[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 26, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1951-S1953]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           The Green New Deal

  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I thank you for your hard work on the 
sometimes powerful Senate Agriculture Committee. I would have liked to 
respond to the leader--but I know he is busy, and he is leaving the 
floor--just to say that I think all Republicans understand there is 
climate change, and all Republicans know that human activity does 
contribute to it, and, yes, we ought to do something. The point I am 
trying to make here is we don't want to do the wrong thing and cause a 
great deal of disruption in the process.
  I also thank Senator Thune for allowing me to speak out of order. I 
know this is a hardship on his schedule, but he has been very kind to 
let this happen.
  I thank the sponsors of the Green New Deal for enabling all Senators 
the opportunity to discuss the practical challenges this resolution 
actually presents. For me, as chairman of the Senate Agriculture 
Committee, it allows me to discuss the real stewards of our land--our 
farmers, ranchers, growers--and how this legislation will affect them 
and their ability not only to feed this country but a troubled and 
hungry world as well.
  Those of us who represent farm country are grateful for the 
opportunity to underscore something that too many take for granted. 
Farmers, ranchers, and growers in the United States now grow the 
safest, most affordable and abundant food supply in the world. As I 
just said, we know that it is a troubled and hungry world that needs 
farmers, ranchers, growers, and their protection to help feed and 
clothe the world's increasing population. Yes, and I think it will 
probably go longer than 12 years.
  As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am proud of our 
bipartisan record on behalf of American agriculture and, in turn, our 
record of respecting our Nation's natural resources. These things go 
hand in hand. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle on the Agriculture 
Committee and those privileged to work in agriculture have always 
sought to grow and raise more, using as few resources as possible.
  The men and women who make their living off the land have an 
imperative and keen interest in the responsible use and management of 
our natural resources. Show me a farmer who does not practice 
conservation or does not have access to precision agriculture or the 
latest technology, and I will show you a farmer who is really in 
trouble.
  In short, within agriculture, there is nothing new with the Green New 
Deal. It calls for ``working collaboratively with farmers, ranchers, 
and growers in the United States to eliminate pollution, greenhouse 
gases, and emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is 
technologically feasible''--that is the language--``by supporting 
family farming''--that is also in the language--``investing in 
sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health,'' 
and ``building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal 
access to healthy food.'' That is in the resolution, the legislation 
over in the House.

[[Page S1952]]

