Bill Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a stalwart public servant. Dan Halliburton started his public service career as a law enforcement officer, eventually retiring in 2009 from the Ohio State Highway Patrol with over 32 years of service. But he didn't stop there. He felt the call to serve more, and in 2010, Dan joined my team, tasked with representing the largest geographical and most rural district in the State of Ohio. Very quickly, Dan distinguished himself as a man of and for the people. He expertly managed my transportation so that we could be out amongst the people I represent. He built lasting relationships with local elected officials, law enforcement, and business owners. But what set Dan apart, was his genuine care and concern for the people of Appalachia. It was reflected in the high level of service he provided them. So on behalf of the hardworking people of eastern and southeastern Ohio, Godspeed to Dan Halliburton and his family as he begins his well- deserved retirement.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, the stream protection rule is not about protecting streams. It was designed for one purpose--to regulate the coal mining industry out of business. It is the centerpiece of the Obama administration's war on coal. The simple truth is revealed when you begin to follow the Office of Surface Mining's 7-year approach to writing this job-killing rule, a process which began only after the previous administration discarded the rule's predecessor, a 2008 regulation that underwent 5 years of extensive environmental review and public comment. That was just the beginning. Since then, millions of taxpayer dollars have been needlessly spent developing this rule. Contractors were hired to help rewrite the rule, but then subsequently fired when it was leaked that the initial revisions of the rule would cost thousands of jobs, and that was within the first few months of this attempted rewrite. Unfortunately, estimated job losses have only skyrocketed since the final rule was released. What is troubling is that, throughout the rule's rewrite, the administration refused to visit mines or to actually assess the impact of the rule on operating mines. There were attempts to cover up data that concealed the rule's true economic impact. The Office of Surface Mining also repeatedly refused to provide Congress with important documents it used to develop the rule, while keeping State regulating agencies charged with implementing this onerous rule in the dark and at arm's length throughout the entire rewrite. Now, after 7 years of this politically motivated rewrite, the previous administration issued the final rule as they were leaving town, well after the American people--particularly those men and women in coal country--had sent a clear message to Washington. Politically motivated attacks on the livelihoods of those who keep the lights on will not stand. The issuance of this rule, after all these facts are considered, proves what I said earlier. This rule is about one thing: regulating the coal industry and putting thousands of hardworking Americans that depend on the coal industry for their livelihoods in the unemployment line. No one cares more about our streams that run through coal country than those who live there, and no public officials know better how to create a balance between protecting both jobs and the environment than those serving in local and State governments that represent coal- producing communities. It is certainly not the beltway bureaucrats in Washington. I look forward to what I hope to be and should be a bipartisan vote supporting today's important resolution.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is interesting to me that my colleagues on the other side take offense to this being referred to as a midnight rule. This is actually a midnight rule twice. Let's look at how this thing started. In 2005, during the Bush administration, 5 years of effort went into codifying how coal mining operations should take place around streams. The last President announced, during his campaign, that he was going to make coal-fired energy financially, economically impossible, thereby launching his war on coal. There was a lawsuit with the Bush-era rule. The Interior Department and the administration settled, paying that settlement out of taxpayer dollars and then launching an effort to rewrite that rule. In 2011 when we came in, they were planning to release that rule in April of 2011. What took 5 years to codify, they wanted to redo in just 4 months. Not only that, but they left the States out of the equation. The States complained about that. No one in the administration was listening. When the contractors then told the truth about how many tens of thousands of jobs were going to be lost as a result of this rule, the administration fired the contractor that was doing the work. Not only that, they paid them in full. Now, go figure. We have been back and forth with the administration asking that the States be involved, asking that the rulemaking process be transparent, asking, if it really had to do with stream protection, why was it talking about and why was it going to be negatively impacting underground coal mining that takes place hundreds, if not thousands, of feet below the surface of the Earth. You answer me that. So, here we are today, and now we have the Congressional Review Act. I am so grateful that we have the opportunity to set the record straight and to do away with this rule now and forever. I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 38 when it comes to the floor this week.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, it is amazing to me now that some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are calling to see the replacement before the repeal. What irony that is when--at that time the Speaker--the leader of their party, said: let's pass this law so we can see what is in it. Well, the American people saw what is in it, and they don't like it. It is broken. It needs to be fixed. The American people deserve a stable transition to a patient-centered healthcare system that gives them access to high-quality, affordable health care. It has got to be done thoughtfully and carefully as it will impact millions--because I agree with my colleagues that it is going to impact millions. But it is going to positively impact millions if we do it right. And we will. The only way to accomplish it in this current environment, the only way to accomplish the repeal of ObamaCare, is through the budget reconciliation process. And so this budget resolution that we are going to be considering today is simply a requirement, the triggering mechanism for the reconciliation process. We are going to get to the fiscal year 2018 budget, a budget that balances, a budget that puts us on a path of fiscal sustainability, but this resolution essentially fires the starting pistol, Mr. Chairman, for repeal of ObamaCare, which has failed the American people. We will be addressing the spending levels for the future in the fiscal year 2018 budget. This is something the American people have demanded, and now Republicans are going to deliver on it.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. ``Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth in witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names.''

