to move around? first down terrorist take this. it was the biggest ice cream plant in the world. edy's ice cream plant until they built one additional, when you go in an ice cream plant how do you think it's made? you got to deliver it there, the milk. the process it, you have these electrical machines powering this. they can't do that with a couple of solar panels. i have craft caramel -- kraft carm until my district. all sorts of things not just windshields and axles. how do you power these things snim' not against alternative energy at all. i worked hard in my district, for example guardian windshield has learned their process of windshields took solar heat for a long ty. the solar panels in nevada and other places are cracking. by going with guardian they are learning they can make these panels more efficient, get 20% or more energy, and they don't crack. spain's using them. and they are going to have

possibly hundreds of jobs making the windshields for the solar panel industry. . they had 1,000 jobs for s.u.v.'s and things on the bad list, so we'll get green jobs, maybe half as many as we had before. i had parker in knew haven, had an earmark to help them, try to get the heat down from everything from your blackberry to wind turbines and make them 20% more efficient. we may have at some point here 200 people doing windmill turbines and other things. but that plant had 1,200 supplying additional energy industries. i have worked with people who are trying to come up with alternative karen begins. one of my friends and supporters is putting in a huge wind farm in indiana.

we have two basic areas we could put wind farms in. we might get to 4%. but we can't reach the target in these bills. but we don't have as much wind and solar. we have to have oil, gas, nuclear and coal, not just the alternative forms, especially if they are going to put limitations on ethanol and biodiesel. we are trying to decide, are we going to have manufacturing or aren't we going to have manufacturing? are we going to have high-service jobs and high-tech jobs. yes, at coffee houses, they say this sounds great. and others in their beach houses on the coast say this sounds great. we are getting two classes of people. and the blue collar class of people who made things and had a decent living where they could get a house, boat on vacation, they're disappearing.

and the knowledge class, the upper liberals in the democratic party are saying good-bye to the working class and they are saying you could bring us a drink, grill us a hamburgeror go get a doctorate. what we're losing the middle group of blue collar americans and knocking them out of those jobs and going to other countries. competent -- mr. gohmert: that's why on this map we have here, the dark red is high vullnerkt under cap and tax -- vulnerability. that's why indiana is in this area, it's in the high vulnerability for high losses of jobs. texas where i'm from, it's in the medium vulnerability.

i have seen the loss of jobs. and we have same industry. pipe, industries involved in steel. but there will be a lot of loss of jobs. mr. souder: the heritage study showed that my district is number one in loss. next to me is joe donnelly. congressman latta who asked for the splitout is number three. mike pence, who is just to my south in that part of indiana is number four. congressman jordan is number five. and congressman boehner is number six. not only do we have manufacturing, but we tend to use col and nuclear because alternatives are less than an option and then jumps up to michigan. the other thing that is noticeable, that's where motion of the water is in the united states, coming out of the mississippi valley. and the manufacturer, you need

water and access to water. you are not going to move -- if you see some of the orange states, you can move steel and manufacturing into those areas. but basically, you can't transfer to those light yellow because that is mostly desert area and you can't power these big plants with just solar and wind and don't have enough water to supplement the traditional that you need in refineries and steel mills and that type of thing and don't have a plan. that's why we republicans, when you look at the actual details and if you can stomach these details, that's bad enough. that document is page after page of the government telling us how we should live, the government telling us how we should make things. if it goes out of the red zone, it's basically going to mexico, to china, to korea, to south america, because the areas that are lighter where you can see the shift, it's not just

possible to build these plants there. mr. gohmert: reclaiming the time and that's an excellent point. for this heavy manufacturing, you do have to have water, regardless of other energy sources. it takes water. that's a great point. which is why the traditional iron belt was up here in the midwest and those areas you have water, all the things you needed. you had good workers, everything you needed to produce those things. and just as eastern aside, as a history major and history buff, it needs to be noted when a nation can no longer make the things from scratch that are required to defend itself in a time of war, then the country will be lost in the next big war. we're losing the steel industry weekly.

