taxes and spend more money to create 
this effect.
  Finally, this massive government intervention will push businesses 
overseas and disrupt the lives of workers, farmers, and students making 
the most of America's abounding opportunities.
  Americans cherish freedom, which includes the ability for individuals 
to determine their own paths without the Government deciding how they 
will contribute to society.
  The Socialist ideology behind this resolution is at odds with the 
American values that have caused our society to flourish and innovate 
since its founding.
  I encourage the 90 House Democrats who have cosponsored H. Res. 109 
and Speaker Pelosi to engage in serious and open debate on this 
legislation, or at least publish a new fact sheet they can stand behind 
so accurate representations of opposing viewpoints can be heard by the 
American people.

                          ____________________