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

[Pages S1499-S1501]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           The Green New Deal

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in a document later removed from her 
website, one of the Green New Deal's sponsors had this to say about the 
Green New Deal: ``The question isn't how we will pay for it, but what 
we will do with our new shared prosperity.''
  ``The question isn't how we will pay for it . . .'' That was the 
quote. That is a pretty staggering statement when you consider that the 
Green New Deal plans to upend most of American society as we know it, 
from transportation to healthcare, but I suspect there was a simple 
reason the Green New Deal authors didn't want to talk about how to pay 
for it--because they couldn't figure out how.
  This week, one think tank released a first estimate of what the Green 
New Deal would cost, and here is the answer: between $51 trillion and 
$93 trillion over 10 years--between $51 trillion and $93 trillion. 
Those numbers are so large that they are almost impossible to process.
  Just for perspective, consider the fact that the entire Federal 
budget for 2019 is less than $5 trillion. That is the entire Federal 
budget--defense spending, domestic priorities, Medicare and Medicaid, 
Social Security, everything.
  The Green New Deal could end up costing $9.3 trillion each year--
double the current Federal budget--and the government would still have 
to pay for a lot of other priorities on top of that. That money 
wouldn't cover defense spending, or Social Security, or a number of 
other urgent needs.
  The Green New Deal would assuredly raise Americans' energy bills, but 
that is just a tiny fraction of what Democrats' Green New Deal, which 
goes far

[[Page S1500]]

beyond mere energy policy, would cost American families. It is 
difficult to even imagine the staggering tax hikes that would be 
required to pay for this plan.
  This plan would never be paid for just by taxing the well-off. That 
is always the argument we hear. Taxing every household making more than 
$200,000 a year at a 100-percent rate for 10 years would leave the 
Democrats far short of $93 trillion. Taxing every family making more 
than $100,000 a year at a 100-percent rate for 10 years would still 
leave Democrats far short of $93 trillion. In short, actually 
implementing this so-called Green New Deal would involve taking money 
not just from the well-off but from working families in this country--
and not a little bit of money either.
  Ninety-three trillion dollars breaks down to over $600,000 per 
household. That is over 10 times the median household income in my 
State of South Dakota.
  Should the Democratic Green New Deal come to pass, ordinary Americans 
would see incredible tax hikes. Middle-class Americans would see a 
substantial and permanent reduction in their standard of living.
  When we talk about Democrats' socialist fantasies, we tend to quickly 
fasten on the staggering costs of these programs, but it is important 
to also remember what else they would cost Americans.
  Socialism just doesn't come with a staggering pricetag; it also comes 
with less freedom, fewer choices, and less control of your own destiny.
  Socialized medicine like Medicare for All wouldn't mean just big tax 
hikes; it would mean giving up your private insurance plan, even if you 
like your coverage. It would mean being forced onto the government's 
healthcare plan, whether you like it or not. It would mean waiting in 
long lines. It would mean long wait times you can't do anything to 
avoid.
  The Green New Deal would mean higher electricity bills and higher 
taxes, but it would also mean limited transportation choices, including 
no airplane travel, increased government control over your housing 
options, less reliable energy, and the list goes on.
  Democrats' socialist fantasies would cost Americans untold amounts of 
money and permanently damage our economy, but the loss of choice and 
freedom would cost Americans even more. Democrats' green dream would be 
a green nightmare for Americans and American families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if you are a student of history, the 
speech you just heard is not a new speech. It is a speech that has been 
given repeatedly in the Senate Chamber. It was back in the 1930s, when 
a President named Franklin Delano Roosevelt had an idea, and the idea 
was radical at the time. Here was the radical idea: Shouldn't we allow 
people, during the course of their work-life, to put a little money 
away and to invest for their retirement so that when they reach the age 
of 65, they will have a program called Social Security?
  That was considered a radical socialist idea, taking money from 
everyone to create a positive program to help retirees across America 
when they reach retirement age. It takes away our freedom, they said. 
We ought to be able to make our own choices in life. They resisted it, 
but, fortunately, they failed and in their failure allowed the creation 
of the Social Security Program, which is the single most popular 
government program in America today. Over 95 percent of Americans count 
on Social Security to make sure that when they reach retirement, there 
is something there to take care of them, but that wasn't the end of the 
speech you just heard. It was repeated again in the 1960s because 
another Democratic President by the name of Lyndon Baines Johnson came 
up with a notion that, perhaps, if people are going to live a little 
longer and have Social Security, they should also be able to have 
affordable healthcare. So Lyndon Baines Johnson suggested the creation 
of Medicare.
  What did the critics say about Medicare? Socialism; that you would 
collect money from people all across America just to provide for the 
benefits to those who are retired; that you would take away our freedom 
to make our own savings plans for our future by saying we have to pay 
into Medicare. It is an attack on our freedom, they said. It is a 
socialist idea, they said. Thank goodness they lost in that debate as 
well.
  What happened, of course, was a creation of a Medicare Program, and 
we can see what came about as a result of it, a dramatic increase in 
the number of hospitals in America and doctors in America. We started 
taking healthcare seriously when it came to senior citizens. What is 
the proof in the pudding? Senior citizens started living longer and 
longer lives. They were healthier, they were independent, they were 
strong because of this so-called socialist program of Medicare.
  So if you listened this morning as Republican leaders came to the 
floor and decried socialism again, what is their point now? Their point 
now is, they believe that if we make a national effort toward dealing 
with climate change and global warming, it is socialism. It takes away 
our freedom.
  I would agree with them in this respect. If we do something as a 
nation, a sensible approach that is moderate, constructive, and 
positive, it is going to change the future. It is going to take away 
the opportunity that some of us will have to leave a planet for our 
children that is uninhabitable.
  Does anyone doubt--does anyone doubt--that we are dealing with some 
change in the climate that we face around this world? Does anyone doubt 
that the scientific evidence, year after year after year, about the 
increased temperature of this planet has had a negative impact on the 
world we live in--more extreme weather events than we have ever seen, 
tornadoes in Taylorville, IL, in December?
  Listen, I grew up in Illinois. I was awakened many times in the 
summer to get down in the basement because there was a tornado warning. 
My parents were worried about it. It was part of growing up in the 
Midwest, part of growing up in Illinois. I don't recall ever going down 
to the basement around Christmas. It turns out that tornado season in 
Illinois, and many other places, is now becoming a year-round event and 
flooding and fires and flooding in the city of Miami. All of these 
things are evidence to me that something is going on, and we have the 
scientific explanation. Greenhouse gas emissions are creating a 
different environment, warming our planet, changing our weather 
patterns.
  I have come to the floor repeatedly over the last several years and 
asked one basic question, can anyone name any major political party in 
the world today--any major political party in the world today--that, 
like the Republican Party of the United States, denies climate change?
  I make that open challenge over and over again on the floor and have 
never had a Republican come to me and say: No, there is another party 
somewhere that takes our position on the issue that climate change is a 
fallacy and a fiction. I will tell you, though--maybe I am not supposed 
to repeat this--but one Republican Senator, after I made that challenge 
over and over again, drew me aside in the elevator, looked in both 
directions, and said: I think there is a political party in Australia 
that also denies climate change. That is as good as it gets--one more 
party somewhere halfway around the world.

