Shelley Capito

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to add extraneous materials on this bill.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my motion that the House suspend the rules with regard to H.R. 5817.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mrs. CAPITO. I thank the gentleman for bringing that up. I think it's an important point. With that, I urge support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he wishes to consume to the principal sponsor of this bill, a great member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri, the principal sponsor of the legislation.

Mrs. CAPITO. Does the gentleman have any more speakers? I'm prepared to close if you're prepared.

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would first like to thank Mr. Luetkemeyer and Mr. Sherman for authoring the bill before the House today. I would also like to thank Mr. Luetkemeyer for his hard work on the Financial Institution and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, where he has championed many initiatives to provide commonsense regulatory relief for small financial institutions. The House of Representatives has already passed one bill to remove an outdated requirement for duplicative disclosure of ATM fees on the machines--commonsense reform. I urge our colleagues in the Senate to pass both of these bills to provide this commonsense regulatory relief for banks and credit unions across the country. I know Mr. Luetkemeyer shares my concerns that in recent years Federal financial regulatory agencies have piled on more regulations without properly assessing the current regulatory regime to remove outdated, unnecessary, or overly burdensome regulations. Last year, members of our House Financial Services Committee urged the Treasury Secretary to make good on a promise from the summer of 2010 to take care, as the Dodd- Frank Act was implemented, to ensure that Federal agencies conducted a thorough assessment of the current regulatory structure, to ensure this opportunity to truly modernize and streamline the Federal code. We wanted to make sure this opportunity was not missed. Although Secretary Geithner claims that this streamlining is a priority, we've really seen very little progress on this front. H.R. 5817 provides an example of how both sides can come together-- and I would like to thank Mr. Sherman for his work on this as well--to identify outdated and duplicative regulatory requirements. Under current law, financial institutions are required to provide annual privacy notices to their customers that explain all of their information and practices. Financial institutions are required to mail those notices regardless of whether or not the information-sharing practices have changed. These annual mailings cost millions of dollars each year and do not provide consumers with new information if the financial institution has not changed their practice. The legislation before us today will require a financial institution to provide annual privacy notices only if they have changed privacy policies that affect the customer. This is an important, commonsense bill that will provide further clarity to customers and consumers and eliminate an unnecessary regulatory burden for our financial institutions. Again, I would like to thank Mr. Luetkemeyer and Mr. Sherman for their leadership on this issue, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I recognize myself just simply to close to say privacy is an issue that is of concern to all of us. In these new ways of communicating that we have--and we can only imagine in our future--I think it becomes more and more difficult. I would respond to the gentleman from California when he says that email notices--I haven't discussed it with the bill's sponsor. I wouldn't have an objection to that. However, many of us live in areas where the penetration of email is not like it is in California or Massachusetts or probably areas of Texas. There is a long way to go before that could be. Maybe next time this is debated in 10 years or whatever, that would be the norm. So I would make sure that that option for those who want to receive the paper can still do this. Frankly, I think we're overcomplicating this issue. I think it is a commonsense revision. If we took the gentleman's 10 people that he met on the street and said, What would you think if the bank didn't mail these privacy notices to you every year, if he further questioned them and asked them how many read these point by point--and I put myself in this category-- it is probably very small, as well. Not to say that it doesn't need to be publicly available. When changes are made, we have to have public notification. I agree with that. But I do believe, serving on the Financial Services Committee, I think it's become very apparent, when you talk to institutions and when you talk to customers that the piling on of new regulations, without weeding out some of these old regulations that have either been antiquated or duplicative or repetitive or wasteful or whatever, is burdening not just the institution, it is burdening the customer, too. I'm not sure it gets the wanted understanding of what's going on to the customer that we're trying to achieve here, and I do believe it's been overcomplicated.

