in that stadium are referred to as trace elements. among those trace elements are four jerseys up from three 150 years ago, four jerseys that say co-2. . so the catastrophic disaster that are being predicted by the zealots and the religious folks on this climate change argue that the addition of one more jersey that says co-2 on it in that stadium of 10,000 drives the change that they're talking about. now, i'm skeptical. i get to be that way because everybody gets their own opinion but that's a fact. you get to interpret that fact however you want to but the truth of the matter is, that's what they're asking us to believe. if you look at the 21 models that the intergovernmental panel on climate changed to predict this disaster and -- change used

to predict this disaster, you plot them on a graph over time, they start out with bracket. you've got the worst case scenario on the top and best case scenario on the bottom. they go out over time, they begin to spread a little bit and then they get out a certain number of years and they go up, big slash, and right there is where earth ends as we know it. life ends under their scenario. so you've got that graph picked over time. starting in 2000. if you plot earth's actual temperature for the last nine years, on that exact same graph it's below the best case scenario and it's falling away from the path that their predicts -- predictions are on. i have a lot more experience with financial projections than i do climate change projections but the concepts are the same. whatever your time frame on your projection, the most accurate

period is the near term. you should be able to get the close in years right, so to speak. so what these climate sizers are saying is their 21 models couldn't get it right the first nine years. what they haven't been able to explain is there's some sort of self-correcting mechanism in their scheme that somewhere out here it brings them back in line with what's going on. so if your predictions don't get it right in the first nine years, should we trust those predictions? the other question you have to ask yourself is, did you come up with the model before you came up with the answer? or did you come up with the answer and then you derive a model to get there? i can't answer that question. now, these models look incredibly accurate. because they are fraught with equations and all kinds of high math and calculus and all this kind of stuff built into these things and they look great and

very intellectual. but they are predictions. they are guesses. they start with a series of assumptions and if you take them become -- back in time, i don't know that if you put it back in time and put the numbers in there and ran them forward that they'd be better. so the models themselves aren't working and that's what's driving the change in terminology from global warming to climate change. manmade, by the way. if you look at our quotes from our president, who is one of these folks who has drunk the cool aid, so to speak, this was back, this is a quote from senator obama who was then trying to convince us that he should be president of the united states and parently convinced about -- apparently convinced 73% of us that that was a good idea. he stated, i guess he must have been really tired that day talking to the editorial board because he was very straight forward and didn't minutes words too well. he probably wishes he had these words back.

he said, under my plan of cap and trade, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. well, those of us from west texas, that would mean that if i'm paying $2 for something today then the skyrocket means i'm going to be paying $7, $8, $9 for it in the future at some point. so increased cost on the skyrocket thing. and there's an elips here where he goes on to talk about coal-fired plants and the coal industry having to be retrofitted and fixed and brought into the 21st century and the costs associated with those, that will cost must. and they, the energy producers, will pass that money onto consumers. w, you and i are the consumers, anybody who pays for the turning on of a light bulb is a consumer in this regard. sure. >> i just want to say that you are just so incredibly not

politically correct for this day and age. because american electricity rates would go up. but we're world citizens now. and surely you're not claiming that rates would go up in pakistan and china and other places. we use a disproportion amount of the energy of the world so we should be able to sacrifice so that all world citizens can benefit more by taking our jobs and having a better standard of living and then we can be all more equal. you're just not politically correct tonight. mr. conaway: i struggle with that. these are american consumers, american jobs and the american families that our good colleague from east texas has been talking about. if you look at what other nations have done and, you know, i'm never one to say, so and so is doing it, we ought to do it, too. but if you can learn from their example and apply it to your own circumstance, there may be some value there. australia, there's an article that rounts australia's struggle with this issue.

their prime minister ran last year on a platform that he and obama would together cure this issue. to get it through their house of representatives, he had to delay the implementation of it under their legislation until 2011. so this urgency thing that you've been hearing about, that if we don't do something soon that life will end as we know it apparently is has softened a little bit under the new terms. the earth is getting cooler instead of warmer. but the story went on to say they won't get it through the senate in australia. new zealand, right after last year, right after the new government took over, suspended their cap and tax program within weeks of its initial implementation because they didn't believe it was correct. poland is now saying that we are skeptical on the science. the czech republic has folks saying we are skeptical. there are scientists in this country that are beginning to say, politically correct now, to challenge the science associated with with this because if you do

