Climate Change

Floor Speech

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to speak today because I have tremendous concerns about the potential effects of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, concerns about the destruction of jobs and concerns about the cost to our economy.

The Waxman-Markey bill may create some green jobs. If it does, great. We need green jobs in my State. We need green jobs all across the country. In
Wyoming, we are developing our wind resources, so we need the green jobs, and Wyoming has world class winds. But to me, this bill also costs jobs. And Americans want all jobs, not just some jobs. People don't want to lose the jobs they have with a promise that they may get a green job in exchange someday down the line. Americans want all the jobs. They want to keep the ones they have, and they want to create more jobs, more opportunities. To me, the Waxman-Markey bill fails to do that.

The administration says that the Waxman-Markey bill will create millions--millions--of new jobs. This administration also promised that after Congress passed the so-called ``economic stimulus package'' they would create or save 3 1/2 million jobs. Since the bill's passage and being signed into law, unemployment has reached 9.5 percent in this Nation. Last month, almost half a million people lost their jobs.

The administration's economic experts said that unemployment would not exceed 8 percent if the stimulus package passed. It passed, and was signed into law, but they were wrong. And not just by a little.

In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Vice President Biden acknowledged that administration officials were too optimistic when they predicted that unemployment rates would peak at 8 percent. The Vice President said that ``the administration and I misread the economy.''

Well, is it possible, then, that the administration is misreading the economic predictions of millions of new jobs being created in this bill? The administration failed to make the grade on the $787 billion stimulus package, and I believe the administration is failing again by supporting this misguided climate change bill.

It is a fact that the climate change legislation will cost jobs in the American economy. That is why there is language in the bill to retrain workers who lose their jobs. Why will this legislation cost jobs? The Waxman-Markey climate change bill is designed to make fossil fuel more expensive. Advocates say we must make fossil fuel more expensive to change the behavior of businesses and of consumers. That means making everything that is powered by fossil fuel more expensive. Fossil fuel powers your car, your home, your office; it powers the airplanes we fly in, the trains we ride in, trucks; things that we use for our own transportation but also things where we ship goods from farms and small businesses to the marketplace all across this country and even abroad.

All these things will be made more expensive because of the climate change bill that passed the House. When you increase the cost of bringing goods and services to the marketplace, especially in a recession, it becomes a recipe for economic disaster. It leads to lost jobs and lost economic opportunities. We can't afford in this country to lose more jobs.

By deciding to pass Waxman-Markey, the majority will increase the cost of doing business. The legislation will increase the cost for every small business. The legislation will force them to pay more for everything that uses energy. Those costs will put businesses in debt or even out of business. Jobs will be lost and unemployment will continue to climb.

The administration talks about creating green jobs. Well, we certainly want those jobs, but we also want the red-white-and-blue jobs that have powered America for centuries. There was a Washington Post article on July 21 entitled ``U.S. Green Jobs Seen Taking Years of Planning.'' Let me emphasize the word ``years.'' The article mentions upfront that:

Alternative energy jobs can provide vocations across many sectors of the economy, but policy to spark them can take years to develop.

Not now, not 6 months from now, not a year from now, but years into the future. Promises of immediate green jobs being created across the country because of this Waxman-Markey bill are another misreading by this administration. The economic stimulus package was simply the first thing the President misread. Those jobs never materialized. The green jobs promised in Waxman-Markey may also take years to develop. However, the job losses that the bill creates will occur immediately.

In an Investors Business Daily editorial on July 17 entitled ``Following California Off a Green Cliff,'' the editor states that:

America remains the richest country on Earth, but it might profit from adopting a bit of the attitude displayed by much poorer but up-and-coming economic rivals such as China and India. Those nations don't take prosperity for granted. That is why they aren't such good sports on global warming. They prefer to get rich and then go green.

The author goes on to say:

The U.S. isn't so poor that it can't afford strong environmental policies. But it can't afford to take its prosperity for granted either.

Let me repeat a couple of lines from those quotes: First, that America remains the richest country on Earth. And that last line: But it can't afford--that is we, the United States--to take our prosperity for granted. We here in Congress--the Members of this Congress--cannot afford to take the prosperity of this Nation for granted. If we pass Waxman-Markey, or a bill similar to it, that prosperity will erode further. We should create jobs, and we should create more wealth in this country. We need to keep business costs low so businesses can expand and create wealth for our Nation. We can do that by making America's energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising energy prices for the businesses and the families of America.

Our end goal must be to do everything we can to keep the jobs we have now and also to find ways to add new green jobs. Americans want all of these jobs and more. We need them all.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Source