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5817) to amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to provide an exception to the annual privacy notice requirement.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Mr. Guy Reynolds in celebration of his one hundredth birthday. Thomas Guy Reynolds Jr. was born on November, 30, 1912 in Martinsburg, West Virginia and is the son of the late Thomas Guy Reynolds Sr. and Lora Lenora Stotler. Mr. Reynolds graduated from Shepherd College in 1933 with a degree in education. He served in the Berkley County school system for a total of 18 years in addition to running his own television and radio repair business; serving as an electro-mechanical designer for Thieblot Aircraft; and working for 17 years at Corning Glass Works where he was appointed to the position of Senior Associate. He was the first person from the Martinsburg plant to receive this honorable position. Mr. Reynolds has received numerous awards for his outstanding volunteer efforts and community involvement, including Berkeley County's Citizen of the Year, Outstanding Alumni by Shepherd University, and was inducted into the West Virginia Voter Hall of Fame, for having voted in every general election since at least 1942, when records were first kept. Believed to be the oldest aviator in West Virginia, Mr. Reynolds flies his light-sport airplane as often as he can and frequently attends airport functions. He took his first flight out of Shepherd Field in 1929 in a Ford Trimoter and has been actively involved with the Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport and served as chairman of the West Virginia State Aeronautics Commission for two terms. Guy Reynolds' wonderful legacy lives on through his children, stepson, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker I rise to highlight that September is Alzheimer's awareness month and that today is ``Go Purple Day'' to help raise awareness of the disease. Alzheimer's is the most common form of dementia. The disease causes debilitating symptoms such as extreme memory loss as well as the ability to carry out day to day functions as simple as walking and even swallowing. Alzheimer's is ultimately fatal. It currently has no cure, and treatment options are very limited. An estimated 5.4 million Americans are currently suffering from Alzheimer's, including over 200,000 who are under the age of 65 and is the 6th leading cause of death in the United States. Every 68 seconds another American develops Alzheimer's. Sadly this disease does not only affect the victim but has a profound effect on both family members and friends. In 2011 it was estimated that more than 15 million family members provided over 17.4 billion hours of unpaid caregiver service which would be estimated at over 210 billion dollars worth of care to patients with Alzheimer's. Almost everyone has a friend or family member who has been impacted by this terrible disease. I am proud to go purple for Alzheimer's day and look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan way to combat this disease which has harmed so many families in West Virginia and around the country.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3409, the Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012. Across multiple federal government agencies, there is a regulatory assault underway against coal. The War on Coal has focused both on the production of coal and on the use of coal by electric utilities. The regulatory actions of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal government agencies are picking winners and losers in the energy industry by propping up companies like Solyndra while purposefully making it harder for coal producers to operate. The Stop the War on Coal Act returns climate policy to Congress, where it belongs in the hands of elected representatives who are subject to the will of the people. Americans want environmental policies that are fairly balanced against economic considerations such as the need for jobs and low cost electricity. These balancing decisions are best made in Congress. Federal agencies need to understand that the absence of a congressional authorization is not a green light for the agency to pursue whatever policy it wishes. I want to be clear that I support an all of the above energy policy. I believe that coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal energy sources all have a role to play in our national energy portfolio. There is no question, however, that electricity from coal and natural gas is cheaper and more abundant than electricity generated from renewable sources. A 2010 Heritage Foundation study found that the average family of four would pay on average $189 per month if it obtained 100 percent of its electricity from coal, but $504 per month if the same family purchased 100 percent of its electricity from solar power. That's a difference of $315 per month. With 47 million Americans on Food Stamps and everything from the price of gas to the price of milk increasing, Americans are looking to save money in every way possible. Coal fired electricity simply makes economic sense for families in my state and across the country. Additionally, while 42 percent of U.S. electricity was generated from coal last year, and 25 percent came from natural gas--all renewable sources combined accounted for only 13 percent of the electric supply. It will be many years before renewable fuels are ready to shoulder the burden of providing the energy on which American's rely. There are three reasons why I stand on the floor