Bill Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. You and I took a trip not too long ago from here in our Nation's Capital to a conference meeting in Pennsylvania. We stopped at a little service station, a gas station owned by a veteran out in the middle of nowhere. In rural America, those communities are powered by small businesses. Small businesses can only thrive when they have affordable electricity. The area of the country where you and I live and much of Appalachia is a manufacturing belt, but a lot of that manufacturing has left because of the downward pressure from Washington, D.C., in regulations of all shapes and sizes, and now with a threat to shut down the very source of energy. I know I have had manufacturers that have come to me saying they have been approached by utility companies saying: Can you idle your plant for a day because we don't have enough energy on the grid to be able to meet the peak demand in the dead of winter, in another polar vortex, or in the stifling heat of summer, when seniors and the elderly and the homebound are sitting in their homes either freezing or burning up because they can't get their HVAC systems to work because of the utility prices or the energy on the grid. It is appalling that it has come to this in America. Our allies get it in Europe. China is not necessarily an ally, but it is building a new coal-fired power plant every 9 days. Germany is building coal-fired power plants. Belgium is returning to a higher mix of coal in their energy profile. We are going to be going over there again very soon to talk to more of our friends and allies across Europe about this very, very same subject. So, again, I appreciate your passion on this issue as well.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I now yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins), my friend and colleague, who is another neighbor from across the river.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for his passion--as others have shared--on this very, very important issue. You and I live in a region of the country where we have to look into the eyes of those coal miners every single day. Oftentimes, the media talks about the coal industry as this abstract industry, that it doesn't really have an identity. But it does. It is the heartbeat of our country. Look at where we were even 10 years ago, with the majority of the energy across America provided by the coal industry. In Ohio, at that time, in excess of 70 percent of our energy came from coal. Coal has provided the innovative engine for America's prosperity for generations--and for us to turn our backs on it. One of the things that is so shocking that I think the American people would like to know more about right now, today, almost $2 trillion--$1.8 trillion, to be exact--comes out of our economy every year in the form of government regulations. I heard a report not too long ago that new Federal regulations are coming out on the average of about 10 per day. It is a cancer that is growing, and the EPA is one of the worst, with no rhyme, no reason, little consideration, and total disregard for the lives that their rulemaking impacts.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the gentleman. I now yield to another colleague and neighbor from the great State of West Virginia, Representative Alex Mooney.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for his comments and for his passion. We have been fighting this Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation Stream Protection Rule for almost 5 years now--actually, longer than that--because we know what happened when the Obama administration came in. That was one of the first things that they set their targets on and, through a series of exposing their flaws and inconsistencies in their rulemaking, we were able to stop it. But they have been persistent. Now we need the American people to sound off, and we need the American people to understand how this is going to affect them. I thank the gentleman for his comments. One thing, Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure we assert is, you know, we have heard a lot of passionate talk about the coal industry, and you may hear even more before this Special Order is over this evening. But I want to make sure we understand we are talking about modernizing America's energy infrastructure. H.R. 8 is called the Architecture of Abundance. Yes, it is about coal, but it is about much more than just coal. It is about modernizing our energy infrastructure, protecting the electricity system, strengthening energy security and diplomacy across the globe, and improving energy efficiency and, importantly, holding the Federal Government accountable for a real all- of-the-above energy policy that guarantees America's energy, security, and independence. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), our majority whip, my Boudin-loving colleague.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the chairman. I am grateful for all the work that the Dyslexia Caucus has done to advance this very, very important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3033, the Research Excellence and Advancements for Dyslexia, or the READ Act. This important legislation would require that the President's annual budget to Congress specifically fund the Research in Disabilities Education program at the National Science Foundation. It would also require NSF to devote at least $5 million annually to dyslexia research. You are probably going to hear multiple Members come up tonight and talk about personal stories, about how this hits so very close to home for some of us. I have a 13-year-old granddaughter in Texas, Marin Mangiaracinia. I have watched over the years as she and her mother and her dad have struggled to help try to identify the problems that she has with learning, teachers that were unprepared to diagnose, to identify the symptoms of dyslexia. Even then, once she was diagnosed and identified, having those tools and support applied consistently from one school to another or from one teacher to another is still problematic. Today Marin is a member of the National Honor Society because of the help that has been provided to her. But she still struggles. She has created a Web site on her own to draw attention to this important problem, and she is working hard to improve herself personally. I can't say enough about how proud I am of her and the many others that are afflicted with this condition. