Climate Security Act of 2008 - Motion to Proceed - Continued
Floor Speech
CLIMATE SECURITY ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued -- (Senate - June 03, 2008)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, in dealing with climate change, there are certain principles I always apply in assessing the approach to this issue. One is that our Nation will continue to need and depend on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels must be a part of any effort to achieve a cleaner energy future. There is no way we can get there without them. No. 2 is a strong American economy, one that creates jobs, that creates new technologies. That is critical to developing the tools we need to capture and sequester carbon. China and India will not address carbon emissions until such technologies are developed. And No. 3, we cannot afford to hurt the very regions, the very industries, and the very workers who will provide that technology through hard work and innovation.
In terms of economic impact, I have serious concerns with the Lieberman-Warner approach as currently written. According to a recent study done by the National Association of Manufacturers, the negative economic impact to the Rocky Mountain West and to my home State of Wyoming is very real and significant. The impact is perhaps the greatest in terms of high gasoline prices for folks all across the Rocky Mountain West. Gasoline prices for western families will increase significantly under this bill.
Every day, folks in the Rocky Mountain region are going to have to drive long distances. They do it to get to work. They do it to shop for food. They do it to go to school. The distances, in many places, are much greater than they are in other parts of the country. My home State of Wyoming ranks at the top of the list of all the States in terms of vehicle miles traveled on a per capita basis. I drive these roads every weekend visiting folks in Gillette, Riverton, Cheyenne, and Casper. They are hours apart. Westerners are rightfully upset about how much they are paying at the pump. I am sure my colleagues' constituents are too. Letters come in every day from all across Wyoming asking when Washington is going to help them. Yet we hear in testimony from the Energy Information Agency that gas prices under this bill could go up anywhere from 40 cents to $1 a gallon. Others are predicting it could go up even higher than that. Whichever estimate you choose, whichever one you choose to look at, gas prices are going to go up under this bill.
Why will it be even worse in the Rocky Mountain States? Partly because the West and Rocky Mountain West rely on small refiners for their fuel. It is not uncommon in the Rocky Mountain West to have the local gasoline station in these small towns be just across the road from the small refiner. Towns depend on these refiners for their fuel. They provide the fuel for the families of the West. Without the small refiners, Wyoming and the Rocky Mountain West would have to ship our gasoline in from out of State.
The small refiners do not fair very well under this bill. They have to compete with the large refineries for a small portion of the allowances. Without additional help, they will go under and an entire region of the country will pay even more significant increases in the price of their fuel.
Some may try to lump small refiners in with the big oil companies that actually produce the oil. The small refiners have to buy their oil from that oil producer. These small refiners are paying $125 to $130 a barrel for oil, and it is having a devastating impact on them. Some have suggested that they simply pass along the cost to the consumer. Tell that to the folks in the West who are already being punished at the pump.
This part of it is not a partisan issue at all. I plan to offer an amendment I am working on with Members of both sides of the aisle----
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BARRASSO. I will yield, if I may, at the end of the presentation.
I want to work with others to offer this amendment because this affects everyone in the Rocky Mountain West.
Gas prices have reached the point where people are simply driving less. Family vacations and school field trips are being canceled. People are working 4 days a week but longer hours each day. Why? Because of the high cost of fuel.
Some may say: Great, we want people to drive less. Some may say: Hey, have your constituents take alternative transportation, public transportation, such as the subway or bus. As many of you know, we in the West have spectacular, majestic rural areas that many of you enjoy on your vacations. We ask you to come and visit our national parks, our many State forests and monuments. But these majestic natural places come with a cost: there is no subway.
High gasoline prices are just one of the many major negative economic impacts to the West under this bill. Job loss is another major factor. The National Manufacturers Association study projects that Wyoming would lose between 2,000 and 3,000 jobs by 2020 and double that by 2030. Montana would lose between 4,000 and 6,000 jobs in 2020, double that by 2030. Utah would lose 10,000 to 15,000 jobs in 2020, double that by 2030. The numbers in the West go on and on. What kinds of jobs will be lost? Jobs in the energy sector, jobs that pay well, jobs with pensions, jobs with health insurance--the kinds of jobs we should be protecting in this country.