and it won't belong before we cannot produce tanks, airplanes, things. right now, we are barely able to produce tires, because so many of their tire plants have moved overseas. you have to have tires, rubber, wood. we have cut so much of the wood industry and that continues to happen and people are surprised how much that is used for. natural gas is part of the process of making so many of the parts for weaponry. and that will become more and more difficult to obtain. and i yield back. mr. souder: i don't mean to monopolize the time. to illustrate the manufacturing in my district. there was a bf goodrich manufacturing plant. they invested $15 million a year if they could become %

efficient. people didn't realize what they were putting in. and i was part of the suit to say to stop the dull pping, but not 7% in health care and add the cap and trade and add the other types of regulars lations that are coming back. we can't compete in tires. i have a lot of the defense industry. i have a plant that has 100 plant working for boeing. one member referred to the wright brothers. but we're going to go back to these paper airplanes. that's metal. it takes energy to build every part in that plane and takes energy to launch the plane. and it's not let's just say -- they don't have windmills on this thing or solar panels to get a jet up in the air. i have gnat nasa satellites, the ones used by the weather channel

are made in fort wayne and they are looking to track as my friend from texas said, we don't have the science on that. that's one of the companies in my district is looking at, can we track the climate change because the truth is we are doing this bill with no data. put a satellite on it. you know it takes an incredible amount of energy to make? aluminum. the electrical systems and plane and copper. you can't get copper if you can't mine it. the smeltering of copper takes energy. aluminum and copper takes as much or more energy than steel. how do they think we can even track this climate change? it is behalf baffling this bill would go through congress. if most of the members of congress were businessmen, this would have never passed. mr. gohmert: i appreciate my

friend's point and that is a good point. i think if most of the people in this house had read this bill and then given a chance to read the additional third that was added at 3:00 a.m. or so this morning, then i don't think this would have passed either. i have been joined by another friend, a former district judge. and i would like to yield to my friend, mr. poe. mr. poe: i thank you for yielding. you know, we approach what we consider the most important of all days for our republic, and that's independence day. and this legislation that unfortunately passed tonight has not made us more independent, but it has made us more dependent as a nation we are more dependent on every control

of our lives. when the government starts telling you what type of electricity you can have in your home, when the government starts telling you you have to pass an energy efficiency before you can sell your home, maybe we have gone too far in government control over our lives. but that is a smidge. i'm not sure what the goal of the legislation was. we heard different things. one was it's going to create more jobs for americans. well, that's just not going to happen. all the sane studies show that's not going to occur in the united states. there will be government programs, which means subsidies paid by taxpayers to go to, quote, green jobs. those are programs. and they will be created, subsidized by the taxpayers to move us in the direction of the green environment, which i'll

say a little bit more about in a minute. but one group that has not been mentioned today in the house debate that talked about jobs, the national black chamber of commerce, said this legislation will cost 2.5 million jobs almost immediately. that's a lot of americans being put out of work when we have americans losing their jobs. we have an example of a country that tried this legislation. spain has had thr so-called idea of trying to control carbon emissions in their country for several years and they have created jobs, but they have lost jobs. for every green job that they have created by their own statistics, two other jobs have been lost. and now, i'm not a c.p.a. like mr. conaway is, but the more green jobs you create, the more

jobs you're going to lose. and that's what spain has done and they are trying to get out from their own legislation that has cramped their economy because they're losing jobs by moving to this so-called green job economy. so we're losing american jobs overseas for a lot of reasons and a lot of it is is because of the high cost of energy. and now we will have energy costs increase. so the first idea, the goal to create american jobs, that's just fiction. the second thing is this is supposed to be a bill to save the planet. humans are bad and we are creating all this gas that we need to control and it's all because of energy and so if we have this legislation that passed, we're go to go save the planet. up until a few months ago, we

heard from those people, it was called global warming. but since it is not occurring, it's changed to climate change. they commanged the title because global warming does not appear to be what claims it to be. now we hear from the congressional budget office when they testified before the senate several weeks ago that the effect of this legislation will have little or no effect on climate change. now, the first goal, create jobs, is a fiction. the second goal, to control the climate from bad humans, is not going to have any because of this legislation. and the third thing of this legislation, it costs too much. we can't afford. we can't afford it even if it safes jobs or safes the planet. the 1,200 pages is not going to

result in what we were all promised. so those are two items i see as a major problem. and another problem i think that is very paramount is the fact that we're going to turn our lives, our businesses over to government control. the government's going to control all energy in this country and going to tax it all. you turn on these lights here in the capitol, the government, they don't have to pay their bills. you turn them on at home, they are going to home, natural gas, hot water heater, they're going to go up. gasoline, that's going to go up. because everything that uses energy, which is everything, will cost americans more. the energy companies, the ones that stay in america, they will pass that tax on to consumers. and the consumers pay, because the consumers always pay.

