February 14, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 29 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S1348-S1349]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           The Green New Deal

  Mr. President, we have seen a lot of discussion lately about the so-
called Green New Deal. It has been stealing headlines and capturing 
people's imaginations. It has been the subject of a lot of social media 
interaction and certainly has had a lot of coverage on TV and in the 
papers.
  It has ended up causing quite a headache for our colleagues across 
the aisle who have tried to explain exactly what they are trying to do 
and how they are trying to do it. Last week, the junior Senator from 
Massachusetts introduced with Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez of New York a 
resolution that was framed as a way to create jobs and fight climate 
change. A number of Presidential aspirants here in the Senate--and 
there are a lot--quickly embraced this resolution.
  If you lived in a vacuum and you saw only the text of the resolution, 
you might say: Well, this is a pretty good idea. It mentions things 
like creating high-wage jobs, ensuring economic prosperity, investing 
in infrastructure and industry, and securing clean air and water for 
all. That sounds pretty good. But the resolution does not spell out how 
we are supposed to achieve all of those things.
  Fortunately, one of the authors released a summary, which, oddly 
enough, provided more details on what the Green New Deal strives to do. 
It tells us more than the actual resolution does. One of the lines of 
the resolution says to ensure ``prosperity and economic security for 
all people of the United States.'' But the summary clarifies that this 
is, in reality, a new entitlement program on steroids. This, at a time 
when our national debt just hit $22 trillion, adds additional 
entitlement spending on top of it.
  This provision would guarantee every person in the United States a 
job, healthcare, education, healthy food, and paid vacations. They 
might have thrown in free beer and pizza too. But they take it even a 
step further. According to the Green New Deal, the government will foot 
the bill for any person who is ``unable or unwilling to work.'' If you 
don't like your job, don't want to get out of bed in the morning, don't 
feel like going to the office today, no worries. The Green New Deal 
says you don't have to go to work. And the people who do go to work--
the hard-working taxpayers of America--will foot the bill.
  Another component of this Green New Deal is to move to 100 percent 
clean and renewable energy in just 10 years. I come from an energy 
State, the State of Texas. When people think about Texas, they think 
about oil and gas, but we actually believe in all of the above. We 
generate more electricity from wind than any other State in the country 
because we have more infrastructure deployed for that.
  I actually think moving toward cleaner and renewable energy is a good 
thing. But they want to do it in 10 years, and they don't answer the 
question about how much it will cost. Some estimates put the pricetag 
at $5.7 trillion. That is $2 trillion more than our annual tax revenue. 
In other words, it would add $3.7 trillion to the national debt.
  Remember, that is just for the energy portion of the Green New Deal. 
There are other components, as well. There is Medicare for All, which, 
of course, would destroy the private insurance industry and employer-
provided coverage and would be unaffordable. They offer free college, 
paying the way for people who are able but don't want to work.
  This is an extraordinary wish list, combining the most costly ideas 
of the radical fringes on the left in one place. It is really 
remarkable they were able to condense all of these into one place, 
where we could understand the entire picture.
  The resolution also commits to update ``all existing buildings . . . 
to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, 
affordability, comfort, and durability.'' I am all for local and State 
government and, where it is appropriate, Federal Government to talk 
about building codes and energy efficiency. That is a desirable thing. 
But to try to retrofit every government building, every airport, every 
football stadium, every home, every grocery store, and every shopping 
mall--every single building in the United States would have to be 
updated. How crazy is that? How much would that cost?
  On second thought, I guess we don't have to worry about updating 
airports because the Green New Deal also calls for building ``high-
speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.'' I 
saw an interview with our friend the Senator from Hawaii, who was asked 
about that component of the Green New Deal. She said: Well, that 
wouldn't work very well for Hawaii. High-speed rail wouldn't exactly 
get you from the west coast out to Hawaii.
  I hate to burst their bubble, but this is not something that is 
feasible or easy to do. Look at California talking about high-speed 
rail. Earlier this week, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced the State was 
hitting the brakes on a high-speed rail project because it would take 
too long and cost too much. I bet Governor Newsom and I don't agree on 
a lot from a political standpoint, but I agree with him on that.
  Last March, California estimated that the project would cost between 
$77 and $98 billion, and that is just to connect Northern and Southern 
California. I can't imagine how much it would cost to build a high-
speed rail to connect California to Maine. If the word ``green'' refers 
to the amount of money this would cost, then at least that point is 
accurate.

  There are no details on how we are going to pay for all of this, of 
course, because our Democratic colleagues know that the Green New Deal 
is entirely fantasy--it is unrealistic. These

[[Page S1349]]

are just talking points that have been designed to appeal to the fringe 
of their political party and to make a political statement. That is why 
a number of our colleagues on the Democratic side changed their tune 
once the majority leader announced that the Senate would vote on this 
resolution.
  Generally speaking, in my experience in the Senate, if you introduce 
a bill or a resolution, you are thrilled to hear the majority leader 
say he is going to schedule it for a vote on the floor--but not the 
Senator from Massachusetts, one of the proponents of the Green New 
Deal. Following the leader's announcement, he released a statement that 
decried Senator McConnell's effort to ``sabotage'' the Green New Deal 
by his giving them a vote on their resolution. Apparently, holding a 
vote on something you have introduced is now a form of sabotage in this 
wild and wacky world in which we currently live. The Senator from 
Minnesota, who announced her bid for President, later downplayed her 
support and brushed it all off as aspirational.
  Our constituents didn't send us to Washington to advocate for 
partisan wish lists that will never be voted on. They want us to be 
accountable as their elected Representatives. They sent us here to 
craft legislation that can and will make our country stronger. This 
Green New Deal is nothing more than a Socialist agenda that is being 
disguised as feel-good environmental policy, and it is indicative, 
unfortunately, of the hard left turn our friends across the aisle, the 
Democratic Party, have taken.
  The Green New Deal is not what our country needs, and as we have 
heard from both Republicans and Democrats over the last several days, 
it is not what our country wants.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.