Westerners are being told by the supporters of this bill: Don't worry, green-collar jobs will replace the jobs lost in the West. Where is that written? What guarantee can you point to in this bill that a family in Gillette or Laramie or Riverton or Cheyenne is going to get a green-collar job? And what is a green-collar job? Will they get the job the minute they lose the one they have now? How long will they have to wait?
Will they have to uproot their family and move to find work? Where is it written in this bill that the pay and the benefits of the so-called green-collar job will be equal to the job the bill takes away? The reality is it is not written anywhere.
In terms of energy costs, the situation is not very good for the Rocky Mountain States. Wyoming is among the top five States in what are called heating degree days. That is a measure of what it takes to heat a home all throughout the year. If you have been through a Wyoming winter, you would understand why. The most vulnerable people in my State, the seniors, people on fixed incomes, cannot afford to have their energy bills increased.
Why are we asking people all across the country to pay more of their hard-earned dollars on high gas prices and energy prices in this bill? I frankly cannot answer that, except to say, That is Washington for you.
But it gets worse for Wyoming. According to a National Association of Manufacturers' study, Wyoming coal would face a severe decline. That too would result in lost jobs, broken family budgets, and displacement. As I have said, fossil fuels, including coal, are vital to our energy security. We need to make them cleaner because they will remain a vital part of America's energy mix. Clean coal technology is still a work in progress. It will take time to perfect. The men and the women of Wyoming who are the backbone of the coal industry are essential to providing clean coal technology to America.
America simply cannot tolerate the lost jobs and the high energy prices that will come from dramatic decreases in coal production under Lieberman-Warner. As I stated in the beginning, we need to have a strong economy. We need an economy that creates jobs and fosters innovation. That is how to provide the clean energy technologies we need.
It is not only the Rocky Mountain West that is going to be hard hit by this legislation. The Energy Information Agency testified before the Memorial Day recess in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the larger price impacts occur from Lieberman-Warner in those regions of the country that are most reliant on coal. So that is also the South. It is also the Midwest. That is rural America.
The median income in Wyoming is $46,000 a year. Wyoming family budgets are predicted to lose between $1,000 and $3,000 a year in income over the next 13 years and double that by 2030 under this bill. Many families in Wyoming would have to dedicate $1 out of $5 from their family budget for energy costs under this bill. This is what rural America can expect under this bill. Sadly, it appears the impacts of the bill hit lower income families the hardest. It doesn't have to be this way. I truly believe we can address climate change. There are better ways and more economically friendly approaches, and those ways that can make a real difference.
Earlier this year, I introduced legislation to address climate change. I believe overlooked in the debate are greenhouse gases that are currently in the atmosphere--the gases that are currently contributing to the warming of the planet. The best science tells us it is a factor. To what extent, we are not sure. It would seem to me a worthy approach to find a way to remove existing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and permanently sequester them. This is the other end of the problem. Now, to accomplish this, we are going to need to invest the money to develop the technology. The approach my legislation takes is to address this through a series of financial prizes, where we set technological goals and outcomes. The first to meet each criteria would receive Federal funds and international acclaim. The prizes would be determined by a Federal commission under the Department of Energy. The commission would be comprised of climate scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, business managers, and economists. They would be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The awards would go to those, both public and private, who achieve milestones in developing and applying technology, technology that could significantly help to slow or to reverse the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The greenhouse gases would have to be permanently sequestered, and sequestered in a manner that would be without significant harmful effects.
I believe this approach is only one example of how we can tackle the problem of climate change in an economically acceptable way without sacrificing real progress. I hope as we begin this debate on this issue, more Members of this body embrace approaches that address climate change while protecting jobs, family budgets, and the industries we count on today.