. the small manufacturing plants in the united states have to use energy to produce their products. whether it's a paper mill in east texas or whether it's a van up in indiana or a small steel mill in my district, they have to use some form of energy to produce the product. the cost of that energy is going to go up so high they cannot produce the product and sell it. because you see over in china they are producing the same product and can ship it to the united states cheaper because they are not bound by all of these energy regulations and are not taxed for use of energy. as american manufacturing companies will be. that's a sad thing because it has always been the small business and really the small manufacturing companies that's been the heart and soul of the american economy. there was a time when you could go into a wal-mart, you got

them in your district, i couldn't know if mr. conaway has them in his. we have a lot. you could go into wal-mart and they have a big sign that said made in america. they claimed that everything they sold in that wal-mart was made in america. well, that sign isn't up anymore. it hasn't been up in years because i don't know if they make anything in america they sell at wal-mart. it i. me to no end. this time of year you go into wal-mart you want to buy a flag like that one, and it's made in china. we can't even make our own flags because manufacturing in this country is being killed by the cost of doing business. that bill in front of you, judge gohmert, is not going to help that at aw. it's going to make the situation worse. the last thing that bill does not do is create more energy. it taxes energy. it does not provide for more energy for americans. nuclear energy, i mean even

france uses 80% of its energy comes from nuclear energy. it can be done and created in a clean and safe way. we don't build, we don't have any more energy -- nuclear plants in this country because of the fear tactics that have been placed upon the thoughts. so we don't use nuclear energy. we are not doing anything. we are not drilling offshore even more natural gas. natural gas is supposed to be the product that we go from this one environment to this beautiful environment. of course we can't get there from here. and now the other side that voted for this bill says, we need natural gas to bridge that gap because it's clean. they don't allow drilling. you can't drill anymore. you can't drill offshore. you can't drill anywhere there's natural gas. how are we supposed to have energy to get to the clean energy if we cannot as a nation even drill for natural gas? so there's no nuclear, no natural gas, of course we can't use clean coal. we don't want to use any more of that nasty old crude oil

even though crude oil and its byproducts is in everything americans use from plastics to our radios to our cell phones. it's in everything. it's a derivative of some product of crude oil. we are going to always need crude oil to build the products we have in this country. you can't build them all from biodiesels. the bill does not do what it's supposed to do. it doesn't create jobs. it doesn't help the climate. it doesn't give us a new alternative for energy until we get to this supposed clean energy. and of course i think the worst thing, it takes control of americans and their independence. it makes us slaves to the federal government and the federal bureaucrats to run our lives every day. i will yield back to judge gohmert. mr. gohmert: i appreciate so much those sterling observation abouts what this bill does and

the effect it's going to have. i know last summer i was approached by so many different people about the high price of of gasoline. and i know those same people are going to get hammered again as time marches on. the summer into the fall into the winter. if this becomes law, the only thing standing between it now and becoming law is the senate because the president's sure going to sign it if it gets there. but a single mom saying i don't make enough money to live in town. so i'm out in the rural area which means i have to pay more -- for more gasoline to get into town. i'm maxing out my credit card every month just on gasoline. and it's getting close on whether i have enough each month leeway in my credit card to get enough gas to keep going back and forth to my job because if i lose my job i can't pay anything, including

my credit card bill. and just -- the desperation in their eyes. the things that are in this cap and trade bill, they are an inconvenience to the wealthy. they'll be an increens. -- inconvenience. the people like that single mom and so many others that are just struggling to get by. one 80-plus-year-old lady told me last summer, she said i started out in a house that had no running water and no power. we cooked with wood. she said because of the price of fuel now, it looks like i'm going to finish my life in a house the way it started. this bill is going to do that. and i know that privately there are people who were so pleased about this bill because they really believe if gasoline goes to $10, $20 a gallon people won't use it and they will save

the planet. what they don't seem to understand is, the only way you ever get a grip on pollution is to have an economy with -- that's just thriving. that's doing so well. and an advanced society like ours has been, and then they are able to do something about pollution. but with this bill being passed, it is going to so cripple our economy. and when people lose their jobs and they are struggling and they can't make ends meet and they are using wood to cook food, they could care less about the environment. it's unfortunate but it's true. they carer more about living and sustainability. so what happens is these jobs will go to places like china, india, brazil where the pollution standards are not what they are here. and so they'll put out as we have already heard today, three, four, five, six times