-- prior to this if you did it it was called a knuckle dragger, one of our colleagues today called us flat earth people. those kinds of things. but now the beginning to be a little less -- a little more politically correct to be able to say, hey, the science has never settled on any issue, certainly never as unknown as this going on. so the science is beginning to push back on them. one final thing from my colleague that mentioned the 20% refinery, there was an article in bloomberg today talking about how major oil companies intend to cope with this bill. and they intend to cope by reducing their emphasis on refining. no more investment, they will shut -- they would rather buy the oil, produce the oil overseas, refine it overseas and import refined products to this country to sell as opposed to buying -- what we prefer to do is produce the crude oil from the u.s. and refine it in u.s. refineries. those are all u.s. jobs. but companies will adapt to this. they'll figure out how to make

this deal work and it will be at the expense of the american economy and american jobs and american families who will be punished with this legislation. so, i appreciate my colleague leading the fight tonight, giving us this opportunity to talk to each other, the speaker, about what's going on, because this is, as i told everyier -- earlier this afternoon, there's an old movie that was entitled "bad day at black rock." this was a bad day at black rock for this country. i yield back. mr. gohmert: i yield to my friend, mr. souder. mr. souder: you've made a number of parliamentary points today during the debate and on the floor, you're an experienced judge as well as a congressman. is he allowed to use factual science on the floor? i don't know if we're allowed to really debate this stuff. this is mostly an ideological bill, not a factual bill. as mr. conaway correctly said, did they come to a conclusion and then make the facts fit the conclusion? it is really disturbing.

much of what's behind this is in fact that there is a group of people who feel guilty about us being such a successful nation and about western nations being so successful. and that we use a disproportion -- use more energy than the rest of the world and other western countries like australia and new zealand are, hey, what's going on here? do we have to buy into this? what does it exactly mean that we need to sacrifice and go down in our lifestyle and what will we gain? is the science really there? then the developing countries that want to be like the united states, they look at us as a model and they're going like poland, hey, what's this stuff here? is this something that you guys came up with at some university or a couple of guys smoking some marijuana ciarettes or is this real, you know, fundamental stuff? and maybe we ought to prove this before we give up our cars, before we give up our s.u.v.'s and our station wagons. i mean, we've had this debate

about the volt and whether g.m. should go to an electric car that costs $40,000, that we talk about gas and oil and how you power these big trucks that i make in my district and how you power the r.v.'s. how exactly are you going to pull a toeble with a smart car? the challenge is, how are you going to move around? and one of the questions is, i think they think that electric cars, when you plug them in, that the electricity is in the wall. what is going to make the power to power electric cars? and how many kind of regular people are going to be able to afford a $40,000 electric car which gets -- car? which gets to the core of this bill. we've had members on the floor today say, we're going to fix this because low income people are going to get exemptions and there's going to be this class that gets an exemption. there's about 80% to 90% of that bill that are government

preferences to try to fix the problem they're creating. in fact, one of our colleagues, a democrat from oregon, mr. defazio, in his one minute this morning made two terrific points. one was, the alternative jobs in alternative energy are being created faster now than they will be under this bill. because we're moving that direction already with incentives in the market and with some supplemental funding out of congress, some tax incentives out of congress. we're going to get major breakthroughs. i have a car company in my district that may be able to get 60 miles a gallon out of e-85. they got 100 in the first test and it's a new motor. but if we mandate electric cars, it will never come to market. the government doesn't make efficient decisions. if they protect this class, protect this company, protect the t.v.a. power system but not this power system, you get all these special categories but what we know he, as all of you have pointed out -- we know, as all of you have pointed out, the upper classes are going to figure that out, they're not

going to get damaged and to some degree they're going to try to cover and patch up in a -- in government programs and who gets lost in this? the very people that the other party promised to protect when they ran. the middle class. the forgotten man. and woman. and young person who is working hard, not as mr. defazio pointed now the his other point, making money on credit swaps. we're going through one of the greatest financial messes in the world and we have just set up a cap and trade. what does trade mean? we call it cap and tax. cap and send the jobs to china, a number of difference thing. -- things. but the bottom line is, the trade is trading credits and swapping and then securitizing those in markets and enkirking -- encouraging other countries around the world to do this. this will be a boondoggle. how many trees did you plant in brazil to offset your ethanol

plant? how many whatever did you do in damming up a river which historically the environmentalists were opposed to damming, now they talk about hydropower, which is it, that you did a hydroplant in thailand, therefore you get to have a credit swap worth $50,000, you put that $50,000 out, a number of people bid on it, that gets leveraged 30 times. we're creating a bigger mess than we have now based on trying to do all sorts of equalization. this is a disaster and it cannot happen without basically destroying our country and we pointed out tonight different angles at this and this is not, as mr. poe goes through his list on the july fourth and our founding fathers and what they sacrificed for, they sacrificed for freedom, not for government setting up credit swaps, protecting one group of people against another group of people, one region against another group of people, then when you complain, they make deals on the floor during the debate today.

