Nebraska's Bomb Cyclone
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, Democrats have put forward proposals claiming that it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a so- called Green New Deal.
My colleagues have listed a variety of goals, like net-zero greenhouse gas emissions within a decade, good jobs for all, and a sustainable environment and infrastructure, but they haven't proposed any specific policy changes or a roadmap of how to reach these goals. The reason for that is clear. As the resolution's authors have said, these proposals would require a massive Federal Government takeover and reorganization of our country as a whole. We are learning that what it would take to accomplish these goals is unrealistic. We should call the Green New Deal exactly what it is--an attack on what should be the limited role of the Federal Government in our lives.
I want to address Nebraskans directly, and I want to analyze a few details that are part of this resolution's attack on rural America, which is an attack on Nebraska because our State's economy and the well-being of all Nebraska families is reliant on a strong agricultural economy.
One section of the resolution speaks to our Nation's agriculture sector. Properly managing our environment is important, and Nebraska's agricultural producers who feed and fuel our world know better than anyone about conservation and stewardship. This is a serious issue, and it deserves a serious and a sensible approach.
The early fact sheets that came out describing the Green New Deal offered mind-boggling proposals, like eliminating cows. This idea was so ridiculous that the Democrats balked and distanced themselves from this concept. In fact, while the Nebraska Democratic Party announced their support for the Green New Deal, Nebraska's Democratic Party chairman recently apologized to fellow Nebraskans for the anti- agriculture ideas that are included in it.
Tom Vilsack, a former Iowa Governor and former Secretary of Agriculture in the Obama administration, was spot-on with his comments about the greatness of American agriculture during a congressional hearing in 2016. He pointed this out:
Every one of us that's not a farmer, is not a farmer because we have farmers. We delegate the responsibility of feeding our families to a relatively small percentage of this country. Eighty-five percent of what's grown in this country, it's raised by 2- to 300,000 people. It is an incredible freedom that we take for granted . . . and rather than being criticized, we ought to be celebrating these people . . . and we don't do it enough.
I could not agree more. Nebraska farmers and ranchers feed a hungry world. Our soybeans, dairy, wheat, pork, eggs, and potatoes reach family dinner tables around the globe.
Nebraska is known as the Beef State. We are the No. 1 exporter of beef in the Nation. In 2017, Nebraska exported well over $1 billion in beef products. Our beef producers are known around the globe as the best at what they do.
Here are some facts.
Fact: According to a recent USDA report, beef production accounts for only 3.3 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
Fact: According to a Smithsonian article published in 2016, wetlands account for nearly 22 percent of global methane emissions. I would suggest to you that no one wants to eliminate wetlands.
Nebraska ag producers care for our land and our water, and our cattle producers already have elevated levels of water regulations. For example, our feedlots must maintain a livestock waste control facility permit from the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. Existing and new livestock operations must be inspected by the DEQ to determine if a waste control facility construction permit is required. Our producers also need a national pollutant discharge elimination system permit if their livestock facility has the potential to discharge into surface waters.
As I said, Nebraska is the Beef State, but we are also the Cornhuskers, and the two go hand-in-hand. Nebraska is a top producer of corn, and that corn is fed to livestock and establishes Nebraska as the No. 1 cattle on feed State in the Nation. Our producers do this while conserving our natural resources--our land and our water.
Consider this: The Omaha-based Lindsay Corporation recently developed a tool that connects to the center pivot irrigation system and remotely controls the water based on the irrigation prescription for each individual field. The company estimated that since the tool was launched, it has saved over 21 billion gallons of water, over 34 million kilowatt hours of energy, and over 57 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions globally.
Nebraska also has a unique system of 23 natural resources districts. The districts are managed by locally elected boards. The boards have tax levy authority to support conservation efforts tailored to each of the district's unique needs. Through this process, we regulate our groundwater more than any other State, and it is an effective use because our local communities are the ones in control. No other State in the country has this advanced form of ground and surface water management. Because of the adoption of more efficient irrigation systems by our corn and soybean producers, water applied in three natural resources districts in Nebraska has decreased significantly, conserving our water.
