Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.
[Pages H2799-H2800]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CALLING FOR DEBATE ON THE GREEN NEW DEAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call for debate in
this Chamber on H. Res. 109, referred to as the Green New Deal.
This resolution lays out an agenda that is, frankly, anti-American
and goes against everything our Constitution is all about.
The resolution states: ``It is the duty of the Federal Government to
create a Green New Deal.''
The main components of this deal include: net-zero greenhouse gas
emissions; creating millions of good, high-wage jobs; and upgrading all
existing buildings and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy
efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and
durability. All of this is to be accomplished in 10 years' time.
Among the things the Federal Government has meddled in beyond the
scope of its limited powers, completely overhauling every building and
method of transportation in the country would be, by far, its most
egregious transgression to date.
However, the Green New Deal certainly will require Congress'
constitutional authority to levy taxes and borrow money to pay for it.
This so-called ``deal'' would come at the cost of trillions to the
middle class
[[Page H2800]]
and spend taxpayers' hard-earned money, as if they don't know best how
to use their money and need the government to do it for them.
The Green New Deal reflects zero understanding of moral hazard and
the government's capacity for waste, suggesting the government assume
the risks in the unchartered research and development this socialist
experiment would require. The way the resolution's supporters see it,
money will simply be put back into the economy and create millions of
new jobs. They think nothing of the fact that these actions actually
take power away from ``We the people.''
Now, in light of the Senate taking up this resolution for a vote this
week, I would like to offer some thoughts as to why it needs deeper
thought and debate in the House.
America is currently on a sustainable plan with its all-of-the-above
energy strategy, including renewable, oil, gas, coal, and nuclear
sources.
Renewables presently make up 17 percent of U.S. electric power
generation, and despite enormous subsidies, are far from capable of
serving as exclusive energy sources that are reliant and affordable.
Yet, since 2005, use of cheap natural gas has reduced carbon emissions
from power generation by 30 percent.
Our current approach encourages development of renewable sources and
accounts for both environment and monetary costs.
This resolution instead throws money exclusively at renewables and
entirely eliminates the oil, gas, and coal industries.
Secondly, if the goal is to build the middle class and create jobs,
why go in completely the opposite direction of what has worked to
create over 5 million jobs in the past 2 years?
Reducing the Federal footprint with regulatory reform and middle-
class tax cuts have caused wages to rise, job growth to soar, and
consistently low rates of unemployment. Allowing small businesses to
keep more of their money has worked to create jobs and increase wages.
We certainly don't need to raise taxes and spend more money to create
this effect.
Finally, this massive government intervention will push businesses
overseas and disrupt the lives of workers, farmers, and students making
the most of America's abounding opportunities.
Americans cherish freedom, which includes the ability for individuals
to determine their own paths without the Government deciding how they
will contribute to society.
The Socialist ideology behind this resolution is at odds with the
American values that have caused our society to flourish and innovate
since its founding.
I encourage the 90 House Democrats who have cosponsored H. Res. 109
and Speaker Pelosi to engage in serious and open debate on this
legislation, or at least publish a new fact sheet they can stand behind
so accurate representations of opposing viewpoints can be heard by the
American people.
____________________