February 25, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 34 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages H2089-H2096]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE GREEN NEW DEAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rose of New York). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Newhouse) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of my Special 
Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to lead a Special 
Order alongside my colleagues to discuss, frankly, a reckless and 
misguided and radical proposal recently introduced by some of my 
Democratic colleagues, the Green New Deal.
  Tonight, together with many of my fellow members of the Congressional 
Western Caucus, we will be taking the time to share with the American 
people the details of the ill-advised and bizarre provisions included 
in this green manifesto and the grave impacts that they would have on 
our Nation's economy.

                              {time}  2000

  We will also share what we, as Republicans in the people's House, 
believe when it comes to our national strategy to innovate, diversify, 
and strengthen America's energy sector.
  Mr. Speaker, the Green New Deal is a bad deal for the American 
people. This so-called deal calls for cutting of greenhouse gas 
emissions to net zero in only 10 years.
  And while many studies are still working to grasp the perilous 
impacts and the enormous costs of this proposal, one independent 
estimate, led by a team of Stanford engineers, suggests it would cost 
our Nation in the neighborhood of $7 trillion to convert all of 
America's power to renewable power sources.

[[Page H2090]]

  To quote the former Secretary of Energy under President Obama, Ernest 
Moniz, he said: ``I'm afraid I just cannot see how we could possibly go 
to zero carbon in the 10-year timeframe. It is just impractical.''
  Mr. Speaker, the Green New Deal goes much further than just the 
energy sector, however. It also mandates the guarantee of a job for 
everyone, paid vacations for everyone, free college for everyone. It 
dictates that every existing building in this country must be upgraded 
and retrofitted for ``comfort.''
  It calls for a drastic overhaul of our transportation systems across 
the country, threatening not only our trucking and airline industries, 
but also the daily lives of the 85 percent of Americans who drive every 
morning or evening to get to work.
  Mr. Speaker, while calling for all of these implausible mandates, the 
Green New Deal would also insert the Federal Government into seemingly 
every aspect of our daily lives.
  By expanding our Federal bureaucracy far beyond anything we have ever 
seen in history and undermining the federalist principles our country 
was founded upon in the Constitution, this proposal would jeopardize 
the future of America as we know it. It would sacrifice the American 
energy, manufacturing, and transportation sectors; jeopardize 
businesses small and large across the Nation; and lead our country down 
the path of socialist nations like Venezuela, North Korea, and Cuba.
  As the Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin said after reading the 
proposal: ``What in the heck is this?''
  Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more.
  My State, the great State of Washington, consistently ranks among the 
top of the list of States with the cleanest energy production. Do you 
know why that is? It is because of the strong reliance on our 
incredible system of hydroelectric dams, many of which are in my 
congressional district along the Columbia and the Snake Rivers.
  Nearly 70 percent of our power comes from hydropower, a clean, 
renewable, reliable, and affordable source of baseload energy.
  It also comes from our use of nuclear power. The Columbia Generating 
Station, which is also in the Fourth Congressional District which I 
represent, is the only nuclear power plant in the greater Northwest 
region. It too provides clean, reliable power for the Pacific 
Northwest.
  On top of these sources, Washington State uses a variety of other 
energy sources, including natural gas, coal, wind, solar, and biomass.
  It is because we use an all-of-the-above mix of energy sources, but 
largely concentrated on clean, renewable, reliable hydropower, that 
Washington State continues to demonstrate how we can lead in the use of 
clean energy while still diversifying and thereby strengthening our 
energy portfolio.
  Unfortunately, the Green New Deal negates this ability to do so. Not 
once is the word ``hydropower'' mentioned in the legislation. And in 
the frequently asked questions document that was released to accompany 
the introduction of the Green New Deal, it stated that ``The plan is to 
transition off of nuclear.''
  Mr. Speaker, if we are going to continue to strengthen America's 
energy independence and increase our use of clean sources of energy, we 
must absolutely include hydropower and nuclear power. The science says 
so, the facts say so.
  So when Democrats in Congress release a sweeping, colossal overhaul 
of our Nation's energy policies and do not include these clean energy 
sources, it is clear that this is far more about politics and not about 
sound science.
  Mr. Speaker, my fellow House Republicans and I continue to advocate 
for sound, comprehensive approaches to energy policy. We must continue 
to explore every opportunity to develop viable alternative energy 
sources, which is why under Republican control of the House in recent 
Congresses, we have made serious investments in advanced nuclear and 
basic science research, grid-scale energy storage, and equipped our 
national laboratories with robust resources to lead the way in 
research, development, and innovation.
  National laboratories, like the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 
in my district, play a crucial role in developing the basic science 
research needed to pave the way for these alternative sources. Then 
when private industry can utilize this research, the open marketplace 
can put these new sources to use.
  That is exactly what our country needs: more collaboration, more 
innovation; not a top-down mandated system of bureaucratic dictates 
based upon a green manifesto.
  Mr. Speaker, I often share with my constituents that as a third 
generation farmer, I consider myself to be a conservationist and on the 
front lines of being a good steward of our natural resources. I know 
that we must respect our environment, we must ensure clean air and 
clean water for our citizens, and we must encourage innovative ways to 
produce energy through a variety of reliable, renewable traditional and 
alternative sources.
  Tonight I am looking forward to hearing from my friends and my 
colleagues in the Congressional Western Caucus on why the Green New 
Deal would be catastrophic for their constituents and what we in our 
Nation's capital should really be prioritizing in order to continue 
America's energy independence dominance.

