[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 22, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3020-S3022]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Energy Innovation

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it seems a bit surreal but necessary, 
nonetheless, to come here to the Senate floor to talk about the perils 
of socialism and its sudden resurgence within the Democratic Party.
  We have seen our Democratic friends push for policies like Medicare 
for All, which would completely wreck the system that provides 
healthcare for our seniors and force all Americans onto the same plan, 
regardless of the fact that they never paid anything into it, like our 
seniors have, and regardless of the fact that they may indeed like 
their private health insurance that they get from their employers.
  Do you remember when the Obama administration promised in 2013, ``If 
you like your plan, you can keep it''? Well, I don't really think they 
meant it, but that is at least what they said. Democrats have gotten so 
much more radical today that their motto should be, ``If you like your 
plan, you can't keep it under Medicare for All.''
  They have also promised things like free college--and, believe me, 
``free'' is popular, especially if you don't think you are ever going 
to have to end up paying for it--promising anyone and everyone that 
they can go to college for free.

[[Page S3021]]

  Now, there are some smart things we can do to help prepare high 
school students and college students to hold down their debt and to 
make sure that they get the sort of advice and counseling they need to 
make sure they are studying something that is going to be able to 
provide them an income with which they can repay the loans that they 
take out, and there is some work we need to do in that area.
  Across Texas, I have had a chance recently to go to a number of 
middle schools and high schools, and in Texas--and I am sure we are not 
alone--there are many high schools where students can get dual credit, 
college and high school credit, and some of them graduate from high 
school with essentially 2 years of college behind them, and it costs 
them nothing. It is free. I guess that is free. Actually, it is not 
free, either, but they don't have to pay anything more for it, and 
their parents don't have to pay anything more for their property or 
sales tax for it.
  So that is a smarter way to approach this, rather than this radical 
idea that things like college can somehow be free, knowing that, 
actually, there will be somebody that pays for it, whether it is our 
children, when they grow up and they have to pay back the money that we 
have recklessly borrowed in our deficits and debt, or by raising taxes, 
and you can't raise taxes enough on the rich people in order to pay for 
this. So, inevitably, that burden will fall on the middle class.
  To put the icing on the cake on these radical policies, you have to 
look at this Green New Deal proposal that the Democrats have rolled out 
and really call this the icing on the cake in their socialist 
proposals.
  They want to take over the entire energy sector of the economy, and 
they want to regulate it, and they want to tax it in such a way as to 
promise somehow something that is never going to be realized.
  For example, they say they want to achieve net zero emissions in 10 
years. Well, Texas, Oklahoma, and other States generate a lot of 
electricity from renewable sources, particularly wind-generated energy, 
but there is no way in the world you are going to be able to eliminate 
things like natural gas and other sources of energy because the wind 
doesn't always blow and the Sun doesn't always shine. So you are going 
to need something to provide the baseload when the wind is not blowing 
and the Sun is not shining. This pie-in-the-sky idea of net zero 
emissions in 10 years by going entirely to renewables is simply 
fantasy.
  They also want to overhaul our transportation system. They want to 
rebuild and retrofit every single building in the country, but they 
offer no real details, and, in fact, I think there is a reason for 
that, because they don't even talk about the details of what needs to 
be accomplished or the cost there would be associated with trying to 
accomplish it.
  The only estimate I have seen is a $93 trillion price tag, but that 
is an important piece of information that you would think the public 
would have a right to know, and that is not something the advocates of 
the Green New Deal have been particularly proud of.
  Even if this is something a majority of Americans want, we don't 
currently have the technology or the resources to make it happen. Our 
Democratic friends know that. So they are, in essence, making a promise 
for something that they can't deliver because of the price and because 
the technology has not yet been invented.
  So what was really bizarre here on the Senate floor was that when the 
majority leader provided our Democratic colleagues a chance to vote on 
this resolution on the Senate floor, not a single Democratic colleague 
voted for it. They voted ``present.''
  Well, that is a new one on me. I thought when we came here to the 
Senate, our job was to represent our constituents and vote yes or no on 