this evening to discuss the importance of coal. First, I am here to stand up for the jobs of tens of thousands of West Virginians and hundreds of thousands of others across the country who are employed mining coal, transporting coal, generating electricity from coal or work in jobs that support the coal industry. Second, I am here to stand up for the families and businesses that will see increases in their electric bills as the administration imposes extreme regulations on both the production and utilization of coal. Finally, I am here to stand up for the reliability of our electric grid, which could be at risk over the long term if too much of our ability to generate electricity from coal is lost. My State and our neighbors in Appalachia have suffered significant job losses in the coal industry recently. Just yesterday, Alpha Natural Resources announced 1,200 layoffs companywide and hundreds of those job losses will occur in my state of West Virginia. Over 300 miners at Consol Energy lost their jobs when the Fola Mine in Clay County, in my congressional district was idled earlier this summer. Arch Coal laid off 750 miners earlier this summer across West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky. Patriot Coal laid off 250 miners last week and the company filed for bankruptcy this summer. A local television station in my district tallied nearly 2,000 job losses in the mining industry in early August, and more layoffs have been announced since then. Besides layoffs by mining companies, job losses in related fields such as transportation usually accompany job losses in mines. There is more than one reason why job losses are occurring in the coal industry, and I understand that not all of the job losses that have occurred are attributable to over regulation. Natural gas prices are at historic lows and the price for metallurgical coal is softening. Nonetheless, the excessive regulatory burden placed on the coal industry is certainly part of the reason that jobs are being lost. I am pleased that the bill that the House will vote on this week includes the text of H.R. 1872, the Employment Protection Act, which I introduced in order to require the EPA to consider the impact that any new regulation, guidance, policy statement or permitting decision would have on jobs and the economy. All of us want clean air and clean water, but I believe that environmental regulations should be balanced with the need to maintain jobs and employment opportunities for workers in the mining industry. Under the Employment Protection Act, EPA would be required to have a public hearing in any state where a decision it makes would have more than a de minimis negative impact on jobs or economic activity. Therefore, before EPA can take any action that costs a state more than 100 jobs or costs more than $1 million in economic activity, it would be required to host a public hearing in the impacted state and engage in a conversation with local residents about the costs and benefits of their regulatory action. Too often federal agencies that are separated from local communities lose sight of the fact that their decisions have real impacts on workers and their families. I drafted the Employment Protection Act with the idea of empowering local residents with respect to decisions that impact them. Certainly if the benefits of a regulatory decision outweigh the negative economic consequences of the decision, then EPA should be able to articulate that fact to the impacted members of the local community. I am also proud of the other provisions that compromise H.R. 3409. The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act is critical legislation that will restore the balance between state and federal regulators when it comes to the issuance of permits under the Clean Water Act. It was clear when Congress enacted that Clean Water Act that states would have the ability to define water quality standards for pollutants, subject to approval from the EPA. Unfortunately, the federal regulators have attempted to supersede state regulators whenever possible. H.R. 3409 clarifies that EPA cannot issue a revised water quality standard that supersedes the approved state standard without the state's consent. The legislation also prevents the EPA from revoking certification of a state's Section 402 permitting program based on a disagreement with the state regarding a water quality standard that a state has adopted and EPA has approved, or the implementation of any federal guidance that directs a re-interpretation of the state's approved water quality standards. Perhaps most importantly, this bill prohibits the EPA from vetoing a Section 404 permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers unless the state concurs with the veto. This addresses the issue created by the EPA when it sought to veto a permit issued to the Spruce Mine in West Virginia. Despite the fact that EPA never stated that the holder of the permit violated any of the permit's terms, the agency sought to take back a permit that had already been issued. This action came after a lengthy review process that led to the issuance of the permit. Operating a coal mine requires a significant capital investment--an investment that cannot be made if the Federal Government is able and willing to take back a permit that it has issued even when the perrnittee abides by the conditions of the permit and otherwise follows the law. A federal judge in Washington, DC has already held that EPA acted unlawfully in taking back the permit from the Spruce Mine, but that ruling is currently