Louie Gohmert

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. That says basically we are going to the floor without everybody being able to get a copy in the Speaker's Lobby as is normally required?

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I'm asking an inquiry because I really want to know. Normally, the rules require we have access to a copy of the bill so we can look at it.

Mr. GOHMERT. My inquiry is, where is it? There is one copy in the Rules Committee? Is that the answer?

Mr. GOHMERT. It was part of the rule passed earlier today. But where is a physical copy I can get, read and look at?

Mr. GOHMERT. The Chair is not responsible for disseminating copies. I appreciate that. I was just asking for where I can get a copy. I know that your hands are full. And congratulations on the position. I think the President did a great thing. But I'm still needing a copy of the other 300 mysterious pages that we don't get to see here. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. GOHMERT. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GOHMERT. My parliamentary inquiry, I was just at the dais and the clerks, as always, were immensely helpful. But apparently the official copy of the 1,090 pages are there, and then the additional 300 pages are sitting beside it, and the Clerk is having to go through and is in the process as we speak of going through and figuring out where the extra 300 pages that has been added goes in the official copy. So even as I speak, Madam Speaker, the official copy is not truly an official copy because it doesn't have all of the amendments in it. And since the rule says there is an official copy at the desk, my inquiry is whether it is truly an official copy if it, as yet, does not have all of the pages in the official copy.

Mr. GOHMERT. Right, to put the extra pages into the official copy. But is it required that it actually be a full official copy put together before you satisfy the requirement of having an official copy at the desk?

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, you know, I've been trying to get through what I could of this bill and then finding out, well, actually, it's another bill. And then you have to incorporate all these other pages into it because I'd like to know what we're doing to the American people. We've had people say we're playing politics on this side. If we wanted to play politics, because we know in our hearts this is bad for America, we would let you pass it and let you lose your jobs. But I've grown kind of fond of some of my friends on the other side; I'd like to keep you around. But let me tell you, those who say there won't be any job loss, we're going to create jobs, let me just read you some of the things that are in your bill. The climate change adjustment allowance: when you lose your job, for any week of unemployment you are going to get some unemployment assistance after that. That's in there. You've got some relocation allowance. But the coup de grace is that if you're an older American and you lose your job because of this, we fund a study in here. So I would encourage my colleagues, if you lose your job because of this bill, you probably are going to be able to get assistance because you lost your job because of this bill. Don't vote for it.

Mr. GOHMERT. So the two together in two different piles that are being worked out together is the official copy. I appreciate the explanation.

Mr. GOHMERT. I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, in order to find out what we are doing, how much damage we are doing to the country, I tried to get a copy of the bill. We have out here on the table H.R. 2454 that has 1,090 pages in it. But I understood since debate in here that there are another 300 pages that were added in the middle of the night. My inquiry is how do I get a copy of the other 300 pages that people here on the floor haven't had a chance to read or see? Where do we get that before we slam this and cram this down on the American people?

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Conaway.

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I appreciate those observations. And we've 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 of years, have added 1.2 million jobs--not just on the platform, we're 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, there would be a handful, there would be 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 to 1.2 million jobs that would be added. If we just used the energy with which God has blessed our country, we would have 3.5 million more jobs. And then the President--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 3 million more jobs. Then he changed that to ``save or produce'' 4 million jobs because he knew nobody could prove if he saved a job or not. But this would nearly produce 4 million jobs. And I would be happy with him taking credit just to have people employed and producing energy, making us less reliant on countries overseas. And I appreciated the point our friend, Mark Souder, made earlier about you do have to use energy to produce these products. And it's the same with agriculture. You know, we have a good bit of agriculture in east Texas where I'm from. And as one farmer pointed out, they don't make a Prius tractor. There is no hybrid tractor. And when you get 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, and if you plug it in, you wouldn't--anyway, I won't explain it. But 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 is heartbreaking to know how agriculture, you know, 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 CPA. And I always appreciate the way he looks at things because it's such a straightforward approach. So I would like to yield to my friend, Mr. Conaway.

