Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2019--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I appreciate the majority leader's bringing the Green New Deal to a vote today so that every Senator had an opportunity to go on record. I voted no.

Some of my Democratic colleagues may argue that a vote against the Green New Deal demonstrates an unwillingness to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to tackle serious environmental issues of the day, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Contrary to popular belief, the United States is not a bad actor on the world stage. The United States has reduced its carbon emissions by 758 million metric tons per year since 2005. This is the largest decline of any country in the world.

Meanwhile, China's and India's carbon emissions have grown. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. consumption of biofuels and other renewable energy has more than doubled from 2000 to 2017. The United States will only continue to increase renewable energy consumption through 2050 as we see more investment in wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and other alternative energies.

Let's be very clear. A ``no'' vote on the Green New Deal is a vote against a government takeover of our economy that would stifle economic growth, bankrupt our Nation, and endanger the prosperity of all Americans. A ``no'' vote is a vote in favor of continuing an open and free economy that has made America the richest country in the world. We find that the best way to make environmental improvements is to use the wealth of a nation to accomplish that goal, and as a nation becomes more wealthy, the more apt it is to have the ability to protect the environment.

The fact is that the Green New Deal is wholly unrealistic in its goal of obtaining net-zero carbon emissions within 10 years. We are not going to be successful at reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and lowering our carbon emissions through virtue signaling. That is all the Green New Deal boils down to--virtue signaling. It is all lofty goals and aspirations with no concrete plan or concern as to its feasibility.

It is easy to support a vaguely worded, nonbinding resolution calling on the Federal Government to accomplish certain goals, but guess what. That is us--we, in the Congress. Congress is part of the Federal Government with the responsibility under our Constitution to write the laws. If Members of Congress have concrete ideas about what the Federal Government should be doing, they should introduce real legislation detailing who should do what to accomplish these goals.

Instead of a ``green dream,'' as Speaker Pelosi called the Green New Deal, we need to focus on commonsense, bipartisan approaches that have an actual shot at making a difference. In other words, a resolution is a resolution; it is not a law. It doesn't accomplish anything. It states these goals that we ought to seek, but nobody has come forth with a concrete plan to accomplish those goals.

Cutting taxes is an effective way to encourage positive, environmentally conscious ways to produce electricity and fuel. This is what I have sought to do as a leader on renewable and alternative energy production for decades now. I was the original author of the production tax credit for wind energy in 1992. It won me an award as the father of wind energy, and now, I suppose, 25 years later, I am the grandfather of the wind energy approach.

During my leadership on the Senate Finance Committee during the early 2000s, I oversaw the establishment, enhancement, and renewal of numerous tax incentives that promote clean energy from sources such as wind and solar to renewable fuels like biodiesel, to energy efficient buildings, homes, and appliances.

Unlike the aspirational goals of the Green New Deal, these proposals I have been a part of are real, proven, bipartisan actions that I helped shepherd into law to make the United States more energy independent and, at the same time, improve our environment.

Renewable energy is a very smart investment and the fastest growing source of electricity generation in our country. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, utility-scale solar power is expected to increase by 10 percent in 2019--that is in 1 year alone-- while wind power is expected to surpass hydropower for the first time. As prices continue to fall, the economic benefits from these clean energy investments will obviously increase.

Already, Iowa leads the Nation for its share of renewable energy. Iowa's wind generates nearly 37 percent of the State's electricity from wind, and the State's largest utility in America is set to generate 100 percent of its electricity within just a few years. Iowa ranks first in the Nation in the production of ethanol and biodiesel. Iowa alone accounted for over 26 percent of the entire U.S. ethanol production and over 17 percent of the U.S. biodiesel production.

The solar industry in Iowa continues to mature and ranks 17th nationally. The bottom line is that renewable energy helps diversify Iowa's economy. It creates jobs in rural America and strengthens U.S. energy independence. As far as the jobs are concerned, I believe there are about 7,000 just for wind energy and 43,000 for biofuels.

Instead of trying to build on these and other proven policies, the authors of the Green New Deal are more concerned with trying to correct all the ills they see in the U.S. economic system and even our broader society.

