[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 26, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1949-S1950]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           The Green New Deal

  Madam President, on another matter entirely, this afternoon the 
Senate is going to vote on the far-left wish list that many of our 
Democratic colleagues have rushed to embrace--the so-called Green New 
Deal.
  For a relatively sparse resolution, this proposal has already 
traveled quite a fascinating path in Congress. It originated with the 
most radical, farthest left Members of the new House Democratic 
majority. The Speaker of the House quickly praised its ``enthusiasm.''
  Its principal sponsor rolled out the first version of the plan 
alongside an extensive background document that laid out the policy's 
true goals in candid detail but which Democrats then rushed to hastily 
scrub off the internet.
  It is not exactly an auspicious start, but, nevertheless, a number of 
our Democratic colleagues here in the Senate rushed to embrace it as 
well. Every Democratic Senator who is currently running for President 
has embraced the Green New Deal.
  The energy, the momentum, and the defining new voices in today's 
Democratic Party seem to be all in for the Green New Deal. ``It is 
ambitious. It captures your imagination,'' said one current 
Presidential candidate.
  ``I'm in all the way,'' said one of our Senate colleagues, who is 
also running.
  When asked if the proposal might go too far, another of our Senate 
colleagues running for President replied on this issue: ``You cannot go 
far enough.''
  So just how far does the proposal go? What exactly is in this thing? 
What is it?
  For starters, the proposal addresses the small matter of 
eliminating--listen to this--the use of all fossil fuels nationwide 
over 10 years--get rid of it all. This might sound like a neat idea in 
places like San Francisco or New York--the places that the Democratic 
Party seems totally focused on these days--but, frankly, the 
communities everywhere else would be absolutely crushed by this.
  It is killing off entire domestic industries, winding down millions 
of jobs, and, basically, outlawing the only sources of energy that 
working-class and middle-class families can actually afford. By one 
rough estimate, these steps could lead to a spike in household 
electricity bills of $300 a month--that much increase in your utility 
bill. Keep in mind that this is just a warmup act.
  While they are at it, our friends on the far left also propose a 
federally mandated overhaul of every building in America--every 
building in America. No family home or small business

[[Page S1950]]

would be safe until it meets Washington bureaucrats' standards of 
greenness. But if you can believe it, other aspects of this proposal 
make these things sound downright practical, by comparison.
  The resolution also includes a far broader socialist wish list that 
gestures toward a new government-run healthcare insurance system, a new 
system for government-guaranteed housing, and a new government system 
to guarantee everyone--everyone--``economic security.''
  The last point is a little vague, but, helpfully, before it was 
scrubbed off the internet, the original sponsor's background document 
made the long-term goal perfectly clear--listen to this: ``economic 
security to all those who are unable or unwilling to work.''
  That is the background document they rushed to delete. The Democrats' 
long-term vision is taking hard-working people's taxpayer dollars to 
pay those who choose not get off their couch day after day simply 
because they are unwilling to work.
  So my Democratic colleagues' brilliant new idea--their rallying cry--
is snatching away the energy sources that middle-class families use, 
shuttering the industries that provide many of those families with 
their livelihoods, and changing the homes they live in, the cars they 
drive, and the healthcare plans they rely on.
  Remember what our colleague said: ``You cannot go too far.'' Our 
colleagues are certainly putting that to the test.
  I haven't even gotten to what American families would have to pay--to 
pay--for the privilege of being lab rats for all of this far-left 
social engineering--for being lab rats for all of this social 
engineering. My Democratic colleagues have been fairly quiet on that 
subject. I guess it is a lot more fun ordering off the menu than taking 
a look at the check.
  Families would almost certainly be faced with much higher utility 
bills. Then, there is the cost to replace appliances. Presumably, 
electric cars would have to be purchased. Then, there is the Federal 
tax burden.
  Just how much of other people's money are Democrats proposing to burn 
in this effort to turn the country into a far-left fiction novel?
  One initial rough estimate found that all of the pieces of the Green 
New Deal might add up to as much as $93 trillion.
  That is just over the first decade. That is quite a tab. It exceeds 
the annual GDP of the entire world--the annual GDP of the entire world 
as of 2017. It would mean historic tax increases, historic new debt, 
and even that would only begin to scratch the surface. Bear in mind, 
the sticker price doesn't even begin to capture the full national cost 
of the economic wound this plan would inflict on our country while all 
our competitors would be roaring on by.
  My colleagues want to pull the emergency brake on the U.S. economy 
because it isn't ``green'' enough, but global carbon emissions are a 
global problem. We only produce about 15 percent of the global total. 
China has already soared past us. They are the world's largest emitter. 
In recent years, while U.S. emissions have actually been declining, 
China's share has been growing fast.
  We will certainly get to test their new economic security payments 
for those unable or unwilling to work after the Green New Deal drives 
all of our domestic manufacturing jobs over to China, India, and our 
other competitors, who will gladly gobble up our jobs and continue to 
emit with reckless ambition.
  My Democratic colleagues have settled on quite an interesting 
strategy--maximum pain for American families, with no meaningful change 
in global carbon emissions.
  Since I announced last month that Senators will actually have the 
opportunity to go on record and vote on this socialist wish list, a 
funny thing has happened. I am not sure I have ever seen the self-
professed supporters of a piece of legislation more angry or irritated 
that they will actually have to vote on it. They are angry and 
irritated that they will actually have to vote on it.
  Merely bringing their own plan up for a vote--a plan they had 
characterized as ``an amazing step forward''--is now declared to be a 
``diversion'' and a ``sham.'' By one colleague's assessment, by getting 
their proposal a floor vote, I was creating ``a ploy to try to 
undermine the Green New Deal by calling a vote.''
  I have to say, it is remarkable enough to see a major political party 
coalesce around a proposal to forcibly remake the entire country 
according to what is fashionable in Brooklyn and San Francisco, but it 
is even more stunning to see my colleagues so angry and upset at the 
opportunity to back up their new philosophy with their votes. What an 
outrage, to actually vote on something we say we are for.
  Well, later today, we will see--the American people will see which of 
their Senators can do the commonsense thing and vote no on this 
destructive, socialist daydream, and they will see which Senators are 
so fully committed to radical, leftwing ideology that they can't even 
vote no on self-inflicted economic ruin that would take a sledgehammer 
to America's middle class.
  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. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.