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 21st Century Cures Act and add my voice to the steady stream of acclaim this legislation has already received. American families and communities are suffering from rare diseases, and this innovative legislation works to align Federal incentives and regulations with the science and technology that make treatments and cures possible and attainable. I am proud to have supported this bill all along the way. This package includes mental health reform--work that I am grateful to have been a part of during my time on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee with Chairman Murphy. His tireless efforts will benefit many individuals and families who struggle with mental illness and substance abuse. This bill also includes $1 billion for grants to States to fight opioid abuse. A recent report shows that my home State of Ohio leads the Nation in opioid overdose deaths. This funding is sorely needed to address the issue head on. I ask my colleagues to support the Cures bill today.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I, too, want to thank my colleague from Georgia--not from Georgia but from Colorado. I have lived all over the country, so I get confused about where some of my colleagues are from. I thank my colleague from Colorado for doing this this evening. God's Word has meant so much to me in my life. I can remember being a young boy and being raised on that two-wheel, wagon-rut mule farm, where every day was a survival day--no indoor plumbing, up before dawn, going to bed way after dark. Every day was a workday except Sunday. I remember going with my grandfather, who was a superintendent of the local church. As a very young boy, he would let me hold onto the rope as he would pull the bell to signal that it was time for the community to come to worship. The rope would swing me up into the rafters, and my grandfather would stand there, making sure I didn't fall and hurt myself. It was like going to Six Flags for me as a kid. I remember, as a young boy, being exposed to the words in this book when I was in the backroom of that little church, learning for the first time the great stories of the patriarchs and matriarchs of the Scriptures: Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Moses, King David, the Apostle Paul, and, of course, our Savior Jesus Christ. I went through my life with some of those foundational faith principles that were taught to me at that point. All of my life, I wanted to find out where all of that came from. I had an opportunity to visit the nation of Israel--the Holy Land--in 2014. I thought about that visit before I went, and I thought I would like for this to be more than just an official visit. I would like for it to be personally meaningful; so I prayed about that. I said, ``God, can you let me get something from this visit that I can take back and share that will be revealing?'' and he did. As I walked in the footsteps of Abraham, across the Hebron valley--when he was taking Isaac to Mount Moriah--and when I stood on the Temple Mount, when I stood in the Garden Tomb, a revelation came to me, and that is the reason that America's heart is so intertwined with our friends in Israel--it is that our lineage is one and the same. The Scriptures tell us that a little place that is a little southwest of modern-day Jerusalem is where God told Jacob: Your name is no longer going to be Jacob, but your name is going to be Israel; and I am going to make a nation come from you, and this shall be your land. It occurred to me at that point that our lineage and the lineage of the nation of Israel is exactly one and the same because, if you go back to our founding documents--to our Declaration of Independence--it claims that our unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come not from man, not from government, not from Presidents or from legislative bodies, but from our Creator. John Adams said that the Constitution of the United States is a document that is designed to govern a people who live by Christian principles and that it is wholly inadequate for any other. Today, we seem to think that you have to be perfect to experience God's redemption in your life. I am reminded of First Chronicles, Chapter 4, the story of Jabez. He prayed: O God that You would bless me, indeed, that You would expand my territory, that Your hand would be upon me, and that You would keep me from evil that I might not cause pain. We never hear about Jabez at any other time in the Bible, but we know what God said to him. Because Jabez was a righteous man, God answered his prayer. You will notice that the Scriptures didn't say because Jabez was a perfect man. They said because Jabez was a righteous man-- that he had a heart after the Father's. In America today, we hear about so much of the division and of even division here within the legislative branch--within parties and across party aisles. We sometimes forget that the Bible talks about politics. You will hear oftentimes ``don't mix religion and politics.'' The Bible talks about politics. Go read Daniel, Chapter 6. Daniel, Chapter 6 is like a session of Congress. We all know the story. Daniel was an overseer who was appointed by the king. He was selected as a commissioner, one of the leaders of the overseers, like a leader here in the House, perhaps. Some of the people didn't like how much favor Daniel was getting with the king, and they began to conspire against him. You know the story. They set it up so that Daniel had to be thrown in the lions' den. We know that God spared Daniel and shut the mouths of the lions, and the conspirators suffered the same fate. They were fed to the lions by the king. Yet we don't go far enough into that to remember what Daniel did as a politician. You see, Daniel never went to the king and said: Hey, you have abandoned me. You stabbed