  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my first speaker, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the gentleman that represents the Eighth 
District of that great State.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues in 
opposition to the Green New Deal.
  This disastrous plan, cooked up by out-of-touch Washington elites, 
simply does not work for Minnesota families.
  According to the Energy Information Administration, 68 percent of 
Minnesota's energy consumption comes from a combination of coal, 
natural gas, nuclear, hydropower, and gasoline, all of which are to be 
banned completely by the Green New Deal in 10 years.
  Allowed under this radical pipe dream are wind, solar, and biomass, 
which barely account for 15 percent of Minnesota's energy consumption.
  Picture a family in Ely, Minnesota, where wind chill temperatures 
reached 71 below zero this January, waking up in a warm house heated by 
natural gas.
  They start a hot pot of coffee, powered by our affordable electric 
grid; take a hot shower, again, heated by natural gas; drive their kids 
to school in their van, powered by reliable, affordable gasoline; go to 
work, possibly at a mine or a local hospital; drive home again in that 
same gasoline-powered car; make dinner for their family, using their 
gas-powered stove; and then wake up again and do it all over.
  The little things that we take for granted every day are powered by 
conventional energy.
  The Green New Deal would have a severe impact on our everyday lives, 
something that northern Minnesotans do not want or need.
  The Green New Deal would force every Minnesota family to turn in 
their cars for electric vehicles and retrofit their homes to run on 
renewable sources, like solar or wind.
  I understand elites from D.C. and New York City may love this plan, 
but I know the reality. I encourage my colleagues, especially those who 
support this plan, to go back to their districts, like I did last week 
and really listen to their constituents, listen to their concerns, 
listen to how this plan would devastate the middle class and devastate 
hardworking Minnesota families.
  Retrofitting homes, buying electric cars, and ending the mining, 
airline, and much of the shipping industries may be fun ideas for the 
ultra-wealthy, but I know what it really means for middle-class 
families in northern Minnesota.
  We cannot let these unrealistic ideas get in the way of actual 
progress. We must develop renewable forms of energy, but at the same 
time, not shut out conventional, affordable energy sources on which 
millions rely.
  Do not let the Green New Deal distract from what northern Minnesotans 
care about: expanding rural broadband for better internet access, 
bringing good paying jobs back to our communities, and protecting 
Social Security and Medicare.
  With the projected cost of tens of trillions of dollars, the Green 
New Deal puts all of this at risk.
  I will not risk the future of Medicare and Social Security. I will 
not risk the future of middle-class families.

[[Page H2091]]

  However, I will stand up for the farmers, our miners, our small 
business owners, manufacturers, and workers threatened by this Green 
New Deal.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota for expressing so eloquently how Americans around the country 
would be affected by this if this legislation was adopted into law. 
People from different parts of the country with extreme weather, as you 
have heard, depend on reliable sources of energy.
  From minus 71 to hopefully a little warmer climate, the next speaker 
I am going to yield to is the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the 
chairman of our Western Caucus and the representative from the Fourth 
Congressional District.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Washington, for organizing this important Special Order on the Green 
New Deal.
  Mr. Speaker, America's energy renaissance is the backbone of our 
economy. It is a story of freedom, prosperity, and opportunity.
  After decades of reliance on other countries to meet our energy 
needs, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that America 
will export more energy than it imports starting in 2020. We are no 
longer dependent on volatile foreign sources produced in Russia or 
Saudi Arabia.
  Recent innovation and technology improvements associated with 
fracking and horizontal drilling have allowed shale resources, 
previously deemed uneconomical, to be developed, and are the main 
reason the U.S. was the world leader in carbon emissions reductions in 
2015, 2016, and 2017.
  That is right. Fracking, demonized by environmental extremists 
without justification, has proven to be the best energy solution for 
our environment.
  Abundant oil and natural gas has reduced electricity bills, kept gas 
prices low, and provided the largest share of U.S. electric power 
generation in recent years.
  The oil and gas industry supports more than 10.3 million jobs and 
nearly 8 percent of our economy.
  The United States is the world's top energy producer, and the 
American Dream is thriving.
  January 2019 saw the hundredth consecutive month of positive jobs 
growth in America, the longest period of continuous jobs growth on 
record.
  The U.S. job market is strong, and in December, employers posted 7.3 
million open jobs, a new record.
  Now, despite America's energy renaissance and the aforementioned 
emissions reductions, we continue to hear hyperbolic statements about 
pending climate catastrophe and the need for radical change to stave 
off future disaster.
  The Democrat socialists pushing the Green New Deal want to get rid of 
all energy sources except wind, solar, and batteries by 2030. How are 
we going to do that when wind and solar only produced 7.6 percent of 
our electricity in 2017?
  The Green New Deal would drive energy production and jobs to 
countries like China and India that have much worse environmental 
standards. Global greenhouse gas emissions will increase as a result, 
in direct contradiction to the main talking point of the Green New 
Deal.
  The socialist Green New Deal says it will provide higher education, 
higher quality healthcare, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing 
to all.