being appealed. The Stop the War on Coal Act makes it absolutely clear that no 404 permit issued by the Corps of Engineers could be vetoed without consent of the affected state government. Jobs are at risk in West Virginia and across Appalachia because of the slow progress in obtaining required permits under Sections 404 and 402 of the Clean Water Act. Much of the permitting backlog is the result of Enhanced Coordination Procedures implemented by the EPA and the Corps of Engineers that gave EPA an increased role in the permitting progress. In two court decisions, Federal courts found that these Enhanced Coordination Procedures violated the Clean Water Act. Specifically, the Court found that the EPA ``has a very limited role in the issuance of CWA permits and has only the authority to develop the 404(b)(1) guidance with the Corps'' while the Corps is responsible for determining compliance. I strongly agree with the Court's interpretation of the existing provisions of the Clean Water Act. The Corps of Engineers is the permitting authority with respect to 404 permits. After a fair period for interagency comments, the Corps of Engineers should make a permitting decision--either denying the permit and allowing the entity seeking a permit to make modifications necessary to ensure proper environmental protection, or granting the permit and allowing mining to take place. Under the Enhanced Coordination Procedures, EPA assumed a role that goes far beyond what was contemplated in the Clean Water Act and led to many permits being placed in a holding pattern. Now that the District Court has ruled that the Enhanced Coordination Procedures are unlawful, it is my hope that the Corps of Engineers and state governments will be able to return to the traditional method of considering Clean Water Act permit applications without undue interference from the EPA. The legislation we are considering this week will go a long way in ensuring the fairness of the permitting process. Stream Buffer Zone Rule The current Stream Buffer Zone Rule was put into effect in 2008, after roughly five years of work. In 2009, however, OSM sought to vacate 2008 rule and asked a federal court to reinstate the 1980s regulation. The court denied this request, and OSM has worked to rewrite the 2008 rule which remains in place. Information provided by a contractor employed by OSM stated that 7,000 jobs would be lost in the mining industry if OSM's preferred alternative regulation were put into effect. To date, OSM has not issued a new stream buffer rule. Unemployment has remained over 8 percent for 43 straight months and we cannot afford to lose thousands of coal jobs. I commend my colleague Bill Johnson from Ohio for drafting this section of the bill. The legislation would prohibit the Department of the Interior from issuing or approving any rule under SMCRA that would adversely impact employment in coal mines, cause a reduction in coal revenues received from production on federal lands, reduce the amount of coal available for domestic consumption or export, designate any area as unsuitable for surface mining or expose the federal government to liability for a regulatory taking of privately owned coal before the end of 2013. There is no reason to rush into any modification of the Stream Buffer Rule at the expense of jobs in the coal industry. Cap and Tax The Stop the War on Coal Act also addresses the threat of EPA regulations on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from stationary sources. Congress has not enacted legislation that would create a cap and trade system, a cap and tax system, or that would otherwise expressly permit the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide from stationary sources. Like Clean Water Act permitting, EPA's attempt to regulate carbon dioxide from stationary sources is another area where the agency has stepped beyond its boundaries and into the realm properly occupied by Congress. I support efforts to develop Carbon Capture and Storage technologies and believe that they will allow coal to be cleaner in the future. Any effort to require CCS technology for new plants or existing plants, however, should come only when that technology is feasible economically and technologically--and only when Congress expressly authorizes such regulations. The Stop the War on Coal Act will make sure that elected representatives, rather than unelected bureaucrats, are in control of our climate policy. Expensive Regulations The expense of EPA's regulations is dramatic. National Economic Research Associates examined the impact of four anti-coal regulations imposed by the EPA: the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, Utility MACT, Cooling Tower regulations, and regulation of coal combustion residuals. The study found that compliance with these regulations would cost $127 billion by 2020, cause 183,000 net job losses each year, and lead to a cumulative loss of $190 billion in our country's gross domestic product. The NERA study found that the average American family would lose $270 per year in disposable income as a result of these four regulations. Our legislation addresses these expensive and burdensome regulations. The bill negates EPA's efforts to regulate coal combustion residuals as either a solid waste or a hazardous waste. Instead, this bill would ensure that states have the primary responsibility for regulating coal combustion residuals and encourages recycling. The use of coal ash in concrete for example, makes the concrete stronger and requires less cement--thereby reducing the use of