oh, i didn't realize that. there's such a lack of understanding that it takes that many pages by thtime we get done with the regulations there will be that stack across the whole top of that table and they'll still be inventing it as people sue and go to court. mr. gohmert: i appreciate so much, mr. souder, your great observations. you know, thomas jefferson said the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. and that's what we're seeing in this bill. the dramatic gains of the government's right to control your life in this bill are just extraordinary. and i do want to make a couple of quick points, i think we have about seven or eight minutes left. for one thing, mr. conaway mentioned earlier that it will likely cost the average family across america an extra $3,300 and i know there will be some

people out there who have seen some in the mainstream media say, oh, well, we saw where that guy from m.i.t. said that it won't cost that much. it may be $300 or $500 or $6 hub but it won't be $3 -- 6 -- $600 but it won't be $3,100. they didn't check to see why it was that they're saying it won't cost over $3,000. and from what i've read, apparently they're saying it won't cost over $3,000 because even though the average family will pay more than $3,000 additionally because of this bill, they're saying, what you'll get back from the government in the way of services and benefits will be -- will be a wash and because of all you'll get out of the government as a result of that extra $3,000 you pay for energy in the first year, it won't be

that much because you'll be grateful for all you get. bologna. and another thing, we heard in debate on the floor today about, gee, the afl c.i.o. leaders, we heard -- afl/cio leaders were in support of this bill. well, how about that? you know, they were in favor of the government taking over g.m. and chrysler. why? because they got a deal. they get to own the companies. who knows what they have promised the union leaders to support this crap and trade bill? it's a sad, sad day for america because the rank and file people in america are going to pay a severe price. this intrusion to their -- this intrudes into their life so much and to my democratic friends who have not read this, they said, no, no, no, this will provide

jobs, not take jobs. they just need to go to section 426, where it talks about the climate change adjustment allowance. because there's provisions in it. they know. people are going to lose their jobs over this bill as a result of this bill. so the built in here. . you won't get such allowance for the first week you're unemployed. then it will kick in after that. you go over in here and there's good stuff here. it does mention that you're not going to get an adjustment allowance for that first week, either, that you're unemployed. they know. this is going to cost so many jobs. but there is climate change adjustment assistance and relocation assistance. unfortunately it's not going to pay you to go get your job back from china, india, brazil, latin america.

so that part of the relocation is not going to help. but i tell you the one that just galled me to no end. it says here absolutely part of the law, the secretary shall conduct a study, examine the circumstances of older adversely affected workers. in other words, if you're over 50 or so and you lose your job, because you're going to, you are going to lose a lot of jobs here, and you lose your job, when do as a result of this bill, don't worry. we are going to do a study about you and your lost job. that will warm your heart, won't it? it won't keep you warm on a cold night next winter when you lost your job as a result of this bill. but the good news is the senate has still not acted. mr. speaker, it's not too late for people to let their senator know. look, i know you're a democrat. i know the pressure's enormous.

i know they are promising you-all kinds of things to get you to vote for this bill, but don't get sucked in because we'll be the ones, the constituents will say, paying the price for your sin and error. my friend, mr. poe, i'd like to yield to judge poe in our last few minutes. mr. poe: may i inquire of the speaker how much time mr. gohmert has left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has two minutes. mr. poe: i will try to not take all two minutes. thank you for yielding. the concern that i have about this bill is that as i mentioned at the outset we love the fact that we are a free people and independent nation. this bill makes us dependent on government. it will control our lives. we have to get permission from the government for every action we will have -- we will take as

individuals and as businesses. we do not have free will to make decisions because the government won't let us have that free will to make decisions. decisions will be made by the government. and the government picks winners and losers in that bill because it creates great subsidies for some people to make them more dependent on government and government control. that's not what america's about. america's about freedom. it's not about dependence. at's the sad part about the bill is the aspect it creates right here in washington, d.c., as mr. conaway said, the center of the universe to some, control over everybody from indiana to texas to california to hawaii to florida and that ought not to be. thank you, i yield back. mr. gohmert: thank you. i appreciate your observations. i would like to also observe, though, we heard during debate today the national association of realtors was supporting this. obviously they didn't know about the 300 pages added at