                              {time}  2015

  The Mercatus Center estimates that the cost of the single-payer 
healthcare provision alone would cost $32 trillion in the first 10 
years, something that I think is probably on the low side.
  The Green New Deal is an alarmist pipe dream that seeks to 
fundamentally transform America without a blueprint. This socialist 
manifesto changes by the day, and important details on how a transition 
of the Green New Deal's magnitude will occur are missing, including how 
we will pay for this pie in the sky aspiration.
  If one needs to have more evidence that the Green New Deal is not 
plausible, look no further than the country of Australia where 
electricity prices are the highest in the world and the Aussies' 
obsession with renewables has destroyed their electric grid. Mass 
blackouts and mass power cuts are the new norm, and a massive Tesla 
battery backup system ran dry this past month as the Aussie power grid 
crashed in summer temperatures. Ninety thousand Aussie homes had no 
air-conditioning for the next 2 weeks of blistering heat.
  Let's learn from Australia's mistakes. Let's not repeat them.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to enlightening everyone on this 
legislation further in the coming days.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the good gentleman from Arizona 
for expressing his thoughts on how this would impact the people not 
only in Arizona, but also around the country.
  Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents continue to ask me what is 
actually in this Green New Deal legislation. Unfortunately for the 
American people, the Members of Congress who introduced the resolution 
had, I guess, several hiccups along the way during their rollout and 
released conflicting documents to accompany the bill.
  One significant piece of legislation that my constituents have asked 
me about is whether the related resolution mandated a job for everyone 
in the United States. Well, that is, in fact, true. A part of the 
frequently asked questions document that was released with the 
legislation even stated that economic security would be provided for 
those who are ``unwilling to work.'' Many of my constituents think that 
is an amazing statement.
  After an adviser to the Green New Deal accused Republicans of 
doctoring this document, The Washington Post later reported that he 
erroneously made that accusation. In fact, this document was released 
by Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez's office.
  Representative Ocasio-Cortez has since retracted the frequently asked 
questions document, but the message I hope my constituents and the 
American people hear clearly is that we know the motives behind this 
legislation. We know the intent. From ending the airline industry to 
shutting down all nuclear power, unfortunately, some people on the 
other side of the aisle, my colleagues on the Democratic side, are 
threatening the American economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the frequently asked questions 
document that was released by Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez's office.

               LAUNCH: Thursday, February 7, at 8:30 a.m.


                                Overview

       We will begin work immediately on Green New Deal bills to 
     put the nuts and bolts on the plan described in this 
     resolution (important to say so someone else can't claim this 
     mantle).
       This is a massive transformation of our society with clear 
     goals and a timeline.
       The Green New Deal resolution a 10-year plan to mobilize 
     every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since 
     World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and 
     create economic prosperity for all. It will:
       Move America to 100% clean and renewable energy
       Create millions of family supporting-wage, union jobs
       Ensure a just transition for all communities and workers to 
     ensure economic security for people and communities that have 
     historically relied on fossil fuel industries
       Ensure justice and equity for frontline communities by 
     prioritizing investment, training, climate and community 
     resiliency, economic and environmental benefits in these 
     communities.
       Build on FDR's second bill of rights by guaranteeing:
       A job with a family-sustaining wage, family and medical 
     leave, vacations, and retirement security
       High-quality education, including higher education and 
     trade schools
       Clean air and water and access to nature
       Healthy food
       High-quality health care
       Safe, affordable, adequate housing
       Economic environment free of monopolies
       Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to 
     work
       There is no time to waste.
       IPCC Report said global emissions must be cut by 40-60% by 
     2030. US is 20% of total emissions. We must get to 0 by 2030 
     and lead the world in a global Green New Deal.
       Americans love a challenge. This is our moonshot.
       When JFK said we'd go to the by the end of the decade, 
     people said impossible.
       If Eisenhower wanted to build the interstate highway system 
     today, people would ask how we'd pay for it.
       When FDR called on America to build 185,000 planes to fight 
     World War 2, every business leader, CEO, and general laughed 
     at him. At the time, the U.S. had produced 3,000 planes in 
     the last year. By the end of the war, we produced 300,000 
     planes. That's what we are capable of if we have real 
     leadership
       This is massive investment in our economy and society, not 
     expenditure.

[[Page H2092]]

       We invested 40-50% of GDP into our economy during World War 
     2 and created the greatest middle class the US has seen.
       The interstate highway system has returned more than $6 in 
     economic productivity for every $1 it cost
       This is massively expanding existing and building new 
     industries at a rapid pace--growing our economy
       The Green New Deal has momentum.
       92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans 
     support the Green New Deal
       Nearly every major Democratic Presidential contender say 
     they back the Green New Deal including: Elizabeth Warren, 
     Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Jeff Merkeley, Julian Castro, 
     Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Jay 
     Inslee.
       45 House Reps and 330+ groups backed the original 
     resolution for a select committee
       Over 300 local and state politicians have called for a 
     federal Green New Deal
       New Resolution has 20 co-sponsors, about 30 groups (numbers 
     will change by Thursday).