  Check, check, and check. We have been doing this already, and we 
continue to look ahead to create thoughtful, well-considered policies. 
I do not question the intent of the authors of the Green New Deal, but 
they don't know what they don't know, especially about agriculture. 
They need to catch up with the Agriculture Committee and with the farm 
country in general.
  In fact, we on the Agriculture Committee are so forward-looking that 
we have embraced innovative methods of investing in agriculture 
research with the creation of the Foundation for Food and Agriculture 
Research--something new.
  The Foundation leverages public and private dollars to bring together 
experts to identify and investigate the researchable questions whose 
answers have the potential to enhance the economic and environmental 
resilience of our food supply and the environment.
  I encourage the Senator from Massachusetts and the leader and other 
cosponsors to simply ask for a briefing from the folks at FFAR. I would 
say the same to vocal colleagues on the House side who helped author--
and pardon the acronym--the GND, Green New Deal. But given their 
unfortunate focus on our livestock industry, I simply do not have time, 
I don't think, to fully discuss emissions emitted from all livestock 
or, for that matter, for Congress. Maybe that would be a better 
answer--perhaps later, after riding point on the herd and getting the 
cows milked.
  What is worth our time and what is worth their time is a defense of 
American agriculture, the best in the world, from attacks by those who 
are either uninformed or misinformed regarding organic, processed, and 
precision agriculture--all modern miracles and all sustainable with 
regard to our environment.
  America's farmers, ranchers, and others in rural America are 
constantly working to produce their crops and to raise their livestock 
in order to feed a growing world and to do so with constant challenges 
presented to them from other nations.
  The distinguished minority leader just mentioned the floods we are 
experiencing in Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa. This seems to have happened 
about every 10 years. I am not sure it has happened because of global 
warming, but at least it has with regard to climate change. We are 
doing everything possible to bring aid and help to those folks who find 
their farmland underwater.
  Farmers are natural stewards of the land, and they must be good at 
problem-solving. They identify the issues or the trend, find ways to 
adjust their business and respond to that issue, and improve their way 
of operating. They would like to do that under a Green New Deal. If 
they don't adjust to address those challenges and simply do the right 
thing, their farm or ranch and their livelihood will not be 
sustainable.
  It is pretty simple. Every living, breathing person on this Earth 
needs food in order to survive. Obviously, we cannot and do not produce 
food in the same manner that our grandparents did because those methods 
were not sustainable and, today, would not produce food at the scope 
and scale our troubled and hungry world demands.
  American farmers and ranchers, who live by the concept of continuous 
improvement, sound science, and voluntary-based conservation, are a 
model for other industries and other countries on how to address 
problems like climate change in a very practical way.
  America's farmers and ranchers raise the same amount of beef as they 
did in the 1970s, but they do so with 33 percent fewer cattle. Over the 
last 50 years, American farmers have reduced water use in pork 
production by 41 percent, and the list goes on. These are real success 
stories that speak to how farmers are already managing natural 
resources responsibly and voluntarily making contributions to address 
the issue of climate change. Examples like these abound in agriculture.
  The American farmer, through continuous improvement, embracing sound 
science, implementing new technologies, such as biotechnology and no-
till farming, and being conservation-minded, has achieved unprecedented 
success that I do not believe the proponents of GND--i.e., the Green 
New Deal--realize.
  In the recent farm bill, which passed Congress with overwhelming 
margins, we strengthened the conservation programs, increased 
investments in agriculture research, supported risk management tools 
that will benefit producers of all crops in all regions, and provided 
additional authorities to address animal health concerns. This 
legislative package bolsters the sustainability of U.S. farmers, 
ranchers, and others in rural America while being environmentally 
sound.
  Unfortunately, vague proposals or resolutions, such as the Green New 
Deal, which contain no real details or no metrics are not going to 
solve the issue of climate change in any meaningful way. Regulating 
American farmers and ranchers out of business will only result in food 
and fiber production being outsourced to countries that do not have the 
same conservation-minded producers that we have here in the United 
States.
  Let's face it: Nobody--no one I know of--likes being told what to do, 
what to drive, or what to eat. Consumers value free choice. They also 
expect access to reasonably priced food and nutritious food.
  In fact, consumers will surely continue to demand the choice of 
animal protein here in the United States, and so any reasonable 
discussion on the agriculture sector's contributions to solutions on 
climate change must begin with this acknowledgment.
  These policy decisions must recognize the complexity of the 
agriculture and food value chain of growers, input suppliers, 
processors, handlers, consumers, and the list goes on. They must be 
based in reality to facilitate a genuine conversation between rural and 
urban constituencies.
  I know. I understand. I realize. I get it. There are those who think 
the Green New Deal is a moral imperative, and it may well be, but 
farmers continuing to feed the world is also a moral imperative. Too 
many go hungry each day in America, and ending this is also a moral 
imperative. Too many people go hungry in a troubled and hungry world as 
well. In restricting American agriculture in any way, whether it is in 
resolution form or legislative form, the Green New Deal does not match 
up with these moral responsibilities.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from South Dakota for allowing me 
to step in front of him. That doesn't happen very often. So, Coop, you 
are up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Kansas, the 
chairman of the Senate Ag committee, who was incredibly instrumental in 
getting that last Farm Bill passed. I have the privilege of serving on 
his committee, and we do a lot of important work for our farmers and 
ranchers in this country. As he very aptly pointed out, one of the 
things that could undo a lot of the good work we hope will improve the 
economic outlook for farmers and ranchers, which today is a very 
difficult one--something that could really undo that is passage of 
something like this Green New Deal. It could do irreparable harm to the 
Ag economy in this country and would be disastrous for farmers and 
ranchers.
  This afternoon, Senate Democrats will have a chance to vote on the 
Green New Deal, and the American people will have a chance to see just 
how many Democrats embrace this new government expansion.
  The Green New Deal, as the name suggests, is largely about energy 
policy, but there is a lot more to unpack. The Green New Deal is a 
comprehensive socialist fantasy that would put the government in charge 
of everything from healthcare to the way you heat your house.
  Do you like your car? With the Green New Deal you almost certainly 
will not be able to keep it. The Green New Deal also wants to eliminate 
fossil fuels, which means the engine that currently powers your car 
will likely be illegal. It also means, roughly, 3.5 million American 
truckdrivers will be out of a job.
  Presumably airplanes would also be grounded, drying up the aviation 
sector and the travel, tourism, and business it supports.
  Do you like your house? That may not matter if the government decides 
your house doesn't meet the Green New Deal's guidelines. Enjoy 
rebuilding your home according to plans provided by Washington.

[[Page S1953]]