I have repeatedly asked questions during the hearings in both the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on this bill about what the impact will be on my home State. To date, I have not been able to get a straight answer. I am relying on the State-specific numbers that we have available. If you don't like the National Association of Manufacturers' numbers, then try the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is predicting major job losses in the Rocky Mountain West. The study says Wyoming will lose 1,100 jobs by 2025, and Utah will lose over 5,000 by that same year, with Montana losing 1,800. Most of those will be manufacturing jobs. And those are the numbers that predict job losses even if everything in the bill goes according to plan, including full implementation of clean coal technology.
It is important to note that gas prices nationally will go up 25 percent under Lieberman-Warner, according to the Heritage Foundation. Another source, the Energy Information Agency, testified at the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and said gas prices would go up 40 cents to $1.
As Americans, we have always looked within ourselves for solutions. We have always had confidence in American ingenuity and American creativity to deal with the challenges of the future. Yes, we want to protect our environment; and, yes, we want a strong economy. It just so happens that the one does rely on the other.
It has been said that the environmental movement in the United States was born out of America's prosperity. Americans who had benefited from post-World War II prosperity began to become more concerned with clean air, with clean water, and with land management. Since then, a prosperous America has also been an environmentally conscious America. Nothing could be more true in terms of addressing climate change. Let's keep our economy strong, let's use our untapped human potential and American spirit to develop the technological solutions we need.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, does the Senator still have time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. KERRY. I understand we have 5 minutes; is that correct?
Mrs. BOXER. Why don't you take 2 minutes.
Mr. KERRY. I ask the Senator, first, is he aware that the National Association of Manufacturers' report allows for zero technological advances; that it has no technological advances taken into account whatsoever? Does the Senator believe, in fact, the United States is not going to make any technological advances in the days ahead?
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, every study--every study--points to lost jobs and higher energy prices, higher gasoline prices, whether it is the Heritage Association or the National Association of Manufacturers. I have looked at study after study after study. I have read the books and visited with experts around the country and around the world, and everything I am seeing and reading takes me in that direction, and that is that gas prices will be going up and jobs will be lost.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, again, it is not true that every study says that. In fact, the EPA study itself comes out with about a .04 change in GDP at a time when the GDP is going up 97 percent according to our own administration. So it is simply not accurate to say that every report says that.
Secondly, I wish to know on what scientific study the Senator bases the notion that we are going to get the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in time to be able to deal with the predictions of what is happening, which require us to move immediately to deal with emissions. Could the Senator tell us what scientific report says we can get it out in time to meet this challenge? And does the IPCC, the 2,000 scientists who have been working on this for years now, suggest that is an alternative?
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, that is why I introduced the GEAR Act earlier this year and gave a speech from this Chamber at this desk talking about giving the same kind of prizes that allowed people 500 years ago to understand longitude so ships could sail the seas; the same kind of prizes Charles Lindbergh was searching for when he flew across the ocean. It is those kinds of prizes and incentives that say, Let's get our best minds working on this. I don't know what the timetable is. I have talked to the scientists, and I say, Let's put in incentives, and that is why I brought that bill.
Mr. KERRY. The answer is, there is no study. The answer is, there is no serious scientist who is suggesting we can meet the needs of global climate change and conduct some long-term analysis of whether we can get it back out of the atmosphere. It doesn't exist. It is nonexistent.
Secondly, the analysis used by the National Association of Manufacturers has a skewed oil price which completely cooks these numbers; and it is a report which has no allowance whatsoever for any technological advancement. That is not representative of the United States of America when we talk about the technologies I talked about. Moreover, they are the same people who came in in 1990 with those crazy predictions of what it was going to cost us to do the other.
I think the people who relied on people who were wrong years ago have a bigger burden of proof to come to the floor now and show us they have a study that actually makes sense.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source