                                  FAQ

       Why 100% clean and renewable and not just 100% renewable? 
     Are you saying we won't transition off fossil fuels?
       Yes, we are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels 
     and zero greenhouse gases. Anyone who has read the resolution 
     sees that we spell this out through a plan that calls for 
     eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from every sector of the 
     economy. Simply banning fossil fuels immediately won't build 
     the new economy to replace it--this is the plan to build that 
     new economy and spells out how to do it technically. We do 
     this through a huge mobilization to create the renewable 
     energy economy as fast as possible. We set a goal to get to 
     net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we 
     aren't sure that we'll be able to fully get rid of farting 
     cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up 
     renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every 
     building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul 
     transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and 
     restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero.
       Is nuclear a part of this?
       A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable 
     energy production and would not include creating new nuclear 
     plants. It's unclear if we will be able to decommission every 
     nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition 
     off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible. No 
     one has put the full 10-year plan together yet, and if it is 
     possible to get to fully 100% renewable in 10 years, we 
     will do that.
       Does this include a carbon tax?
       The Green New Deal is a massive investment in the 
     production of renewable energy industries and infrastructure. 
     We cannot simply tax gas and expect workers to figure out 
     another way to get to work unless we've first created a 
     better, more affordable option. So we're not ruling a carbon 
     tax out, but a carbon tax would be a tiny part of a Green New 
     Deal in the face of the gigantic expansion of our productive 
     economy and would have to be preceded by first creating the 
     solutions necessary so that workers and working class 
     communities are not affected. While a carbon tax may be a 
     part of the Green New Deal, it misses the point and would be 
     off the table unless we create the clean, affordable options 
     first.
       Does this include cap and trade?
       The Green New Deal is about creating the renewable energy 
     economy through a massive investment in our society and 
     economy. Cap and trade assumes the existing market will solve 
     this problem for us, and that's simply not true. While cap 
     and trade may be a tiny part of the larger Green New Deal 
     plan to mobilize our economy, any cap and trade legislation 
     will pale in comparison to the size of the mobilization and 
     must recognize that existing legislation can incentivize 
     companies to create toxic hotspots in frontline communities, 
     so anything here must ensure that frontline communities are 
     prioritized.
       Does a GND ban all new fossil fuel infrastructure or 
     nuclear power plants?
       The Green New Deal makes new fossil fuel infrastructure or 
     nuclear plants unnecessary. This is a massive mobilization of 
     all our resources into renewable energies. It would simply 
     not make sense to build new fossil fuel infrastructure 
     because we will be creating a plan to reorient our entire 
     economy to work off renewable energy. Simply banning fossil 
     fuels and nuclear plants immediately won't build the new 
     economy to replace it--this is the plan to build that new 
     economy and spells out how to do it technically.
       Are you for CCUS?
       We believe the right way to capture carbon is to plant 
     trees and restore our natural ecosystems. CCUS technology to 
     date has not proven effective.
       How will you pay for it?
       The same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank 
     bailout and extended quantitative easing programs. The same 
     way we paid for World War II and all our current wars. The 
     Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and 
     investments and new public banks can be created to extend 
     credit. There is also space for the government to take an 
     equity stake in projects to get a return on investment. At 
     the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that 
     should grow our wealth as a nation, so the question isn't how 
     will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared 
     prosperity.
       Why do we need a sweeping Green New Deal investment 
     program? Why can't we just rely on regulations and taxes and 
     the private sector to invest alone such as a carbon tax or a 
     ban on fossil fuels?
       The level of investment required is massive. Even if every 
     billionaire and company came together and were willing to 
     pour all the resources at their disposal into this 
     investment, the aggregate value of the investments they could 
     make would not be sufficient.
       The speed of investment required will be massive. Even if 
     all the billionaires and companies could make the investments 
     required, they would not be able to pull together a 
     coordinated response in the narrow window of time required to 
     jump-start major new projects and major new economic sectors. 
     Also, private companies are wary of making massive 
     investments in unproven research and technologies; the 
     government, however, has the time horizon to be able to 
     patiently make investments in new tech and R&D, without 
     necessarily having a commercial outcome or application in 
     mind at the time the investment is made. Major examples of 
     government investments in ``new'' tech that subsequently 
     spurred a boom in the private section include DARPA-projects, 
     the creation of the internet--and, perhaps most recently, the 
     government's investment in Tesla.
       Simply put, we don't need to just stop doing some things we 
     are doing (like using fossil fuels for energy needs); we also 
     need to start doing new things (like overhauling whole 
     industries or retrofitting all buildings to be energy 
     efficient). Starting to do new things requires some upfront 
     investment. In the same way that a company that is trying to 
     change how it does business may need to make big upfront 
     capital investments today in order to reap future benefits 
     (for e.g., building a new factory to increase production or 
     buying new hardware and software to totally modernize its IT 
     system), a country that is trying to change how its economy 
     works will need to make big investments today to jump-start 
     and develop new projects and sectors to power the new 
     economy.
       Merely incentivizing the private sector doesn't work--e.g. 
     the tax incentives and subsidies given to wind and solar 
     projects have been a valuable spur to growth in the US 
     renewables industry but, even with such investment-promotion 
     subsidies, the present level of such projects is simply 
     inadequate to transition to a fully greenhouse gas neutral 
     economy as quickly as needed.
       Once again, we're not saying that there isn't a role for 
     private sector investments; we're just saying that the level 
     of investment required will need every actor to pitch in and 
     that the government is best placed to be the prime driver.


                           Resolution Summary

       Created in consultation with multiple groups from 
     environmental community, environmental justice community, and 
     labor community
       5 goals in 10 years:
       Net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just 
     transition for all communities and workers
       Create millions of high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and 
     economic security for all
       Invest in infrastructure and industry to sustainably meet 
     the challenges of the 21st century
       Clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, 
     healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment 
     for all
       Promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing 
     future, and repairing historic oppression of frontline and 
     vulnerable communities
       National mobilization our economy through 14 infrastructure 
     and industrial projects. Every project strives to remove 
     greenhouse gas emissions and pollution from every sector of 
     our economy:

