February 27, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 36 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S1497-S1498]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           The Green New Deal

  Mr. President, on another matter, the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, led by Chairman Barrasso, is meeting today to consider 
legislation that would help reduce, capture, and find productive uses 
for carbon dioxide emissions. It is an important subject and deserves a 
serious approach, but, as we all know, some on the far left have 
recently offered other ideas on this subject. That is right--the much 
heralded Green New Deal. Nothing says forward-thinking and fresh ideas 
quite like borrowing the name of an 80-plus-year-old policy program and 
just adding the color ``green.''
  So what is this thing all about? That turns out to be an interesting 
question. It depends on whom you ask. The Democrats who authored it say 
it is a massive reorganization and government takeover of our Nation's 
economy and our culture. Some have argued it is the only way to stop 
the world from ending in about a decade.
  This was interesting news, even to many of their fellow Democrats. 
Our colleague Senator Durbin reacted this way:

       I have read it, and I have reread it, and I asked [Senator] 
     Ed Markey: ``What in the heck is this?''

  That was the assistant Democratic leader.
  But it looks like, one way or the other, the Democratic Party as a 
whole is eager to get behind this great idea.
  So what is in it? Here are just a few of the hits in the 16-page 
resolution the Senate will soon be voting on.

[[Page S1498]]

  Here is one you will like: ``Upgrading all existing buildings in the 
United States and building new buildings.''
  Don't want a Federal bureaucrat to decide how your house should look 
or what size it should be? Don't want to pay to rebuild the entire 
downtown? Don't want to tear down your small business so it can be 
replaced by the government? Too bad. These new social planners know 
best.
  Here is another quote: ``Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in 
the United States''--listen to this--without using any American fossil 
fuels or nuclear power whatsoever.
  That is right. It is the War on Coal on steroids. Say goodbye to all 
of those jobs, and say hello to a new wave of cronyism that would make 
the half a billion dollars in taxpayer losses from Solyndra look like 
pocket change. Everything in your garage will have to go too. A lengthy 
background document that this plan's authors have since tried to scrub 
from the internet helpfully explains that a Green New Deal would mean 
``replac[ing] every combustion engine vehicle.''
  How about this one: ``Guaranteeing a job . . . to all people of the 
United States.''
  That one is buried on page No. 14--a government-guaranteed job for 
everyone. That may sound like a good utopian goal, but their handy 
background document makes the real intention known, promising 
``economic security for all''--listen to this--even for those who are 
``unwilling to work.''
  That is a lot of magic wand-waving, but I have only scratched the 
surface. The background document also called for a plan to ``build out 
high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.'' 
As our colleague Senator Hirono pointed out, this might be a tough sell 
in Hawaii or in Puerto Rico or in other places. The Governor of 
California just scaled back a high-speed rail project in California 
because, as he put it, it ``would cost too much and, respectfully, take 
too long.'' Even with heavy Federal subsidies, it is billions over 
budget and behind schedule.
  That document also promised to, magically, ``remove pollution and . . 
. emissions from manufacturing'' just like that. I wonder why nobody 
has thought of that before.
  So it is clear what we have here. It is the far left's Santa Claus 
wish list that is dressed up to look like serious policy.
  Bad ideas are nothing new, and silly proposals come and go, but the 
philosophies and the ideas behind this textbook socialism are not just 
foolish; they are dangerous. Their ascent in the Democratic Party is a 
real threat to American prosperity and to working families.
  Chairman Barrasso reported that one analysis found that this proposal 
could increase the average household's power bills by as much as--
listen to this--$3,800 a year. Another estimate predicted that families 
would have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars just to replace 
common household appliances with Washington-approved models.
  What about the total cost to the government for this socialist 
shopping spree? One recent estimate has that pegged at a cool $93 
trillion over the first 10 years--more than the combined GDP of the 
entire world. Let me say that again. Their plan is predicted to cost 
more than the entire economic output of every country on Earth 
combined.
  Remember what the American people are supposedly getting in return--a 
sprawling socialist state to rule over us, a host of good jobs and key 
industries ripped away, and an end to every energy source that the 
middle class can actually afford. Remember, China has already sailed 
past the United States in terms of carbon emissions. The far left still 
wants us to unilaterally disarm our whole economy--lots of pain for us 
and no meaningful gain in containing global emissions. We will go 
bankrupt, but at least it will be great for China. I bet they are 
cheering in the streets.
  So the way I see it--the way most Republicans see it--is this 
proposal is either a brilliant piece of comedy or a disastrous 
socialist vision that is totally alien to the United States of America.
  What about our Democratic colleagues? Where do they stand?
  Recently, I announced that Senators will get to go on record and vote 
for or against all of this, but curiously enough, this planned vote was 
met with outrage from the very people who were claiming to champion the 
proposal.
  Last night, our colleague from Rhode Island said it was ``truly 
preposterous'' for me to schedule a vote on the Green New Deal. That is 
not exactly a ringing endorsement of a plan the Democrats claim to 
support. He does not seem to be alone in his uneasiness. At one point, 
the Speaker of the House dismissed her party's own plan as the ``green 
dream.'' The senior Senator from California worried publicly the other 
day that there is no way to pay for it. As I noted, the assistant 
Democratic leader summed up a lot of people's thinking when he asked: 
``What in the heck is this?'' I think a great many Americans all across 
the country are asking themselves the very same thing--what the heck is 
this?
  Before much longer, every Member of this body will have a chance to 
go on record, loud and clear. Do our Democratic colleagues really 
support this fantasy novel that is masquerading as public policy? Do 
they really want to completely upend Americans' lives to enact some 
grand socialist vision? Do they really want this to be their Democratic 
Party? Well, before long, the Senate will vote, and these questions 
will be answered.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.