Mr. GOHMERT. I certainly will.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate so much those sterling observations about 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 gasoline. And I know those same people are going to get hammered again as time marches on--the summer into the fall into winter--if this becomes law. And the only thing standing between it now and becoming law is the Senate, because the President is 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 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 leeway each month on 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 ``crap and trade'' bill, they're an inconvenience to the wealthy. They will be an inconvenience; but to people like that single mom and to so many others that are just struggling to get by--one 80-plus-year-old lady told me last summer, she said, you know, I started out in a house that had no running water and no power, we cooked with wood. And she said, Because of the price of fuel now, it looks like I'm going to finish my life in a house the way I started. This bill is going to do that. And I know that privately there are people who are 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. And what they don't seem to understand is the only way you ever get a grip on pollution is to have an economy that is just thriving, that's doing so well in an advanced society, like ours has been, and then they're 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're struggling and they can't make ends meet and they're using wood to cook food, they could care less about the environment. It's unfortunate, but it's true. They care more about living and sustainability. And 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 will put out, as we've already heard today, three, four, five, six times more pollution than we would if we kept the jobs here. And 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.

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 been given a chance to read the additional third that was added at 3 a.m. or so this morning, then I don't think this would have passed either. But we have been joined by another friend, a former fellow judge, a district judge also. I would like to yield to my friend, Mr. Poe.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate that, that's an excellent point. For this heavy manufacturing, you do have to have water. Regardless of any other energy source you may have, it takes water. That's a great point, which is why the traditional iron belt was up here in the Midwest. In those areas, you had water. You had all the things you needed. You had good workers. You had everything you needed to produce those things. And just as an 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 at a time of war, then the country will be lost in the next big war. We are losing the steel industry weekly, and it won't be long before we cannot produce tanks, airplanes, things. Right now, we are barely able to produce tires because so many of the tire plants have moved overseas. You have got to have tires. You have got to have rubber. You have got to have wood. You know, we cut out so much of the wood industry, and that continues to happen, and people would be surprised how much that's used for. Natural gas helps--is part of the process of making so many of the parts for weaponry, and that will become more and more difficult to obtain.

Mr. GOHMERT. And perhaps, Mr. Souder, that's why, on this map we have here, the dark red is high vulnerability under cap-and-tax to losses of jobs. That's why Indiana is in this area up here where apparently it's in the high vulnerability for high losses of jobs. Texas, where I am from, it's in the medium vulnerability, but I already know. I have seen the loss of jobs we have. And actually, we have some of the same industries. We have a Nucor, but we have Tyler Pipe, Lufkin Industries involved in steel, but there is going to be a lot of loss of jobs.