       Build infrastructure to create resiliency against climate 
     change-related disasters
       Repair and upgrade U.S. infrastructure. ASCE estimates this 
     is $4.6 trillion at minimum.
       Meet 100% of power demand through clean and renewable 
     energy sources
       Build energy-efficient, distributed smart grids and ensure 
     affordable access to electricity
       Upgrade or replace every building in US for state-of-the-
     art energy efficiency
       Massively expand clean manufacturing (like solar panel 
     factories, wind turbine factories, battery and storage 
     manufacturing, energy efficient manufacturing components) and 
     remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from 
     manufacturing
       Work with farmers and ranchers to create a sustainable, 
     pollution and greenhouse gas free, food system that ensures 
     universal access to healthy food and expands independent 
     family farming
       Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding 
     electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations 
     everywhere, build out high-speed rail at a scale where air 
     travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public 
     transit available to all, with goal to replace every 
     combustion-engine vehicle
       Mitigate long-term health effects of climate change and 
     pollution
       Remove greenhouse gases from our atmosphere and pollution 
     through afforestation, preservation, and other methods of 
     restoring our natural ecosystems
       Restore all our damaged and threatened ecosystems

[[Page H2093]]

       Clean up all the existing hazardous waste sites and 
     abandoned sites
       Identify new emission sources and create solutions to 
     eliminate those emissions
       Make the US the leader in addressing climate change and 
     share our technology, expertise and products with the rest of 
     the world to bring about a global Green New Deal
       Social and economic justice and security through 15 
     requirements:

       Massive federal investments and assistance to organizations 
     and businesses participating in the green new deal and 
     ensuring the public gets a return on that investment
       Ensure the environmental and social costs of emissions are 
     taken into account
       Provide job training and education to all
       Invest in R&D of new clean and renewable energy 
     technologies
       Doing direct investments in frontline and deindustrialized 
     communities that would otherwise be hurt by the transition to 
     prioritize economic benefits there
       Use democratic and participatory processes led by frontline 
     and vulnerable communities to implement GND projects locally
       Ensure that all GND jobs are union jobs that pay prevailing 
     wages and hire local
       Guarantee a job with family-sustaining wages
       Protect right of all workers to unionize and organize
       Strengthen and enforce labor, workplace health and safety, 
     antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards
       Enact and enforce trade rules to stop the transfer of jobs 
     and pollution overseas and grow domestic manufacturing
       Ensure public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and 
     eminent domain is not abused
       Obtain free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous 
     peoples
       Ensure an economic environment free of monopolies and 
     unfair competition
       Provide high-quality health care, housing, economic 
     security, and clean air, clean water, healthy food, and 
     nature to all
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the other gentleman from the 
great State of Arizona (Mr. Biggs), who represents the Fifth District 
and I believe served on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee 
very well.
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I applaud and give my thanks and gratitude to 
the gentleman from Washington for his efforts in leading this today, 
and to the Congressional Western Caucus and the members who are 
exposing what is really not a Green New Deal, but really is a green 
socialist manifesto.
  Here is what we need to understand about this. This is so broad and 
expansive, as Mr. Newhouse has said, it will, basically, invade every 
aspect of every American's life, and it will cost tens of trillions of 
dollars to implement.
  How will we pay for that? We are going to pay for that with crushing 
new taxes on individuals, families, and companies. We are going to 
destroy the current foundation of our entire American economy.
  There will be more borrowing, not just from the public sector, but 
from the private sector. The public sector is in trouble because the 
Federal Government just hit $22 trillion of national debt.
  The question is, what will the impact of this be on the environment? 
It would do little to solve the alleged problem of carbon in the 
atmosphere because the United States is no longer the primary source of 
carbon emissions.
  Between 2005 and 2017, our Nation has reduced CO2 
emissions by 862 million tons. Today, the U.S. is responsible for only 
15 percent of global CO2 emissions. During roughly the same 
period, China increased its emissions by 4 billion tons and India by 
1.3 billion tons.
  Needless to say, the GND doesn't explain how we would compel other 
nations to change their behavior. But domestically, as I have said, we 
are going to emasculate our economy. The coal, nuclear, natural gas, 
petroleum, and air travel industries will be wiped out, and all of the 
industries that support those industries. That means hundreds of 
thousands of people will lose their jobs almost instantly.
  At the same time, the Green New Deal, or the green socialist 
manifesto, is going to guarantee a wage. It is going to guarantee 
income for everyone.
  As Representative Ryan said, we can't green the economy without the 
power of the free market system. He is right. That is the ultimate 
point of what I want to say today.
  We know that science doesn't support the green socialist manifesto, 
but we know something that is really critical to understand. This 
proposal, which today is so vast, so encompassing, and so primitive in 
its creation, is also so destructive to our economy and multiple 
industries, multiple sectors of our economy, that I would say there is 
only one way that you can implement such an outlandish and reckless 
idea, and that is to use the awesome, overreaching power of government 
to not just induce, but to coerce implementation of this faulty idea.
  In its scope, breadth, and depth, this plan is authoritarian in 
nature. It will require government flexing its muscles to mandate 
activities and forbid other actions in every American's life.
  We can't afford this plan. This plan will not provide what it says it 
is going to do. Moreover, in a free, constitutional Republic, you can 
never allow this kind of socialism to be combined with 
authoritarianism.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Biggs for sharing his thoughts 
on the direction that this would take our Nation and the dangerous path 
it would lead us upon. Those are things that we need to make sure that 
we don't allow happen, and I think the American people would agree with 
us.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the 
good doctor from Kansas' First District who serves on the Agriculture 
Committee. I know this is going to have a huge impact on many 
industries, but particularly agriculture.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I must admit that, back home, the Green New Deal means 
that John Deere dealers are having a new combine sale.
  I stand before you this evening to tell you exactly why the Green New 
Deal is a sham. Rather than setting realistic goals to reduce carbon 
emissions and incentivize cleaner energy development, this so-called 
deal stalls innovation and drastically expands government involvement 
in almost every aspect of everyday life, at a price tag of more than 
$50 trillion.
  Over the past 2 years, we have unleashed our economy by reducing 
government overregulation, allowing more Americans to invest in their 
families, futures, and pursuits. The Green New Deal will throw the 
brakes on our economy, as well as the world's economy. Nothing will 
increase worldwide carbon production more than a stalled economy.
  Additionally, this Green New Deal reverses our success by imposing 
harsher regulations that will put American workers and American 
companies at an extreme disadvantage. This socialist proposal that 
Democrats are championing completely ignores the cost to American 
taxpayers and fails to address the negative impacts that other 
countries have on global climate change. It implements policies that 
will dramatically increase taxes, burdens, and energy bills for 
families.
  This deal will absolutely devastate our economy with its outrageous 
demands for new green infrastructure, new green labor practices, and 
new green taxes. It will crush American manufacturing and 
transportation industries. It would completely halt domestic energy 
production that has had record exports under the Trump administration.
  I am a firm believer that we must focus on leaving this world better 
than we found it for the next generation. For my children, for your 
children, and for our grandchildren, we need to be good stewards of the 
resources and the planet we have been given, but any reasonable 
solution will require us to use common sense when approaching the 
issues.
  We must also be careful not to fall into the trap of believing that 
the U.S. Government is the answer to correct all our problems. America 
has always been a nation of innovators, and instead of imposing new 
regulations and taxes, we must continue to lead the world and partner 
with American industries to develop creative solutions and new 
innovative technologies. Innovation will do more to impact climate 
change than any law Washington, D.C., can write.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Marshall for sharing with us 
his thoughts from the great State of Kansas.
  Some of the proponents of the Green New Deal have criticized others 
for criticizing the Green New Deal, saying that we don't have any room 
to talk if we are not going to offer something toward the issues that 
we face as a world and as a country.
  Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, we do have options, and we do have 
solutions