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 3033.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, because speeches made here on the House floor are preserved for history, I want to speak to the future, to present a plausible scenario and an apology, an apology to be heard by the survivors, an apology to every victim of what will forever be known as the Iranian nuclear attack. I expect it will be after the year 2030 before anyone takes any real notice of this apology. Someone will find it while surfing what remains of the Internet, maybe in Israel, Western Europe, or here in the United States, someone surrounded by the smoking ruins of leveled buildings, the incinerated corpses of those lucky enough to have been killed in the first seconds of the blast, and the wails of anguish of those left to die and mourn. It is especially ironic and heartbreaking to be speaking about this as today, in 2015, we prepare to remember those killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So to the people of 2030, on behalf of America, I am truly sorry. I am sorry we failed to stop President Obama from releasing $150 billion to fuel the destructive fantasies of terrorist leaders in Iran that lit the fuse. During my 26-year career in the United States Air Force, America's leaders believed in mutually assured destruction, the MAD theory. We thought, if one nation such as the Soviet Union launched nuclear missiles, the other nation would do so as well and both would be destroyed. This potential of mutual destruction kept those missiles in their silos. But that theory does not apply to dealing with the leaders of Iran, who are dangerous fanatics, motivated by evil, not self-preservation. So the madness in Iran means the MAD theory doesn't apply in 2015. And that is why I am sorry that we who lead America in 2015 failed to stop President Obama from helping Iranian terrorists and Iranian tyrants build an intercontinental ballistic missile system. I am also sad to say that the people hearing my message in 2030 will bear witness to the fact that Iranian missiles can, indeed, deliver nuclear holocaust to America's soil. In the Air Force, I worked alongside other military strategists to ensure that missiles would never strike here. But, in 2015, America's President and his supporters discarded those concerns. So to our countrymen of 2030 and to our friends in Israel whose land now lies fallow and wrecked, let me now say we were wrong. We struggle to imagine what you must be going through. The death and destruction that once haunted your nightmares now plays out before you. Families and friends are either dead or lined up at makeshift morgues to claim the bodies of loved ones. Food and water are scarce or contaminated with radiation. Refugees from the blast area stagger down gridlocked highways where traffic stopped when the detonation occurred. We thought we had seen the worst of humanity's hate on September 11, 2001, but that atrocity now pales in comparison. The similarities between the tragic missteps of Barack Obama and Neville Chamberlain, who foolishly trusted Nazi Germany, are obvious. Mr. Obama says his deal with Iran will somehow lead to peace. Mr. Chamberlain made the same assertion, claiming that his pact with the Nazis would lead to ``peace for our time.'' In 2015, I spoke in opposition to the deal that led to the 2030 Iranian nuclear attack because I well remember the words of the theologian Bonhoeffer who eventually died in a Nazi torture chamber. In confronting the murderous madmen of his time, he declared that ``Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.'' In 2015, many of us spoke, many of us acted, but the powers of evil still won the day. And now the innocent dead of 2030 call out with just one question: How could the leaders of 2015 let this happen? The answer is simple and sad: Because, despite our best efforts, we couldn't stop the deal that funded, armed, and unleashed nuclear hell from the madmen of Iran. We allowed the power and persistence of the foolish to deliver a corrupt contract with a nation of terror. And, in 2030, the day of reckoning arrived. And for that I am truly very, very sorry. May God have mercy on us all.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Thank you to my colleague for yielding. You made a comment just a minute about, you know, we don't have the Detroits, we don't have the New Yorks, we don't have the big cities in coal country. We may not have those big cities in coal country, but I guarantee you those big cities get some of their electricity from the coal that is produced by the coal miners that live in our region. Over the past 5 years, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation has spent more than $10 million of its budget to pursue a wholesale rewrite of one of the agency's regulatory programs. Dubbed the ``stream protection rule'' by the agency, this massive regulatory undertaking has little to do with protecting streams and much more to do with riding roughshod over State regulatory programs. This rule rewrite means more Americans will be out of work and that electricity bills of hard-working families could increase. As OSM's related draft environmental impact statement indicates, the Appalachian Basin, home to thousands of Ohioans who depend on the coal industry for their livelihood, to put food on their table, to put clothes on their children, to send their children to school, could see as many as 450 production-related