March 6, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 40 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session
All in Senate sectionPrev14 of 61Next
The Green New Deal (Executive Session); Congressional Record Vol. 165, No. 40
(Senate - March 06, 2019)
Text available as:
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 S1673-S1674] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] The Green New Deal Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the more you look at the Green New Deal, the worse it looks. Last week, one think tank released a first estimate of what the Green New Deal would cost. Here is the answer: between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years. Between $51 trillion and $93 trillion. That is an unfathomable amount of money. The 2017 gross domestic product for the entire world, for the whole planet, came to $80.7 trillion--more than $10 trillion less than what Democrats are proposing to spend on the Green New Deal. Mr. President, $93 trillion is more than the amount of money the U.S. Government has spent in its entire history. Since 1789, when the Constitution went into effect, the Federal Government has spent a total of $83.2 trillion. That is right--it has taken us 230 years of American history to spend the amount of money the Democrats want to spend in 10 years. Look at it this way: $93 trillion is enough money to buy more than 7,000 Ford-class aircraft carriers. To put that in perspective, guess how many aircraft carriers the Navy currently has in its entire fleet. Eleven. It is like the Democrats are playing pretend. It is like they are on a road trip, and they are trying to pass the time, and they say, ``What would you do if you won the lottery?'' or ``What would you do if you had all the money in the world?'' It is a fun game to play for a few minutes, but this is not a game. The government doesn't have all the money in the world. That $93 trillion is going to have to come from somewhere. Democrats like to suggest that we can pay for it and pay for just about anything simply by taxing the wealthy, but the truth is, taxing the wealthy or even the merely well-off isn't going to pay for this proposal. Taxing all the millionaires in the United States at a 100- percent tax rate for 10 years wouldn't add up anywhere close to $93 trillion. Taxing every household making more than $200,000 a year at a 100-percent tax rate for 10 years wouldn't get Democrats anywhere close to $93 trillion. Let's take it a step further. Taxing every family making more than $100,000 a year at a [[Page S1674]] 100-percent tax rate for 10 years would still leave Democrats far short of $93 trillion. The Green New Deal is not a plan that can be paid for merely by taxing the rich. Actually implementing the Green New Deal would involve taking money not just from the well-off but from working families--and not a little bit of money either. Ninety-three trillion dollars breaks down to over $650,000 per household over 10 years. That is more than $65,000 per household, per year--more that the median household income in the United States. In other words, the cost per household for just 1 year of the Green New Deal is more than the yearly income of 50 percent of American households. Let's leave aside the stratospheric cost for just a minute and talk about the other consequences of the Green New Deal. Democrats' Green New Deal would put the government in charge of a large portion of the economy and significantly shrink Americans' freedom. Under this bill, the government will impose new and stringent regulations on your appliances, your car, your house, and your place of business. It will limit your electricity options. It will put the government in charge of your healthcare. I know that is not really energy-related, but the Green New Deal's authors went beyond energy to include a full socialist wish list. Your options for travel may be limited. A fact sheet released--and later deleted--by one of the authors of the Green New Deal called for a plan to ``build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.'' Well, that might work between DC and Boston, but it is not going to work so well if you have family in Hawaii. I don't think the high-speed rail is going to reach that far. I would say that you could make the trip by passenger ship, but, of course, we don't know whether ships as we know them would exist under the Green New Deal. After all, the plan's authors want to eliminate fossil fuels, which power ships, as well as your car and your home. Incidentally, while we are on the subject, it is worth mentioning that the Governor of California recently scaled back California's high- speed rail project. Why? Because it was costing too much money. Under the Green New Deal, if you like your car, you probably won't be able to keep it. If you like your healthcare, you probably won't be able to keep it. If you like your house, you may not be able to keep that either. That same fact sheet from one of the Green New Deal's authors says that we need to ``upgrade or replace every building in [the] U.S.'' There is no question that we need to protect our environment. There is no question that we should be developing clean energy sources and building on our existing clean energy technologies. I would tell the Chair that my home State of South Dakota is leading the way on this issue. In fact, my colleagues may be surprised to know that according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, South Dakota generates an average of two-fifths to half of its electricity from hydroelectric facilities along the Missouri River. Combined with our abundant wind generation, which provides roughly 30 percent of our electricity, South Dakota's net utility-scale energy generation is over 75 percent renewables. I am proud of South Dakota's renewable energy achievements, and I think we should be encouraging improved domestic energy production, increasing America's renewable energy supply, and reducing consumption through improved deficiencies. What we should not be doing is adopting a wildly irresponsible, completely unworkable, and utterly unrealistic proposal that would drive taxes through the roof, reduce Americans' standard of living, and permanently damage our economy. We are going to be voting on the Democrat's Green New Deal proposal in the coming weeks, and it will be interesting to see where all of my colleagues stand on this socialist fantasy. You just heard the Democratic leader, the Senator from New York, say that it is a gimmick and we shouldn't be voting on this. It is the first time I think I have ever heard a leader of one of the parties here in the Senate come forward and say that we shouldn't vote on something that 11 of his Democratic colleagues have cosponsored. He doesn't want to vote on a piece of legislation that is put forward by 11 Democrats here in the Senate. Well, I think it is important for the American people to know. I think it is important for Members of the Senate to go on record on whether they think this is a good idea or whether they think, as I think most Americans would believe, this is a crazy idea that would wreck the economy, cost Americans' jobs, and punish working families in this country with higher costs for literally everything they face in their daily lives. For the sake of our economy and for working families, I hope that when this vote comes, at least some Democrats will slow their party's headlong rush to become the Socialist Party and not what we have historically known as the Democratic Party in this country. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The Senator from Ohio.
All in Senate sectionPrev14 of 61Next