[[Page H2094]]

that we have been offering. Let me share a piece written by my 
Republican colleagues just recently who lead the Energy and Commerce 
Committee. Mr.   Greg Walden, Mr. Fred Upton, and Mr.   John Shimkus 
shared an article that was published in several newspapers around the 
country. Some of the things that they say go like this: ``America's 
approach for tackling climate change should be built upon the 
principles of innovation, conservation, and adaptation. Republicans 
have long championed realistic, innovative, and free-market strategies 
to promote a cleaner environment and to reduce emissions. The results 
are clear: The United States is leading the world in reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions thanks to vibrant energy sector competition 
and innovation.''
  They go on to say: ``We should continue to encourage innovation and 
renewable energy development. We should promote carbon capture and 
utilization, renewable hydropower, and safe nuclear power, which is 
emissions-free. We should also look to remove barriers to energy 
storage and commercial batteries to help make renewable sources more 
viable and our electricity grid more resilient. And we must encourage 
more research and business investments in new clean energy 
technologies. These are bipartisan solutions that we must seize on to 
deliver real results for the American people.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cloud) from the 
27th District.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. CLOUD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Newhouse).
  Mr. Speaker, the Green New Deal is a bad deal for the people of 
America. Just days ago, we passed $22 trillion in debt for which we 
have no plan to begin paying off. The Green New Deal would only add 
trillions more while simultaneously destroying the American economy, 
which not only means families across our Nation would lose their 
ability to sustain themselves, but it would also shut down the 
innovation engine of the world.
  The 27th District of Texas, which I represent, has a better approach. 
We are home to a diverse energy portfolio, which includes wind, 
nuclear, LNG, oil production--not to mention our fair share of cows and 
airplanes.
  We are home to a safe, reliable nuclear power plant in Matagorda 
County that generates 2.7 gigawatts of power, and that is a power of 
nearly 2 million Texas homes and businesses. It would take 8.4 million 
solar panels to replace that kind of energy. Even President Obama's 
Secretary of Energy said, ``It's just impractical.''
  We are also home to the leading export energy port in the Nation. We 
have been a great part in the success of what we have seen as a nation 
of going from an energy-dependent nation to an energy-dominant nation. 
And what that new American energy dominance means, it means global 
stability and peace in the world as our allies are able to buy energy 
from us rather than from countries who don't have our best intentions 
in mind.
  But as the world's need for energy grows, American companies are more 
likely to care about being good stewards of our creation compared with 
those from other energy-producing nations.
  The United States cut carbon emissions by 14 percent since 2005 while 
global emissions rose 26 percent over the same period. Of all the G20 
countries, we have the best record recently on carbon emissions and 
reductions.
  In Texas our market-based approach to energy is leading the way even 
as our economy continues to boom. Furthermore, a thriving economy is 
absolutely essential to creating and deploying the innovative solutions 
we need to face the environmental challenges of the future.
  So when it comes to the Green New Deal, let's stop looking to 
socialism for answers and start looking to places like Texas.
  This Green New Deal would be devastating to American jobholders, 
harmful to our allies around the world, and it is also 
counterproductive to advancing protections to our environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I will continue to firmly oppose this outlandish and 
unrealistic idea.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Cloud) for giving us great thoughts about the impacts of what the Green 
New Deal would actually mean for Americans and jobs in the United 
States of America.
  As the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes) makes his way to the 
microphone, I just want to share with you one study that was released 
today by the American Action Forum. It says that the Green New Deal 
will cost a startling $93 trillion over 10 years.
  Now, put that into perspective: That is equivalent to $600,000 per 
household.
  To generate $93 trillion in income tax revenue, we would have to tax 
every household earning more than $30,000 at a 100 percent rate for 10 
years.
  If every household earning over more than $200,000 were taxed at 100 
percent for 10 years, it would still fall $58 trillion short. So you 
can just see that this does not work.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes), a 
member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. ESTES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Newhouse).
  You know, those numbers are just shocking, as you related, in terms 
of how it would devastate the American economy and American families.
  Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to add my voice in opposition to this so-
called Green New Deal.
  You know, this outrageous proposal would be a massive government 
takeover of every facet of our daily lives. From how we eat, to how we 
travel, this so-called Green New Deal calls to replace every building 
and car in America within 10 years. It would cost up to $93 trillion. 
That would cost every American household an extra $65,300 per year.
  That might be crumbs in New York and California, but it is not in 
Kansas, where the average family income is $56,422.
  If the crushing tax increase on every family isn't bad enough, the 
plan also calls for an eventual end to air travel.
  As representative of the Air Capital of the World, clearly, this is 
alarming.
  According to the Kansas Department of Transportation, aviation is 
responsible for 91,300 jobs in Kansas and has an economic impact on our 
state of $20.6 billion.
  Grounding air travel would decimate jobs in Kansas, just as the 
entire Green New Deal would devastate the economy of our country.
  The only thing this proposal accomplishes is exposing the priorities 
of politicians who are determined to increase taxes and expand 
government to impose their agenda on every family, farm, and business.
  Kansans know how to protect our environment and quality of life 
without being told to do so by government officials in Washington, 
D.C., and I stand with them in opposing this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Newhouse for leading this special 
order.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Estes). I appreciate very much him sharing his thoughts about the Green 
New Deal and the impacts it would have on our country--something that 
we just absolutely cannot afford. So I appreciate very much his time 
this evening, and I thank him.
  Mr. Speaker, I recently read an article from Reuters titled ``Labor 
Unions fear Democrats' Green New Deal poses job threat.''
  I didn't write that title. That is what they did. In it, a spokesman 
for a major union in this country speaks on the legislation's language, 
calling for a transition for union jobs. He says, ``We've heard words 
like `just transition' before, but what does that really mean? Our 
Members are worried about putting food on the table.''
  Another labor union, the Laborers' International Union of North 
America states, ``We will never settle for `just transition' language 
as a solution to the job losses that will surely come from some of the 
policies in the resolution.''
  Mr. Speaker, hardworking Americans across the country deserve to be 
heard. Unfortunately, as this article states, neither union was 
contacted for input before the legislation was released.
  And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield time to the gentleman from 
California's First District (Mr. LaMalfa), my good friend and a fellow 
farmer.