water and energy. Under this bill, the Utility MACT rule must be reissued by EPA with an increased compliance period provided to utilities. EPA has estimated that the cost of complying with the Utility MACT rule would exceed $10 billion annually in 2016--more than the cost of all other Clean Air Act regulations on power plants combined. These costs will cause power plants to close, workers to lose their jobs, and families to pay higher utility bills. The CSAPR rule, already found unlawful by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, would be scrapped and replaced by the former Clean Air Interstate Rule, which better balanced environmental and economic considerations. The coal utility sector was well on its way to reducing emissions and investing in clean coal technologies without the administration's costly regulations. Between 1970 and 2011, emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter from coal fired power plants were reduced by almost 90 percent according to EPA and EIA figures, while the use of coal increased substantially over the same period. Over that same period, the industry invested nearly $100 billion in emission control technologies. Rather than continuing this progress, the EPA's regulatory course has led numerous coal plants to close and will lead to still more coal plant retirements in years to come. According to EIA figures, plant operators expect to retire almost 27 gigawatts of coal fired generation capacity between 2012 and 2016--approximately 8.5 percent of the total 2011 capacity. The 9 gigawatt retirement in 2012 will be the largest single year reduction in coal fired capacity in history--but EIA projects that figure will be exceeded by a 10 gigawatt retirement of coal capacity in 2015. EIA estimates that more than 55 coal generating units will be taken off line in 2012 alone. Losing coal generation capacity is bad for the future reliability of our electrical grid as well as for the cost of electricity in the long term. Natural gas prices are low today. In the event natural gas prices were to increase--something that certainly has happened before--a lack of coal generation capacity would cause utility rates to skyrocket. My state has an abundance of natural gas as well as coal, and I want to see both of these fuels succeed and maintain their roles as the two largest generators of electricity in our country. Regulating coal out of our nation's energy portfolio is not a responsible long term course. It has been said that the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. Our country has 260 billion short tons of recoverable coal--enough to meet existing production levels for 222 years. Low cost energy aids in job growth not only in the energy sector, but in manufacturing, transportation, and across our economy. The best way to provide low cost energy for businesses and for individuals for years to come is to avoid over regulating any single energy source, and instead allow both coal and natural gas to be produced and utilized as the free market dictates. Our current regulatory environment chooses winners and losers in the energy markets--and there is no question that this administration has chosen coal to be the biggest loser. The Stop the War on Coal Act takes responsible steps that allow both for environmental protection and economic protection. I encourage my colleagues to support the legislation this week.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have 10 minutes here, and I am very proud to be here tonight to talk about a bill that is on the floor on Friday, and that is the Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012. I hail from the great State of West Virginia, one of the largest coal-producing States in this Nation. Quite frankly, I am here for three reasons. The first reason is that I am extremely concerned about the job loss and the economic devastation that this war on coal is having on our State of West Virginia. We had really sad news just yesterday. Alpha Coal announced that 1,200 coal mining jobs in the region were going to be cut. Now, that sounds like a lot of jobs, but then when you think about it, that's 1,200 families, and that's 1,200 men and women who will come home tonight and who came home last night. So we say we're going to have to do something. And why is it? We don't have enough time to get into all of the details, but I do think it is part and parcel of the regulatory environment of this administration, that it's the philosophy of this administration that coal is not good for the country, and it's a lack of education, really, on the acknowledgment of the base load energy that coal brings to this Nation. I am here to stand up for the families and businesses that are going to see a rise in their electric bills. I am also here for the reliability of the electric grid to make sure that we have affordable energy. I would like to bring my friend from Pennsylvania in. We've been waiting a while. The Stop the War on Coal Act is coming up on Friday, which the President's energy plan is destroying, if you can even call it a plan. I mean, we're from an all-of-the-above plan. We've worked together on this, Mr. Murphy and I. We've already lost over 2,000 jobs, and 55 units are going to retire across America, in large part, due to EPA rules and regulations. How many jobs is that? These Boiler MACT rules, these Utility MACT rules, coal ash rules are all job killers. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, since we're on limited time, and ask him to give his perspectives on what we know is a war on coal.