more pollution than we would if we kept the jobs here. guess what? that pollution goes into the same atmosphere that these people over here are complaining about. so by passing a bill that drives jobs, which this will, to other countries who don't have our pollution control and don't have our sensitivities to pollution, then we are doing such a disservice to the environment. i certainly will. mr. conaway: let me speak to that issue of jobs. in my southeast texas district, i have 20% of the nation's refineries and those are blue collar jobs, union jobs, and it's a tremendous concern for not just management but for those people who work in those refineries what they are told that the cost of producing

energy -- as you mentioned, they have to use fuel to produce energy. they will be driven out of business and somewhere else. where they don't -- they are not -- they didn't sign this 1,200-page bill. china didn't sign that. cuba didn't sign it. india didn't sign it. they laugh at us for signing it. and they are really doing a better job of making sure that they produce energy cleanly. perfect example. as you know, and have also advocated, we should drill in the gulf of mexico for more crude oil and natural gas. we can do that safely and cleanly. but we are not doing that. so who is going to do that? the cubans and the chinese are going to be drilling in waters near the united states where we ought to be drilling. and i can assure you that those platforms that the cubans are building and the chinese are helping them build are not going to be near as safe,

pollution safe, as we what concurrently do. it makes no sense that we hurt ourselves in producing energy and automatically say we are going to punish energy consumption by taxing energy and its consumers, american people, out of business in hopes that we can get a cleaner environment. we'll all be riding bicycles and living in towns where we just have to use canls because we are not going to have the -- candles because we are not going to have the energy to take care of ourselves as we are doing now. i yield back. thank you. mr. gohmert: i appreciate those observations. we have gotten testimony and evidence in other hearings that indicate if we were to open up the outer continental shelf of this country where drilling is not allowed, it would within a couple years have added 1.2

million jobs. 1.2 million jobs. not just on the platforms. we are talking about most of those jobs would be added throughout the country. we also understood from evidence presented that if you allowed drilling in anwr, 1.1 million jobs added. not -- there will be a handful some up in anwr, but around the country to deal with all of that oil that would be produced. there are slopes in alaska where drilling is not permitted that have incredible amounts of natural gas. that if allowed to drill there is another 1.1 million to 1.2 million jobs that would be added f we just used the energy with which god has blessed our country, we would have 3.5 million more jobs and then the present, it would suit me fine

if president obama took credit for it. if we start producing that then he could live up to his pledge and say see, i told you i would produce three million more jobs. then he changed that to save or produce four million jobs because he knew nobody could prove you saved a job or not. this would produce nearly four million jobs and i would be happy with him taking credit just to have people employed and producing the energy, making us less reliant on countries overseas. i apreenchate -- appreciate the point our friend mark souder made earlier about you do have to use energy to produce these products. it's the same with agriculture. we have a good bit of agriculture in east texas where i'm from. as one farmer pointed out, they don't make a prius tractor. there's no hybrid tractor. when you get out away from the

barn and you've got to have power to my knowledge nobody makes a hybrid generator, which is a joke because a hybrid means you plug it in. if you plug it -- anyway. i won't explain it. nobody -- you have to use diesel. you have to use gasoline, kerosene, something to produce the energy that agriculture needs to produce. and then the fertilizer, goodness sakes, it takes massive amounts of natural gas to produce the fertilizer that the farmers use to produce all the food we get. and so it's heartbreaking to know how agriculture and -- it's just going to devastate the middle class, the lower middle class particularly, and what we are going to see in the next days ahead is heartbreaking. we are joined also by a friend

who mr. poe indicated is a c.p.a. and i always appreciate the way he looks at things because it's such a straightforward approach. i'd like to yield to my friend, mr. conaway. mr. conaway: i thank the gentleman. i appreciate that. these are troubling times. this bill is awfully troubling. the science about the surrounds this climate change issue, everybody gets an opinion about it. but there's only certain set of facts that we ought to deal off. one of those facts is if you would equate the earth's atmosphere to a football stadium with 10,000 people in the stadium, you guys from indiana, we play a lot of football, 10,000 people in the stands, about 7,600 of those people are wearing jerseys that say nitrogen on the front and about 2,100 or so say oxygen on it. and about 100 of them or so say argon. that's the bulk of it.