So it is not just about environment. Here is a list of the grievances they want to attack in the name of an environmentally sustainable economy: life expectancy, wage stagnation, economic mobility, income inequality, systemic injustices, the oppression of indigenous people, the unhoused, and the list goes on and on and on. Just in case I might be taken as a person who doesn't care about all of those things I just listed--in other words, don't get me wrong; these are important issues that deserve our attention as a nation, but it is simply not realistic to believe that they can all be solved through a plan that targets environmental sustainability.

Of course, since no crisis should be allowed to go to waste, every aspect of the progressive agenda must be implemented to fend off the threat of climate change. According to an analysis by the American Action Forum, a portion of the so-called Green New Deal plan focuses on eliminating carbon emissions. That program, by itself, would cost between $8.3 and $12.3 trillion. Of course, that is assuming it is followed up with actual legislation that attempts to implement the goals it lays out, and I have pointed out that all of that legislation is not being brought forward.

Those figures account for only a fraction of the Green New Deal's cost. The portion of the progressive economic agenda that includes enacting universal healthcare, free college tuition, a Federal jobs guarantee program, and much more is estimated to cost somewhere between $43 and $81 trillion. So that would put the total cost of the Green New Deal at somewhere between $51 and $93 trillion over the first 10 years.

Now, $93 trillion--that is kind of hard to imagine. Can you imagine that? That is more money than the U.S. Government has spent in its entire 230-year history. How would we even go about paying for it?

Several Democrats have floated ideas or introduced bills that have gone along the lines of taxing the wealthy. That, I assume, may make up some of their possibilities. Earlier this year, the House author of the Green New Deal suggested imposing tax rates of 70 percent or more on earnings over $10 million. Here in the Senate, Senator Warren has proposed an annual wealth tax of 2 percent on assets of $50 million and 3 percent on assets of over $1 billion. Not to be outdone, Senator Sanders has introduced legislation to supercharge the death tax with rates as high as 77 percent of estates exceeding $1 billion. More recently, Representative DeFazio reintroduced his proposal to tax securities transactions.

Think about this. Even if we assume that these proposals would not have detrimental economic or behavioral effects--and we all know they would--these taxes would not come anywhere close to covering the price tag of the Green New Deal. The Washington Post reported that a 70- percent tax rate on incomes over $10 million could theoretically raise $720 billion over 10 years. Senator Warren's own estimates suggest her annual wealth tax proposal could raise as much as $2.75 trillion in a decade. According to Senator Sanders, his death tax proposal would raise $315 billion over a decade. Congressman DeFazio's transaction tax is estimated to bring in $777 billion. So adding up all that, even under the rosiest assumptions, these Senators' proposals combined would only cover between 5 and 10 percent of the Green New Deal's cost.

The fact is, there are not enough millionaires and billionaires in the United States to cover the price tag, so eventually they start taxing the middle class. These socialist ideas remind me of former United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's wise observation that ``the trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.''

Many of the Green New Deal backers appear to realize this and have even suggested that offsetting its cost is unnecessary. According to these authors of the Green New Deal, it can be paid for simply by printing more money. Yes, you heard me right--printing more money. Their solution is the same as what has been tried by every bankrupt third world country around the world--just crank up the printing presses.

The poster child for this fantasy in the world today, at least, is Venezuela, a country rich with great economic vitality in the 1970s-- probably even earlier than the 1970s--but that economy has been driven into the ground by socialist policies, financed in large measure by churning out currency, leading to multimillion percent inflation rates.

Now that Senators have had an opportunity to go on record in support or opposition to the resolution, I hope the nonsense that is the Green New Deal will be put to rest. Hopefully, we can all now rally around sensible, proven policy to secure our energy independence and to improve the environment. From my point of view, that is the United States continuing on the success we have already had but standing as an example for China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, and other countries.

Affordable, clean energy is key to moving the United States forward. A good starting point would be to enact tax extenders legislation that I introduced last month with Ranking Member Wyden. This legislation would extend nearly a dozen separate practical and proven incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency. Investing in alternative forms of clean energy is good for the environment, good for national security and energy independence, and good for job creation, particularly in rural America. It is good for economic development and surely good for the taxpayers, and it is obviously good for attacking climate change.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source