Mrs. CAPITO. I want to thank you for joining me tonight at this late hour. I have just a few more minutes left, and I'd like to spend a little bit of time on what I think is a large overreach on the part of EPA into making law where Congress should be making the law. We should be deciding how to legislate on the Clean Water Act. We should be deciding how to legislate on the Clean Air Act. We should be deciding how to move forward on permitting in our Nation because we consider jobs and the economy across party lines, and those are important considerations for a lot of the bills we put forward. But this administration has decided to do an end around. They're making regulation after regulation. And what has happened? The Federal courts have said on at least two or three different occasions--and maybe more--that this administration is in an area where they don't belong. It's a legislative area. It's not a regulatory area. It's an area that needs to be addressed through legislation by the Congress because that's the proper place for these decisions to be made. So I hope that the President is listening, and I hope his administration is listening because, with thousands of jobs lost, higher electric bills, less reliable energy, fewer manufacturing jobs, this all feeds into an over 8 percent unemployment--folks who have quit looking and others who have given up. If we don't have a full-out energy plan that includes everything and our most basic and our longest living energy resource--coal--and use the properties there and enhance them through research and development, we are going to find ourselves with over 8 percent unemployment, and we are going to find communities wiped out. States like mine--that are 95 percent reliant on coal production for our electricity--are going to be severely disadvantaged. I don't want to live in a country where the regulatory environment and the President are picking winners and losers across this country, and that's what has happened. So I look forward to joining my colleague in voting for this bill on Friday. I thank you very much, and I thank the staff for staying so late, too. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. CAPITO. I agree. I think carbon capture and sequestration holds great promise, but we've got to make sure that we've got the technology available so that we can elongate the life of coal. Contained within the bill we're going to vote on on Friday is something that I've been concerned about now for years, which is of this administration's inability or reluctance or that it will not even consider the job and economic impact of the decisions they're making. We've passed bill after bill here, saying to the EPA and to the President, Mr. President, you've got to weave a balance between the economy and the environment. You've got to look at what the job and economic impact of these small towns and counties will be. Let's talk about what's happening to the county school systems. When these four coal mines shut down in West Virginia, we have a severance tax. That severance tax goes to pay the counties, and a lot of that money goes to the education of those children. What's going to happen? Who is going to fill that gap? Who considered that when they made the decisions to make it impossible to get a permit? to make it impossible to mine the coal? to make it impossible to burn the coal? I mean, we're cutting off our nose to spite our face. That's an old and tired term, but if we don't have a base load, cheap energy and an abundant energy source--and you and I are both from States that have a lot of natural gas. We're all for natural gas. We want the abundance of natural gas, and we realize the low price of natural gas is part of what's feeding into this. We need an all-of-the-above plan that must contain clean coal and efficient coal.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate The Greater Kanawha Valley Foundation on obtaining their National Standards for U.S. Community FoundationsTM accreditation from the Community Foundations National Standards Board. The Community Foundations National Standards Board was established as a supporting organization of the Council on Foundations, a nonprofit membership association of grant making foundations and corporations, to administer the National Standards. This board is responsible for upholding the quality, value, and integrity of the National Standards for U.S. Community FoundationsTM, the first and only accreditation program of its kind. In the United States, community foundations serve tens of thousands of donors, administer more than $40 billion in charitable funds, and address the core concerns of more than 700 communities and regions. With such a presence--nationally and within local communities--comes responsibility. Achieving confirmation and reconfirming compliance with National Standards is a rigorous process, guaranteeing that every community foundation that receives the designation has adhered to excellent philanthropic practice. This program requires community foundations to document their policies for governance, donor services, investments, grantmaking, community leadership, and administration. The Greater Kanawha Valley Foundation of Charleston, West Virginia has obtained its National Standards accreditation by demonstrating a commitment to operational quality, integrity, accountability, and adherence to the highest standards for grantmaking. On behalf of the residents of Charleston, I congratulate The Greater Kanawha Valley Foundation on receiving its National Standards accreditation and commend the foundation's dedicated service to Charleston and communities in West Virginia.