The Green New Deal
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
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.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
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
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
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
I know this is going to have a huge impact on many industries, but particularly agriculture.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source