[[Page H2095]]

  

  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, thank you to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Newhouse).
  Indeed, what we know so far about the Green New Deal, it is more like 
a green pipe dream. It would lead to a total government takeover of 
just about every aspect of our lives.
  Now, it is interesting to watch, since the deal was proposed not that 
many days ago, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, many of 
them are starting to back away from it. There were 67 coauthors on 
that. We are seeing some starting to back away, saying, well, this 
really isn't the dream or the deal; it is more of an aspiration.
  Well, by the time you freaked out half the country with these ideas 
that you put into legislation, maybe we need a little more heads-up on 
what really is the goal here.
  Some of the guarantees in it:
  A government paycheck for those unwilling to work.
  Is that really in there? What are we talking about here?
  The cost of this implementation? $93 trillion, quadruple of what our 
national debt is right now. The cost will be passed on, of course, to--
as always--the taxpayer, to families, to those struggling--especially 
middle-income folks--who could see their energy bills going up from 
already at a high point to an additional $4,000 annually per family.
  We should really have our supporters of this bill benefit from the 
lessons learned in California on the high-speed rail boondoggle that 
tripled in a short amount of time soon after it was barely approved, 
$10 billion by the taxpayers to a nearly $100 billion project, all 
under the guise of saving greenhouse gases.
  Except during the construction of the high-speed rail in California, 
it will make a whole bunch of greenhouse gases with the equipment 
involved, so we are going to plant trees to offset that. Yet, at the 
same time, they are running the rails through hundreds of acres of 
almond trees in the middle of California that they are supposed to be 
offsetting.
  It is a reckless attempt to undermine America's increasing 
dominance--not just energy independence--but now dominance in energy 
around the world.
  It ignores the basic reality; a lot of what America was built upon 
were indeed fossil fuels, those known reserves that we have in this 
country.
  Now, let's talk a little bit about the Paris accord that I think 
President Trump rightfully withdrew the United States from. The goal 
being greenhouse gas reduction, CO2 reduction.
  Well, when you look at the stats, who is already leading the way 
outside of the accord? The U.S.--of those western countries--is the 
only one that has actually reduced its number of CO2 in that 
amount of time.
  We are the ones doing it. You know why? Because we have freedom; 
because we have the ability to innovate here, to invent the new 
technology, to invent the things that are going to help us do things 
better and cleaner into the future.
  I don't hear a lot of talk on this about new hydropower, which is 
clean and ready to go any time you turn on the switch to the gates to 
allow the turbines to flow.
  Biomass. In my area of the country--the Western Caucus, my colleagues 
here--we burn part of the west every year. We should be putting that 
fuel into clean burning power plants to make electricity, cleaning our 
forest, making it more fire-safe, better for the wildlife, better for 
the environment, not having all that CO2 go up. And then 
creating jobs in our backyard to get people to work from cleaning up 
the over-inventory the U.S. forest and BLM has from allowing their 
forest to run rampant with no management for the last 100 years.
  These are things we should be talking about, not this green dream 
thing. Instead, we are going to hear nothing but climate change, 
climate change, climate change, with solutions that just harness or 
handcuff the economy, the jobs, and the people of this country inside 
this chamber and in the real world out there where people actually 
produce things.
  We need to focus on the things that we know can work, producing 
energy with hydropower. Yes, with nuclear power, no emissions. With 
biomass, help clean that inventory that burns hundreds of thousands of 
acres every year of forest land, and put it to work for us.
  That is what we are going to be successful at, because the United 
States is always number one in developing the new technology, the new 
ways to do cleaner, better, more efficiently, instead of handcuffing 
our economy and that innovation and exporting it somewhere else.
  I do agree with my colleagues that have spoken here tonight. And in 
sending the message, we need to strongly oppose this bill and get back 
to something that actually works for the working people of this 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time of the gentleman.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
LaMalfa). I appreciate very much him sharing his thoughts--and 
California's thoughts--about what we have in front of us and the impact 
it would have.
  And if anyone is thinking that this is just a bunch of Republicans 
that are thinking this way and have these thoughts, let me share with 