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the Eastern West Virginia Community Foundation on obtaining their National Standards for U.S. Community FoundationsTM accreditation from the Community Foundations National Standards Board. The Community Foundations National Standards Board was established as a supporting organization of the Council on Foundations, a nonprofit membership association of grant making foundations and corporations, to administer the National Standards. This board is responsible for upholding the quality, value, and integrity of the National Standards for U.S. Community FoundationsTM, the first and only accreditation program of its kind. In the United States, community foundations serve tens of thousands of donors, administer more than $40 billion in charitable funds, and address the core concerns of more than 700 communities and regions. With such a presence--nationally and within local communities--comes responsibility. Achieving confirmation and reconfirming compliance with National Standards is a rigorous process, guaranteeing that every community foundation that receives the designation has adhered to excellent philanthropic practice. This program requires community foundations to document their policies for governance, donor services, investments, grantmaking, community leadership, and administration. The Eastern West Virginia Community Foundation of Martinsburg, West Virginia has obtained its National Standards accreditation by demonstrating a commitment to operational quality, integrity, accountability, and adherence to the highest standards for grantmaking. On behalf of the residents of Martinsburg, I congratulate the Eastern West Virginia Community Foundation on receiving its National Standards accreditation and commend the foundation's dedicated service to Martinsburg and communities in West Virginia.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the lifetime accomplishments of my friend, T. Randolph ``Randy'' Cox, who is being honored by the YMCA of the Kanawha Valley as its 2012 Spirit of the Valley recipient. Unfortunately Randy is being recognized post mortem as he passed away on his birthday, October 19, 2011, while participating in one of his favorite athletic sports, the game of squash. Raised in Princeton, New Jersey, Randy attended the University of Virginia as an undergraduate, the University of Massachusetts completing an MBA, and the University of Miami, where he completed his law degree and met his wife and lifelong partner, Ann. Randy and Ann moved to West Virginia and each became members of the law firm of Spilman, Thomas & Battle. Randy's practice included environmental, telecommunications and corporate law, with a primary focus on government relations and insurance regulatory matters. Randy was well respected as a member of his firm and for his work throughout West Virginia's legal community. Randy was also committed to serving the Kanawha Valley and his state, by giving back to the region where he resided and raised his family. He served in leadership roles with a number of local charitable, civic and philanthropic organizations, most notably, the Greater Kanawha Valley Foundation as its former chairman of the board, the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce as its former chairman of the government relations committee and board of directors, and lastly, the Charleston YMCA, who is honoring him as its 2012 Spirit of the Valley recipient, having served as its chairman of the board. At the time of his death, Randy was serving as President of Edgewood Country Club where he spent his leisure time on the golf course or squash court. Randy was truly a versatile and talented man whose life was cut too short. The Spirit of the Valley award specifies that its recipient be, ``. . . a person who quietly gives of themselves, their time and their resources when the Valley's citizens need them. Their commitment, persistence, good judgment and joyful heart only enrich the fabric of life in our Valley.'' There is no question that Randy certainly embodies these good character traits and is most deserving of this esteemed honor. I am just sorry that he cannot be with us as we honor him. In addition to his wife, Ann, Randy leaves behind two children, Thomas and his wife, Brittany, and his daughter Erin, whom he truly loved. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to speak to the accomplishments of T. Randolph ``Randy'' Cox, for the level of devotion to his family and his dedication to community service which makes Randy most deserving of the honor of the YMCA's Spirit of the Valley. I am honored to call him my good friend and the Kanawha Valley is fortunate to remember him as one of their own.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. I rise today to support the jobs of hundreds of hardworking coal miners in West Virginia and to highlight the misguided actions of the EPA in objecting to permits for coal mining activity. On April 1, 2010, the EPA issued guidance under the Clean Water Act that bypasses the normal process for promulgating water quality standards. It nullifies the water quality standards put into place by our State regulators and our State legislatures. In other words, the EPA has taken over the States' prerogative on water quality. Despite a 2011 Federal court decision that rejected the EPA's interpretation of its authority, the regulatory permitting process for surface mining has essentially been halted in the Appalachian region. Hundreds of permits will expire within the next 18 months in West Virginia alone. Failure to act on these permits will lead to the loss of thousands of jobs in West Virginia, and just recently we have experienced a loss of 1,000 coal mining jobs. The EPA should exercise its permitting and regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act in a manner that considers the impacts on jobs and the economy in West Virginia and other coal mining States.