Nebraska's producers also take good care of our soil. Our natural resources districts can require landowners to manage soil erosion on their land and connect them with cost-sharing programs to help implement effective soil management practices. The use of planned grazing on our ranches--my family's ranch included--improves the amount and the diversity of grass available to cattle, and cattle improve the overall health of that rangeland.
The Natural Resources and Conservation Service estimated that soil erosion and planned or, as some call it, rotational grazing practices have saved over $80 million in annual damages from flooding or erosion. Additionally, with the adoption of no-till farming practices in row crop production, combined with cover crops like millet and rye, we have vastly improved the health of our soil.
The bottom line is this: Ag producers are conservationists who utilize proven practices to manage our land and water resources.
As more facts have come out, we have learned that the cost alone of the Green New Deal is astounding. One estimate by the American Action Forum found that if the deal were fully enacted, it would cost anywhere from $51 trillion to $93 trillion over the next 10 years--$93 trillion. That is a staggering expense that our families, our businesses, and our economy simply cannot afford.
One of the main goals of the Green New Deal is a mandate to move our country to 100 percent renewable energy and achieve carbon neutrality within the next decade. The American Action Forum's estimate warns that households would shoulder this weight with up to a nearly $4,000 increase in their yearly electric bills, and if our country relied on foreign energy, those rates would skyrocket even higher.
Higher electricity bills are a concern for me, and they are a concern for Nebraska families, but my colleagues across the aisle don't seem fazed. Recall that in 2009, former President Obama said he was willing to have the average household pay nearly $1,600 per year to reduce carbon emissions by 15 percent. Hard-working families said then that they could not afford that. So how can people now afford up to spending $4,000 a year?
Attempting to move to all renewable energy would also mean shutting down every nuclear, coal, and natural gas plant. According to some estimates, this would cost Nebraskans and the American people $7 trillion by 2030. If we eliminated the use of natural resources like gas, oil, and coal production, the United States would rely on other countries to supply our energy.
The United States leads all G20 countries with the best record of carbon dioxide emissions reduction in recent years. From 2005 to 2017, the United States reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 862 million tons--a 14-percent cut. Comparatively, in the same timeframe, India increased its carbon emissions by 1.3 billion tons, and China raised its emissions by 4 billion tons--a 70-percent increase. Though China is moving toward plants with higher efficiency, China already accounts for nearly half of the global coal consumption.
The Green New Deal misses a crucial point: The United States is already making voluntary changes to lead the world in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. A line from the 16-page resolution reads that the Green New Deal would include ``overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.''
A background document released by the Green New Deal's author called for a plan to build out high-speed rail and replace every combustion engine vehicle at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary. As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee's Transportation and Safety Subcommittee, I welcome all commonsense, bipartisan proposals to improve our infrastructure so that we can provide the safe and efficient movement of our people and our goods.
Yet the Green New Deal is a far cry from a commonsense proposal. The call to replace every combustion engine wouldn't just hurt our Nation's infrastructure; it would mean scrapping our personal cars and the commercial trucking industry. It would mean eradicating planes and air travel altogether. Don't forget that we are a Nation of vastness. Light rail is not feasible. It is not feasible in many parts of our country, and people in sparsely populated areas have a right to receive services, participate in commerce, and have transportation options that meet their unique needs.
In closing, as the activists continue to push their wish lists, I am going to continue to focus on addressing those regulations that make life difficult for families and businesses in Nebraska. Excessive regulations cause our ag producers to focus on mountains of paperwork instead of on ways to innovate and implement new practices so they can continue being good stewards of our land. The key to finding realistic solutions in addressing carbon dioxide emissions lies in the hands of America's innovators, not in the heavy hand of the Federal Government through an economic takeover.
In moving forward, I am going to work on updating the aging infrastructure that our citizens rely on in their everyday lives. I am going to fight for policies that will help to promote economic growth and help families across this country provide for their loved ones, and I will continue to highlight the good work our farmers and ranchers are doing to protect our air, water, land, and wildlife.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source