jobs lost per year, with potential adverse impacts of $37 million annually. This appears to be of little concern to the administration, as Interior Secretary Sally Jewell was recently quoted as characterizing the job loss in coal country associated with this rule rewrite as ``minor.'' I invite Secretary Jewell to join me on a trip to any coal mine in Ohio and directly tell the hard-working miners--look them in the eye and tell them that this new rule has only minor impacts. I will clear my schedule, and I will be available any day, anytime, to go with her if she wants to come there. Furthermore, this regulation omits and ignores the relevant input from those stakeholders with the most expertise in regulating mining, the States who have been doing it for years. In fact, 9 of the 10 States originally involved in the rules development have withdrawn their support due to OSM's exclusionary tactics. This is unacceptable, and it is why I urge the House to consider H.R. 1644, the STREAM Act, as soon as possible. Introduced by my colleague from West Virginia, Alex Mooney, the STREAM Act would direct the administration to conduct a comprehensive study of the effectiveness of the Stream Buffer Zone Rule that has been in place since 1983. We have been doing this for a long time and protecting streams in the process. While this study occurs, a prohibition on the promulgation of new rules addressing the stream protection or stream buffers will be implemented to ensure that the Secretary incorporates the findings of the study into any future rulemaking. This is just one example, Mr. McKinley, of the regulatory overreach of this administration and its devastating impacts on coal miners, on families that depend on the coal industry for their livelihoods, and the businesses that depend on cost-affordable, reliable electricity across our country. I appreciate you giving me the time to share that.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I am proud to be on your team.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, many of us have seen it, a recently surfaced, horrifying video that provides evidence that Planned Parenthood employees participate in the harvesting of fetal body parts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in absolute disgust. Not only is Planned Parenthood profiting from abortions, but this video shows a top Planned Parenthood executive discussing how best to procure and sell specific organs from these defenseless, aborted babies' bodies. As a father and a grandfather, I find these acts unconscionable and barbaric. We have a moral responsibility to ensure that these acts are fully investigated and that Planned Parenthood is held accountable for their actions. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Fred Upton of the Energy and Commerce Committee and Chairman Bob Goodlatte of the Judiciary Committee for taking immediate action and announcing their respective investigations into this horrific practice. Mr. Speaker, I cannot fathom why taxpayers' hard-earned dollars are provided to organizations that actively allow such gruesome practices to occur. In 2013, abortions made up 94 percent of Planned Parenthood's so- called pregnancy services--94 percent. Prenatal care and adoptive referrals accounted for only 5 percent and half, or 0.5 percent, respectively. Yet taxpayer funding accounts for 41 percent of Planned Parenthood's overall revenue. We must act now to prevent even a single dime from going to organizations such as Planned Parenthood that flaunt such blatant disregard for human life, and we need colleagues on both sides of the aisle to step up and join us in this effort.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. Trusting that Iran, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, has suddenly had a change of heart in its decades-long quest to obtain a nuclear weapon is just simply naive at best. Legislation that was signed into law in May would allow Congress to review and vote on any deal that the administration makes with Iran. Those I represent believe Congress should have the final say on any deal, and I couldn't agree more. America's national security, as well as global security, will be jeopardized if the administration gets this wrong. We must ensure it doesn't. The stakes are simply too high. If Iran is actually serious about reengaging with the global community, they cannot continue to hold American citizens as political prisoners or harass and provoke U.S. Navy ships in international waters. Iran should stop provoking direct military confrontation, immediately release all detained U.S. citizens, and provide any information it possesses regarding any U.S. citizens that have disappeared within its borders. The fact that the Iranian regime won't even do these basic actions indicates to me that counting on them to honor commitments they make around a negotiating table can't be taken seriously.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney).

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to thank Chairman Calvert and the subcommittee for a great underlying piece of legislation. We have got a great appropriations bill here, and I look forward to supporting it. My amendment to the FY 2016 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill will keep the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement's spending in check with the agency's obligation. Specifically, it will reduce OSM's regulation and technology budget by $2 million and transfer those funds to the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. According to OSM, States and tribes perform 97 percent of the regulatory activity relating to surface coal mining in the United States; yet OSM receives 25 percent of the staffing resources to perform 3 percent of the work. This amendment will help bring spending in parity with the work done by OSM. Although the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, or SMCRA, was enacted to allow