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Colonel Robert D. Peterson; who has served West Virginia through his leadership for the past 3 years at the United State Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District. Col. Peterson is responsible for the 300 navigable miles of the Ohio River basin. Col. Peterson employees over 800 staff members to maintain 35 reservoirs, and nine locks and dams. I want to personally congratulate Col. Peterson for his continued success. The awards of Col. Peterson are just a fraction of what he has truly accomplished. Col. Peterson has successfully managed 35 flood projects that prevented over 11.3 billion dollars in damages while allowing over 30 million visitors to support these regions through tourism. He was responsible for the processing of 94 tons of commercial traffic valued at $18.6 billion dollars through nine locks and dams. He oversaw the ongoing construction of the Bluestone Dam including communication of risk in the event of dam failure and held a Combined Emergency Exercise to educate affected federal, state and local governments to potential dangers. As a result, the Huntington District was selected by the Great Lakes and Ohio River division as the Regional Dam Safety Production Center and soon after, selected by the Corps of Engineers Headquarters as the Corps' national Mandatory Center of Expertise for Dam Safety. I had the honor to work with Col. Peterson as he executed nine Project Partnership Agreements for environmental infrastructure projects providing water and sewer service to unserved and underserved residents of the Second Congressional District, resulting in improved public health and safety. He has proven to be an effective communicator in a variety of public venues on the federal, state and local level, including such forums as the Ohio River Basin Alliance of which I have been involved. And lastly, he issued 800 permits for mining, highway construction, and flood emergency, including the permit to place West Virginia's newest resident, the Boy Scout Jamboree on a post-mining land site within our beautiful state of West Virginia. Col. Robert D. Peterson is an outstanding soldier, friend, husband and father. He is a 1985 graduate from the prestigious academy of West Point, graduating with a Bachelors of Science and from the U.S. Army War College with a Masters Degree in Strategic Studies. Col. Peterson was awarded the Bronze Star, three Army Commendation Medals, two Army Achievement Medals, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Master Parachutist Badge, and the Bronze Order of the deFleury Medal. Col. Peterson's work has greatly enhanced the state of West Virginia and the world around him. Congratulations to Col. Peterson on his numerous accomplishments.

Mrs. CAPITO

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and ranking member and the conference committee, for what I think is a victory today. I think this reauthorization bill is one of the most important responsibilities we have. It's a jobs bill. It will bring efficiencies to our funding stream for very important projects, and it will remove a lot of uncertainty. As a member of this committee, I'm really, really pleased that we were able to come to a compromise. The efficiencies and the streamlining, when the chairman brought the committee to Yeager Airport, that was one of the resounding complaints about current funding in the transportation sector is it takes too long, it's too expensive, and time is money. And we can do a lot better job with more efficiencies and make our dollars go farther. And with hard deadlines and some exemptions, I think that this bill will do that. There are a couple of provisions in here that I regret were not included, and most specifically, the provision on the coal ash provision. I mean, we're looking at a time where we have scant resources. We have to make smart decisions about how to weave the balance between our environment and our economy; and the coal ash provision would have provided, I think, the certainty to the construction industry and to those surrounding, also, the coal industry that smart use and responsible use of coal ash would be in our future. Unfortunately--and I believe it occurred in the Senate that that provision was not included in our bill, and I'm deeply disappointed by that. But we will, as an energy State and as energy representatives, we'll live to fight another day. Additionally, I would like to say, as a member of the Financial Services Committee as well, the reason that the flood bill is on this bill is extremely important, again, to lend the certainty to lenders, Realtors, homebuilders, and really, the consumer that we can get that housing market moving again; and the certainty provided by the reauthorization of the flood bill in here will provide us with that. But I simply want to say that I think that in a bicameral, bipartisan way we moved together to show folks in West Virginia and across this Nation that we can work together to create the jobs that we need in the sectors that we need, and I look forward to supporting the bill.