  Do you like your job? The Green New Deal will eliminate millions of 
current energy jobs, but that is not all. The energy industry in this 
country powers the American economy. Our supply of reliable, affordable 
energy allows businesses to flourish. So what happens when the Green 
New Deal drives up the price of energy or when businesses are hit with 
Green New Deal taxes or when American manufacturers can't meet the 
Green New Deal's stringent emissions goal? Well, I will tell you what 
will happen: American jobs will be lost or move overseas.
  I mentioned Green New Deal taxes. That is because paying for this 
plan would require massive tax hikes on just about everybody. One think 
tank has released a first estimate of what the Green New Deal would 
cost, and the answer is between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 
years. That is almost an incomprehensible amount of money. Ninety-three 
trillion dollars is more than the amount of money the U.S. Government 
has spent in its entire history. That is right. Since 1789, when the 
Constitution went into effect, the Federal Government has spent a total 
of $83.2 trillion. In other words, it has taken us 230 years to spend 
the amount of money Democrats want to spend in 10.
  How do Democrats plan to pay for this? Well, they don't actually have 
a plan. The Green New Deal resolution itself refers vaguely to 
``community grants, public banks, and other public financing.'' That is 
all very well, but unless the Democrats' plan is to just print a lot of 
money, that public financing has to come from somewhere, and since the 
government is not currently sitting on a spare $9.3 trillion a year, 
that money is likely going to come from taxes--new and heavy taxes on 
just about every American.
  Let me be very clear. This is not a plan that can be paid for with 
Democrats' favorite solution of taxing the rich. Taxing every 
millionaire in the United States at a 100-percent rate for 10 years 
would only bring in a tiny fraction of $93 trillion. In fact, there 
aren't enough millionaires in the entire world to cover $93 trillion. 
In 2017, the combined wealth of all the millionaires in the world was 
$70.2 trillion. So you could confiscate--you could literally confiscate 
all the money from all the millionaires in the entire world, and you 
still wouldn't have $93 trillion. The Green New Deal is not a plan that 
can be paid for by taxing the rich. This massive government expansion 
would be paid for on the backs of working families.
  The energy industry has been a bright spot for American families over 
the past few years. Between 2007 and 2017, as the price of healthcare 
soared and education and food costs increased, household energy costs 
decreased. That is a big deal for working families, but that progress 
would go away under the Green New Deal. Energy costs would go up, not 
down, and the price of a lot of other items would likely rise sharply 
as well, as everyone from farmers to manufacturers would struggle under 
the Green New Deal's mandates and taxes. Needless to say, families' 
paychecks would shrink by a lot.
  The size of the tax hikes that would be required to even begin to 
finance the Green New Deal would usher in a new era of diminished 
prosperity for American families. Gone would be the American dream of 
giving your children a better life than you have enjoyed. Under the 
Green New Deal, American families could look forward to permanently 
narrowed horizons.
  So this afternoon, my Democratic colleagues face a choice. They can 
double down on their socialist fantasies and vote for the Green New 
Deal resolution--perhaps the most costly resolution ever to come before 
the Senate--or they can reject this green nightmare and resolve to work 
with Republicans to advance clean energy in a way that will not 
devastate the livelihoods of the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise to speak about the urgent need for 
the United States to take action to confront climate change. I think it 
is pretty clear from the evidence and from the science right now that 
the following is true: climate change is real, and it is a threat to 
human life; second, that climate change is caused by human activity; 
and third, we must take action against it by reducing substantially 
greenhouse gas emissions.
  We have an obligation, all of us--in both Houses of Congress and in 
both parties and in both branches of government, the legislative and 
executive branches--we all have an obligation to care for and protect 
God's creation. We don't have time. We don't have time for cynical 
political games. We need to be serious about this challenge.
  According to the World Food Program, over 120 million people face 
``crisis-level food insecurity'' worldwide. Too often we don't focus on 
that challenge.
  Developing countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America have been 
hardest hit by frequent and intense floods, droughts, and storms. These 
climate events can quickly spiral into full-blown food and nutrition 
crises.
  The U.S. intelligence community, the intelligence agencies of the 
United States of America, have linked global food insecurity to 
instability that can lead to a rise in violent extremism and 
international crime that puts the United States at risk. The January 
2014 ``Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community'' 
reported that the ``lack of adequate food will be a destabilizing 
factor in countries important to United States national security.''
  We know the following is true: Climate change leads to humanitarian 
crises; humanitarian crises lead to hunger, death, and insecurity; 
hunger, death, and insecurity lead to desperation, instability, 
extremism, and terrorism. Inaction on this issue predicated on denial 
or indifference will result in millions around the world suffering 
extreme hunger resulting from climate-related disasters, which in turn 
leads to a rise in extremism and terrorism. Ignoring climate change 
undermines U.S. national security.
  Similarly, failure to address climate change will have negative 
consequences here at home. In one example--among many--a 2015 paper 
titled ``Growing Stronger: Toward a Climate-Ready Philadelphia'' 
reports that since 2010, Philadelphia has experienced the following: 
the snowiest winter on record, the two warmest summers on record, the 
wettest day on record, the 2 wettest years on record, and two 
hurricanes. That is just in 5 years, in one city, in one State.
  The same paper projects:

       Philadelphia may experience four to 10 times as many days 
     per year above 95 degrees, and as many as 16 days a year 
     above 100 degrees by the end of the century. Up from the 1950 
     [to] 1999 average of fewer than one.

  Fewer than one.
  All of these changes have negative consequences for local economies 
and for the well-being of all of our constituents. Increased heavy 
rainfall can lead to more flooding in communities along, just for 
example, the Delaware River and the Schuylkill River in my home State, 
which places additional stress on our already outdated wastewater 
infrastructure.
  Older Americans and lower income American families are particularly 
hard hit by heat waves. We know nearly one-quarter of the children in 
Philadelphia suffer from asthma, a condition that is exacerbated by 
ground-level ozone, which is made worse by hot weather.
  So as Americans we have a duty to develop a strategy and to take 
action to confront climate change. We must also provide robust 
assistance, training, and support for workers who may be adversely 
impacted by the steps we take, but we don't have time to waste. We need 
a serious bipartisan effort to develop a strategy to take action to 
prevent the horror that results from inaction on climate 
change. Everyone knows that today's vote will do nothing to help us 
deal with this grave crisis.

  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Scott of Florida). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.