legislation. To show up and vote ``present'' seems to me like an 
abdication of that responsibility, but it also is some evidence of how 
really cynical and insincere this proposal really is.
  That is not to say that it isn't popular when you start offering free 
things and you start promising things that are unaffordable or 
unattainable.
  Instead of talking about these policies that are unwanted, 
unachievable, and unaffordable, let's talk about some real solutions. I 
think that is the responsibility of people like me who say the Green 
New Deal will not cut it, to which people might ask: Well, what are 
your suggestions? And I think that is an important and fair question.
  No matter what your perspective on energy issues and the environment, 
I think every single one of us can agree on at least one point: We need 
smart energy policies that will strengthen our economy without 
bankrupting American families.
  I would just note, parenthetically, that we have actually made some 
pretty good progress when it comes to emissions control. Between 1970 
and 2017, combined U.S. emissions of six criteria air pollutants have 
gone down 73 percent. During that same period of time, the American 
economy grew by 262 percent, the number of vehicle miles traveled grew 
189 percent, and our population grew 59 percent. We were able to reduce 
pollutants by 73 percent at a time when the population was growing, 
people were driving more, and our economy was growing.
  More recently, between 1990 and 2017, the United States reduced 
sulfur dioxide concentrations by 88 percent, lead by 80 percent, 
nitrogen dioxide by 50 percent, particulate matter by 40 percent, 
ground-level ozone by 22 percent, and carbon monoxide by 77 percent.
  From 2005 to 2017, carbon dioxide emissions declined nearly 15 
percent in the United States. During that same period of time--and this 
is a fair comparison--China's annual carbon dioxide emissions have 
increased roughly by double--twice what they were during the same time 
period.
  So I would say that we can blame America first for all sorts of 
problems. I don't think that is fair, nor is it accurate, and, 
particularly, when you start talking about the environment and 
controlling ozone-depleting CO2 emissions. I think there is 
a better way to approach it, and we need to start with the facts.
  I think the facts are that we need to form partnerships to leverage 
the capabilities of the private sector and achieve cost-effective 
solutions. None of the people advocating the Green New Deal can really 
tell you how much you would be paying for electricity if we were able 
to implement the Green New Deal, how much you would have to pay for 
your transportation costs, or how much you would have to pay to heat or 
cool your house. We need policies that make sense, that are affordable 
and achievable, and that will actually bring down the cost of each of 
those items for the American people.
  The solution isn't a $100 trillion Green New Deal; it is good old-
fashioned, all-American innovation. By incentivizing research into the 
development of new technologies, we can keep costs low for taxpayers, 
while securing our place as a global leader in energy innovation. One 
great example of the type of solution I am suggesting you could learn 
about by taking a trip to the NET Power plant in La Porte, TX, right 
outside of Houston, which I did recently. NET Power has developed a 
first-of-its-kind power system that generates affordable, zero-
emissions electricity using their unique carbon capture technology. 
They have taken natural gas--one of the most prevalent and affordable 
energy sources that there is--and they have made it emission-free. This 
is a shining example of the environmentally and fiscally responsible 
policies we should be advocating and supporting.
  Last year, renewables accounted for only 17 percent of our total 
energy sources. That includes hydropower, wind, solar, biomass, and 
various other sources. Seventeen percent. Natural gas already accounts 
for more than double that. So if we could take this incredibly common 
and affordable energy source and make it more environmentally friendly, 
why wouldn't we do that? Why wouldn't that be a more sensible, fiscally 
responsible way of addressing this?
  These policies are important for conservation but also for securing 
our competitiveness on the world stage. If American companies don't 
produce these technologies first, well, you bet somebody else will.
  The heavyhanded government approaches we are seeing from our 
Democratic colleagues are not the answer. Instead, we have to harness 
the power of the private sector and build partnerships to drive real 
solutions.

[[Page S3022]]

  Yes, we need to invest in innovative solutions and encourage the 
private sector to continue prioritizing reliable, affordable, and 
environmentally sound energy sources.
  When you implement government policies that get government out of the 
way and let the experts do their jobs, you can be pro-energy, pro-
innovation, pro-growth, and pro-environment. I will soon be introducing 
some legislation that I think will help us move down that road. We know 
the United States leads the world in emissions reduction, and this bill 
will build on that success without a one-size-fits-all mandate that 
would bankrupt our country.