you some quotes from some of my friends across the aisle, Mr. Speaker.
  Representative Jeff Van Drew, a Democrat from New Jersey. He says of 
the Green New Deal, ``It is not a serious policy proposal. It seeks the 
complete reorganization of American society, which took hundreds of 
years to build, in a matter of 10 years.''
  Or the senior Senator from California--Mr. LaMalfa's state--just 
stated last week that ``There's no way to pay for it.''
  From my own State, my colleague, Representative Rick Larsen just said 
recently, ``It is difficult to support the resolution right now when 
one of the lead sponsors says one of the intentions is to make air 
travel unnecessary.'' He is the chairman of the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation.
  My neighbor from Oregon, Mr. DeFazio, chairman of the House Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure, said, ``The idea that in 5 or 10 
years we're not going to consume any more fossil fuels is 
technologically impossible. We can have grand goals, but let's be 
realistic about how we get there.''
  Even our own Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi from California, said 
of the proposal, ``The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody 
knows what it is, but they're for it, right?''
  So you can see, it is not just us, this is a bipartisan feeling about 
the Green New Deal that it needs a lot more consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point, I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Norman), my good friend from the Palmetto State, Fifth 
District, and a member of the Committee on Science, Space, and 
Technology.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Newhouse for leading the 
effort on this.
  And I rise to oppose the Green New Deal for many of the reasons that 
have already been said, but this is the most amateurish resolution that 
has come before this Congress in a long time, not from only my point of 
view but many others who have served longer than I have.
  We were asked to consider a policy that would change every aspect of 
American life, deciding what we eat, how we travel, how we stay warm, 
and even what jobs we can take and what homes we are allowed to live 
in.
  We are presented with a total overhaul of society, but with no 
explanation how. There is no roadmap, no method of implementation, and, 
of course, no price tag. All we know is that this will be dictated by a 
cabal of better-knowing bureaucrats. Yet every estimate shows just how 
unrealistic this green deal really is.
  According to the American Action Forum, the total cost could run as 
high as $93 trillion over 10 years.

                              {time}  2045

  This totals 21 times our current Federal budget of $4.4 trillion. 
That can only mean one thing for the American people: taxes, taxes, and 
more taxes.
  This resolution is so lacking in detail, we might as well vote on the 
merits of a scrap of paper that says, ``solve the problem.'' This is no 
way to govern.

[[Page H2096]]

  The only details we do have are from a survey that enjoyed a brief 
existence online before it was removed out of embarrassment and has 
since been denied.
  One source of embarrassment was the call to get rid of cows. To my 
knowledge, this is the first time that a Member of this House has 
called for bovine genocide.
  That the deal's supporters are now hiding these facts reveals that 
the true agenda behind the Green New Deal is too horrifying to be 
shared with any of the public. As a rule of thumb, any law that cannot 
be shared with the people cannot serve the people.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for his input on this important issue. It underscores the cost to the 
Nation if this were adopted and its impact on our economy. I thank the 
gentleman for that tremendous help.
  I thank all my colleagues, members of the Congressional Western 
Caucus, for participating tonight to point out some of the fallacies of 
the Green New Deal. Certainly, it is something that, as legislation is 
proposed, this is the process: We talk about what we like, what we 
don't like, and we offer alternatives, trying to find solutions in a 
bipartisan way.
  Republicans have always advocated to continue looking at these issues 
of climate change, of energy use and production, of issues facing the 
environment. We are always looking for ways to innovate, to adequately 
fund research, but, basically, underscoring all of that, relying on the 
use of sound science for any decisions that we make, to make sure that 
the policies that we adopt are those that will be sustaining and good 
for not only our country, but for the world.
  So we base our decisions on science, not politics. As Republicans, as 
members of the Congressional Western Caucus, which is a bipartisan 
organization, we look forward to debating seriously and making serious 
decisions in regard to these very important issues that face our 
country, face the next generation, and face the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing debates on this important 
topic, and I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________