  When Senator Schumer, the Democratic leader, comes to the floor and 
challenges the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, with the basic 
questions, I believe we have the right to ask for an answer.
  To the Republicans, to my friend from South Dakota who just spoke, to 
Senator McConnell of Kentucky, the first question is this: Do you 
believe that there is such a thing as climate change and global 
warming? That is a pretty easy question. The scientists overwhelmingly 
believe it. I do too.
  The second question that Senator Schumer has posed to them is this: 
Do you believe that our human activity has something to do with it? 
Well, the scientific evidence is overwhelming again. Once we got into 
the industrial age and starting spewing all of the smoke and chemicals 
into the air, things started warming up on this planet Earth.
  The third question that Senator Schumer has posed to the Republicans 
is basically fundamental, as well: What

[[Page S1501]]

are you going to do about it? The answer is obvious. For the 4 years 
the Republicans have been in control in the Senate, they have done 
nothing--nothing. Now they have a President who has the United States 
as the only country in the world--the only Nation on Earth--that has 
withdrawn from the Paris accord, which tried to create a global 
strategy to deal with climate change.
  The President is enthralled by the notion that climate change is a 
fallacy, a fiction, and so are the Senate Republicans. So any effort to 
address this is socialism. Any idea that we should come together as a 
nation and work toward a planet that our kids can live on is taking 
away our freedom. Well, we know better.
  Under President Obama, we started moving toward more fuel-efficient 
cars and trucks. A gallon of gas is giving us more mileage because of 
government policy. Well, I guess it took away the freedom of gas 
guzzlers, but we can at least say we made a positive step forward, and 
this administration is stepping backward, and they are doing it for the 
fossil fuel industry--for oil and gas and coal interests. They are 
coming to the floor and trying to get us into a fight, once again, over 
socialism when we talk about government policies that would guide us in 
the right direction for the future.