3:08 a.m. this morning because whoever that realtor was that pushed that should lose their jobs because it's going to cost realtors' jobs. it's going to cost them commissions. it's going to cost them royally. with that, mr. speaker, we yield back time and pursuant to senate concurrent resolution 31 , the 111th congress, before we do any more damage to america, i move that this house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the aye vs. it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until -- accordingly, pursuant to senate concurrent resolution 31, the house stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on tuesday, july 7,

>> this is c-span public affairs television. next, the house floor debate on the energy and climate change bill. then, remarks by president obama and german president merkel. >> and now some house floor debate on legislation to combat global climate change and develop cleaner energy. the house approved legislation that would -- >> today, we're taking decisive

and historic action to promote america's energy security, and promote millions of clean energy jobs that will drive our economic recovery and long term growth. this bill, when enacted into law, will break our dependence on foreign oil, make our nation the world leader on clean energy jobs and technology, and cut global warming pollution. as a result of these new policy settings, we will create millions of clean energy jobs for america and restore our technological leadership and clean energy. we are also protecting consumers. the bill tackle's big problems that have been ignored for far too long. it proposes solutions that will transform our economic and clean air environment. there is a remarkable coalition behind this bill. electric utilities support the bill. manufacturers support the bill.

farmers support the bill. in some of our nation's leading environmental organizations, labor unions, and faith based groups. there are many members responsible for this remarkable coalition. on the energy and commerce committee, john dingell helped compromise with the automotive industry. we provided ideas for the future for coal. mike doyle addressed the concerns of the steel industry. the chairman of the ways and means committee worked with us to make sure the interests of low-income families are fully protected, and the chairman of the agriculture committee made sure that legislation addresses the concerns of farmers, and makes them part of our energy future. the need to act is clear and urgent. there is a national security imperative to act. this legislation, at long last,

begins to break our addiction to foreign oil, and puts us on a path to true energy security. there is a scientific comparative to act -- imperative to act. carbon emissions are overwhelming, and we based it on the science. there is a moral imperative to act. we of obligations to protect and preserve the environment for our children and the generations that follow. there is an economic imperative to act. this legislation is an enormous jobs bill for america. it will promote investment and growth for decades ahead. it will create jobs for the new energy economy of the twenty first century. people in the industry have told us that as soon as this legislation becomes law, we will find billions of dollars invested in infrastructure over the next five years. we can see an incredible lost opportunity if we do not act

now. these are amazing developing new technology centers around the u.s.. we can see those jobs going overseas. we see technology superiority going overseas as well. this bill is affordable. contrary to what we're going to hear from our friends on the republican side of the aisle, the congressional budget office found that this legislation would cost household on average of only $175 in 2020, less than 50 cents a day. less than the cost of a single postage stamp, while lowering utility bills by 70%. this bill is a tremendous opportunity to create millions of new jobs and drive economic growth. it will end our dependence on foreign oil, and keep us more secure.

this bill will drive to a new area of sustainable growth and innovation, and i urge all members to support it. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that the ranking member of the agricultural committee of local, control the first 15 minutes of the debate on the minority side. >> thank you, madam speaker. i think the gentleman from texas. thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman. i yield myself as much time as my might consume. the bill promises to destroy our standard of living, and the quality of life with higher energy costs, higher food prices, and lost jobs. the bill is the single largest economic threat to our farmers and ranchers in decades. we have more than 115 groups

that oppose this bill as of today. i would ask that the list be entered into the program at the appropriate place. the greatest threat is ignored. under hr2454, input costs will escalate as a result of the energy tax. markets for the crops will shrink because of foreign competitors whose governments will not place burdens on their farmers. they will be able to undersell us. what about the billions of dollars annually that farmers are supposed to garner selling offset credits? many farmers will not be able to participate. carbon was going to be the way for farmers to generate credits. if the producers started soil tillage practices before 2001, they will be ineligible to participate. the amendment does not exempt agriculture from performance standards in the bill, which means the epa could tell our

producers how to manage their farms. this bill will tax you. this bill will destroy the livelihood of those who live and work in rural america. those who work every day to consistently provide our nation and the world with a safe, affordable abundant food supply. agriculture's set squarely in the cross hairs of this bill because it is energy intensive. whether it is the delivery of food to the store, agriculture uses a great deal of energy throughout production and processing. although the usda has not devoted any time or resources to complete an economic analysis of how this bill will impact farmers, the heritage foundation has. a recent study revealed that by the year 2035, the average income for farmers will be decreased by 57%. and also