States with approved programs to assume exclusive jurisdiction of mining in their States, under the current administration, OSM has increasingly used its inflated budget to improperly usurp the lawful decisions of State regulators. This amendment will help curtail excessive Federal interference and restore the State's role in surface mining regulation. For instance, over the past 5 years, OSM has spent more than $10 million of its disproportionately large budget to pursue a wholesale regulatory rewrite of the agency's regulatory program. Dubbed the ``stream protection rule'' by the agency, this massive regulatory undertaking has little to do with protecting streams and more to do with riding roughshod over State regulating programs and the role of other agencies, including State Clean Water Act regulators. During its pursuit of the stream protection rule, OSM has completely cut States out of the process, in violation of its legal obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act. My amendment will help restrain the resources of the agency from promulgating a rule made without State consultation and in violation of NEPA. In fact, 10 States initially signed a memorandum of understanding with OSM and agreed to serve as cooperating agencies for the development of the environmental impact statement to accompany the so- called stream protection rule. Of those 10 States, six have withdrawn their respective MOUs due to lack of consultation from OSM. These States include Alabama, New Mexico, Utah, Texas, Kentucky, and West Virginia. More States are expected to withdraw. While Wyoming is still a cooperating agency, they have requested that their State seal be removed from the EIS. Mr. Chairman, I urge my fellow colleagues to support this amendment that will keep spending in check with the OSM's statutory responsibilities.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank subcommittee Chairman Calvert again for supporting this amendment. I urge a ``yes'' vote by my colleagues. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of Chairman Whitfield's legislation, H.R. 2041, the Ratepayer Protection Act. This rule, the clean power plan, by the EPA is an unprecedented rule, one that has the potential to devastate Ohio's coal industry. That is the very same industry that employs thousands of people throughout eastern and southeastern Ohio and provides homes and businesses with affordable, reliable electricity. The Ratepayer Protection Act will stop this devastation. Almost 70 percent of Ohio's electricity today--70 percent of Ohio's electricity-- is currently provided by coal. Moreover, coal miners already have a difficult and stressful job as it is. And now, because of the EPA's clean power plan, they will have to worry about whether or not they will even have a job when they show up for work. The Ratepayer Protection Act is an essential check on the EPA's extreme emission standards. It allows Governors to use common sense to opt their State out of the rule should they determine that it will negatively affect its ratepayers or grid reliability. The legislation also extends the rule's compliance dates, pending judicial review. That is just common sense, Mr. Chairman, because shouldn't our States have a say in our energy future? Especially when you consider that over 32 States have already raised legal objections to the rule, and 34 have objected to the EPA's rush regulatory timelines. EPA's carbon emission regulations have already made it economically unfeasible to build a new coal-fired power plant in America. We cannot afford to shut down existing plants and this very important industry as well. I support the legislation, and I urge my colleagues to.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that during a two minute vote series last night I inadvertently voted `no' on Mr. King's amendment (roll call vote 293) when I intended to vote `yes.' I strongly believe that President Obama's executive order granting amnesty to those illegally in America is unconstitutional, and in no way should be implemented or funded.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act. This important legislation will bring certainty to the Department of Energy's review process for LNG export applications, create American jobs, continue spurring America's manufacturing comeback, and provide a stable source of energy to our allies in Europe and around the world. Thanks to the energy renaissance occurring throughout eastern and southeastern Ohio and across the United States, America is able to produce large quantities of natural gas like never before, enough to meet our domestic natural gas demands and export excess LNG to the global marketplace. Through the abundance of natural gas, we have an opportunity to significantly affect geopolitics and to create American jobs, but only if we enact smart policies like H.R. 351. The window of opportunity for LNG exports will not remain open indefinitely, so it is important that Congress act immediately. If Congress fails to act, companies will continue to face regulatory uncertainty, which creates hesitancy in securing financing for constructing LNG terminals, plus nations with near-term energy needs will look elsewhere. Potential geopolitical benefits such as reducing the oppressive influence of other exporters like Russia and Iran, while simultaneously strengthening ties with our allies, could be ultimately jeopardized. Some of my colleagues are concerned that increased LNG exports will not really help our allies in Europe, but that is simply not true. Regardless of where U.S. natural gas is sent, increasing the supply and competition in the international market will provide global consumers with greater choice and, most importantly, increased leverage when negotiating LNG pricing contracts. In fact, by no longer importing such large amounts of LNG, the U.S. has already indirectly helped our European allies. With the passage of this legislation, even more LNG will be