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time. This is a trying time. And I appreciate my friend from Texas' belief and hope in the future. I just have read enough of this bill and know enough to understand the consequences. And this isn't the whole bill. This is two-thirds of it. The other 300 pages, they allowed me to borrow a copy briefly earlier today during debate right before the debate closed. But this is about two-thirds of it. We're having a job fair in Longview, Texas, Monday. That arose when I met with a bunch of my constituents, most of whom were African Americans, in a North Lufkin church a month or so ago who had lost jobs because jobs were being moved overseas. Energy was too costly here. The corporate tax is over twice as much here as what it is in China. And I have been hearing from other manufacturers that we have in our district that if this cap-and-trade bill goes through and becomes law, there will be many more lost jobs. And it breaks my heart. It broke my heart to meet with those people there in North Lufkin and others around my district who have lost jobs. So that's why I got to thinking what can I maybe do to help. I know the Texas Workforce Commission does a good job of having job fairs and trying to match up job openings with people's job skill sets and try to get people a job. As someone said on the floor earlier on our side of the aisle, Our people are not interested in unemployment benefits; they're interested in a job. That's what they want. That's what they had. We have continued to take actions for the last 2\1/2\ years since our friends across the aisle have been in the majority to place more and more of our energy off-limits, to make it more expensive. I also have plants in my district that use natural gas as feedstock, feedstock meaning that natural gas is absolutely the most essential element to producing the things that they do like plastics and other materials. And natural gas under this cap-and-trade bill will naturally skyrocket. Our Democrat majority leadership is pushing to regulate and tax hydraulic fracking, which will make much of the gas that we're currently getting unavailable and will shove those prices even higher. I lost around 900 jobs in my district when the Abitibi paper mill closed because natural gas was more expensive here in the United States than it was virtually anywhere else. It was a Canadian company. They held on to the property hoping that one day they could reopen it and get back those 900 good jobs, but eventually they have announced they will not be reopening the plant. That was the price of natural gas that did that. So I know with the job fair I've got coming up in Longview, we have over 60 employers there that will be offering jobs. We had over 600 people show up looking for jobs at the job fair in Lufkin, and I'm hoping it will go well. But I have read enough of this bill and I know enough about the energy industry because we produce a lot of it in East Texas. We've got coal, we've got oil, we've got gas, solar, wind. But this bill is going to put a lot of people out of work. It's going to put people out of work all over the country. So the job fairs are not going to be adequate for the damage that this bill is going to do. I have been joined by colleagues here on the floor who I think are as heartbroken as I am. And you would think we'd be giddy, you know, that our friends across the aisle have passed a bill that's going to come back to haunt them. It's going to cost jobs. It's going to make Americans mad. But I'm nothing but brokenhearted because I know what this will do to individuals. And I know that my friend Mr. Souder is likewise affected, and I would like to yield to him.

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, and I appreciate your observations. I would like to also observe, though, we heard during the debate today that 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 job because it is going to cost Realtors jobs. It is going to cost them commissions. It is going to cost them royally. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would yield back time.

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate so much, Mr. Souder, your great observations. 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. I do want to make a couple of quick points. Apparently we have about 7 or 8 minutes left. For one thing, Mr. Conaway had mentioned earlier that it will likely cost the average family across America an extra $3,031. 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 MIT said it won't cost that much. It may be $300 or $500 or $600, but it won't be $3,100. Those people just bought the Democratic talking points and didn't bother to check to see why it was that they are saying that it won't cost over $3,000. From what I have read, apparently they are 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 are saying what you will get back from the government in the way of services and benefits will be a wash because of all that you will 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 will be grateful for all you get. Baloney. And another thing we heard in debate on the floor today about was, gee, the AFL-CIO leaders and other union leaders, we heard these union leaders were in support of this bill. Well, how about that? They were in favor of the government taking over GM 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 is a sad, sad day for America because the rank-and-file people in America are going to pay a severe price. This intrudes into their lives so much. And for my unfortunate 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 are provisions in it. They know that people are going to lose their jobs as a result of this bill. So it is built in here. Now, you have to understand, though, it says here, you won't get such allowance for the first week you are unemployed. But then it will kick in after that. There is good stuff here. Over 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. There is climate change adjustment assistance and relocation assistance. Unfortunately, it is not going to pay you to go get your job back from China, India, Brazil and Latin America. So that part of the relocation is not going to help. But I'll 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 to 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're going to lose a lot of jobs here--and you lose your job, when you 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 is not too late for people to let their Senator know, look, I know you're a Democrat. I know the pressure is 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 will be the ones, the constituents will say, for paying the price for your sin and error. I would like to yield to my friend, Judge Poe, in our last few minutes.

Mr. GOHMERT. I will yield to my friend Mr. Souder.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, just moments ago on this floor there was cheering and there was clapping over the passing of the crap-and-trade bill. And it is a little tough to get excited. From a political standpoint, I should be overjoyed because I really believe in my heart that when the American people find out, and this is just a part of it, when they find out what has been done to them, they are going to be livid. And they are going to throw some people out of this body. I just know that will happen. But I care more about America than I do politics. I know that we will be facing the single moms that we heard from last summer that can't afford the gasoline bill. They can't afford the propane. You didn't do a great thing. You hurt some really decent families struggling and trying to make it. And this is going to be their death knell. It breaks my heart.

Mr. GOHMERT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 31, 111th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.