free to go to places that need it most. Equally important, if we delay, domestic economic benefits may also fail to materialize, specifically the opportunity to create some 45,000 jobs by 2018 and increase hardworking taxpayer salaries by $1 billion over 6 years. This is a win for manufacturing, especially those who make drilling equipment pipeline components, not to mention the refining, petrochemicals, and chemicals sectors. For these reasons, Congress must pass H.R. 351. To date, DOE has issued a final decision on only five of the 38 pending LNG export applications received since 2010. This is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to help bring certainty to DOE's approval process, create jobs, help maximize American energy production, and help our allies abroad by voting for this important legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 48, the rule for H.R. 351, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act. During the 113th Congress, identical legislation to H.R. 351 passed the House of Representatives as H.R. 6, the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act. Long before its passage, the bill moved through the entire legislative process at the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. This process included a hearing as well as an eventual markup at the Subcommittee on Energy and Power. A subsequent full committee markup followed, and the bill was placed on the Union Calendar. The House Committee on Rules then established H. Res. 636, the rule for consideration of H.R. 6. After that rule was adopted, the legislation was debated, amended, and ultimately passed the House of Representatives with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. The President did not issue a veto threat. The energy renaissance that has swept across America over the last years has transformed the United States from an increasingly energy dependent Nation--beholden to the whims of OPEC--to our current position as the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the world. This transformation has provided us with a historic and unprecedented opportunity not just to bolster our economy, but to also fully leverage our energy abundance on the international stage by selling a portion of our natural gas abroad. Through this abundance of natural gas, America has an opportunity to significantly affect geopolitics if we enact smart policies. It could-- and should--be a game changer. Allowing the export of liquefied natural gas, for instance, will create significant American jobs and wealth for the United States, enhance our energy security, and provide a reliable source of fuel to our allies, some of whom depend on the mood of Vladimir Putin to meet their energy needs. Unfortunately, our policies have not kept pace with the industry's development. Producers seeking to export LNG face a constantly changing approval process which costs millions of dollars and takes years to navigate. Not only does this undermine regulatory certainty, but with dozens of projects seeking approval, Washington is making it difficult for businesses to make the investment decisions needed to take advantage of this abundant resource. This delays job creation here at home and reduces our ability to positively influence global politics abroad. My bill, the LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act, aims to address this growing problem by cutting through the bureaucratic red tape and implementing a deadline on the Department of Energy to issue a final decision on LNG applications. Given the amount of time that has already passed since many of the LNG export applications have been filed and their dockets closed, there is no more information to consider and no reason for DOE not to adhere to a deadline. There is very real risk to inactivity. If Washington waits too long to move forward with export licenses, other countries with their own natural gas resources--Canada, Qatar, and Australia, to name three-- will step in to meet the demand. Our competitive advantage, along with the opportunity to create more domestic energy jobs and serve as a check on Russia, will be lost. Numerous studies have found that LNG exports will create hundreds of thousands of American jobs, many of them in manufacturing, including the refining, petrochemicals, and chemicals sectors. ICF International estimates that these jobs will occur across the entire value chain, translating into roughly $1 billion in new wages for American workers over a 6-year period. Export terminals will also generate millions of dollars in new tax revenue for Federal, State, and local governments, while increasing our GDP and lowering the trade deficit. It is worth noting that this won't come at the expense of domestic consumers. The U.S. Energy Information Administration stressed that it expects increased overseas demand for LNG will be met by the development of new resources. In fact, the DOE has concluded that each of the different export scenarios considered ``are welfare improving for U.S. consumers'' and would result in ``an increase in U.S. households' real income.'' The recent turbulence in Eastern Europe--and throughout the Middle East--has shown all too clearly that energy can be used as a geopolitical tool. Adding a new and reliable source of natural gas onto the world market will diversify our allies' energy sources and greatly reduce their vulnerability to a single monopolistic supplier. I am proud to author this legislation. It is a job creator. It helps America in leveraging the geopolitical stage across the globe. We have seen enough delay. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the Chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, right now, today, about 50 percent of Russia's revenue comes from taxes on oil and gas. About 80 percent of that resource goes through the Ukraine. The Ukrainian people are under tremendous pressure, as are other European allies, by the Russians. Regardless of where U.S. natural gas is shipped, increasing supply and competition in the global marketplace will help provide international consumers with greater choice. In fact, a representative of the U.S. State Department made a similar statement on the benefits of U.S. natural gas exports at a January 8, 2015, Atlantic Council forum. This is from the State Department: Now, where the gas will go doesn't matter. The fact that we have approved exports of natural gas has already had an impact on Europe. Just the fact that America is getting into the game has put the Russians on notice that our friends and allies and people that they are currently putting under pressure--the Ukrainians and others--are going to have a choice, and it is going to make a different conversation happen at the table. Mr. Chairman, I hope that helped clarify it.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the hardworking people of eastern and southeastern Ohio to share their stories since they began experiencing President Obama's health care law. I have heard from many of those I represent who have seen an increase in their health care premiums, lost their doctors, and were forced out of the plans that they liked, even after they were told by President Obama that if they liked their health plan they could keep it. Alice of Dennison, Ohio, contacted my office and let me know that her insurance premium went from $235 to $520 a month, more than doubling. Alice told me that she goes to bed at night wondering how she will pay for the increased premiums. But Alice isn't alone. Her story is just one of the many stories from Ohio I have received. We must continue to fight this misguided law and work to return control and choice of health care to the American people. Hardworking Americans deserve better than ObamaCare.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014. This much-needed legislation will finally start to shed light for the American people on the underlying science that the EPA uses to justify their new rules and regulations. Not only would the EPA have to share the evidence they are using or the science they are using on the rules, but they would have to specify the need for the rule. But most importantly, the results of the EPA's analysis would have to provide enough information so that the public can independently reproduce the results so that we can check the EPA's work. As I travel up and down my district visiting small, medium, and large manufacturing companies, I hear a common theme over and over again. At almost every stop these companies are telling me they are dealing with new or proposed rules coming out of the EPA. Whether it is a mom-and- pop brick manufacturing company, an international steel manufacturing company, or a coal-fired power plant, they are all dealing with new and very costly new EPA rules. If the EPA and environmentalists get their way, some of these companies will simply go out of business because the rules are unattainable and they apparently don't really move the needle toward improvements in public health. I say ``apparently'' because we don't have all the facts and data that the EPA is using to justify these new rules, and we can't validate and verify what they are telling the public. Thousands of direct jobs and tens of thousands of indirect jobs are at risk because of these proposed and pending rules. We owe it to these hardworking men and women to share the science with the public so we can verify what the EPA is saying before they lose their jobs over unverified studies. Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 2, the American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act. This important legislation will unleash America's energy potential, create thousands of jobs, and stop the administration from destroying tens of thousands of jobs. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Representative Lamborn and I sponsored the Preventing Government Waste and Protecting Coal Mining Jobs in America Act, which is a portion of this package. This specific title of the bill stops the administration's efforts to virtually eliminate underground mining in the Eastern United States, cost thousands of jobs, and lead to skyrocketing energy costs for all Americans. Since President Obama came into office, his Department of the Interior has tried to rewrite the stream buffer zone rule. The President's preferred rule would cost at least 7,000 direct jobs and thousands more indirect jobs. This estimate is the administration's own estimate, and it could potentially be much worse. The President's rewrite of the rule has been ongoing now for 5 years, has cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and has been the subject of an ongoing investigation by Chairman Hastings and the House Natural Resources Committee. As we have seen across the administration, the Interior Department has largely refused to turn over documents and recordings to the committee in a clear violation of the House's oversight authority. The administration is clearly holding back information that they know would be damaging to their efforts. The House has previously passed this legislation on two separate occasions, both times on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, the Senate has refused to even consider the legislation either time. I specifically want to thank Chairman Hastings and Chairman Lamborn for their leadership on this issue. Without their investigation of the Department on this rulemaking process, we might not have been able to stop it from going forward. However, we will continue our oversight and make sure that the Department doesn't try to push through a rule in their final 2 years. Again, I thank the chairman for his hard work not only this particular title of H.R. 2, but for his work and leadership on the entire package. This legislation will be a big step forward toward energy independence and security, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the legislation.