me in the back. I have been your guy all of this time, and now you are going to throw me to the lions after I have stood up for you all of this time? He never went to his other commissioners and said: I thought you guys were with me. I thought we were all in this together, and now you are conspiring against me. No. What Daniel did was he said: King, I am your guy. I am still going to be your guy, but what I am not going to do is give up my principles upon which I stand--my belief and faith in my God. If you want to throw me in the lions' den, throw me in the lions' den. You see, Daniel knew something that we as leaders--that we as a nation--need to get back in touch with, which is that God doesn't expect us to do His job. Daniel knew he was not the changer; rather, he was the change agent. We are here for a short time to simply be salt and light. That is our role. Yet, today we get distracted by everything that comes across the news media or the Internet. We believe it to be the truth when this document, this book, is the author of truth. John 8:31-32 says: Jesus said to the Jews that believed in Him, `` . . . abide in my word and you will truly be my disciples; and you will see the truth, and the truth will set you free.'' Folks, much of what ails our Nation--much of what ails our Nation could be solved if we would simply get back in touch with our first true love, the true love that is proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution and that our Founders believed in, the author of truth. It is found in this book. Thank you to my colleague for allowing me a few minutes to speak tonight. I have wanted to do this for a long time. God bless you.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to thank my colleague, Steve Chabot, for putting this on tonight and giving us this opportunity to pay tribute to one of the finest human beings that I personally ever met. I was elected in 2010, and had no background in public service. I had no idea what I was getting myself into. There was so much to learn and so little time to learn it in. Fortunately, for me, Steve LaTourette was in our Ohio delegation. It didn't take me long to figure out that, if you had a question on anything, Steve LaTourette was the guy to go to. Whether it was a legislative issue or a procedural issue or a political issue, Steve was a wealth of knowledge and was always willing to take time out of his personal schedule to sit down and have a conversation with you. I don't think I ever met anyone while I served with him for two terms that didn't call Steve a friend, whether that was on the Republican side of the aisle or on the Democrat side of the aisle. Steve had the uncanny ability to smile that smile, to brush away all of the dust of confusion, and get to the core of the matter. And when you walked away from a conversation with Steve, you thought: Well, why didn't I think of that? I so much appreciated his guidance, his mentorship, and his friendship. I got to know the expertise and the professionalism of the man by watching him work. But the thing that impressed me most about Steve LaTourette was the heart of the man because I saw him with his family. I saw the way he treated his wife and his children. And there was no mistaking that whatever was swirling around the House, you knew where Steve's priorities were. Steve's priorities were at home, and I will always remember Steve for that. People call him colleague, people call him former Member; Jennifer, I am just proud to call him friend. God bless you and the family, and thanks so much for letting me share a few moments.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the BRICK Act would simply allow for the consideration and completion of any judicial review regarding the EPA's 2015 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the brick, clay, and tile industries before requiring compliance. So why is this important? Because this rule needlessly jeopardizes good-paying jobs all across America, as the chart right here next to me clearly demonstrates. And for what reason? Why are they jeopardizing these jobs? The EPA itself concedes in the rule: ``We do not expect that the combined emissions . . . would result in substantial cumulative health and environmental impacts.'' Instead, the real health impacts due to this rule will be felt by the workers who lose their jobs, their health benefits, and even the education and training opportunities offered by their employers. The brick industry primarily consists of small, family-owned businesses. They are often located in small communities that depend on the plant for good-paying jobs. To comply with the EPA's requirement, these small businesses will be forced to borrow millions of dollars to pay for the required control technology. Many brick companies are already struggling to find the capital for plant modernization. I can't imagine how difficult it will be for these companies to secure the needed investments to pay for new control equipment, equipment that provides zero return on investment. And let's not forget that the brick industry has already been through this before. The EPA finalized a similar rule in 2003 that required brick companies to spend millions of dollars on control equipment. A few years later, a Federal court vacated that rule. Unfortunately, the brick industry couldn't roll back the clock and recover the investments they had made. Worse yet, the EPA's new emission rules use the reductions achieved by the vacated rule as the baseline for further reduction requirements, so the industry essentially got no credit for the hard work that they had already done. This history further underscores why this legislation is so important. It also baffles me when I hear some of my colleagues say the BRICK Act is not needed because parties can already seek a judicial stay. However, the EPA has effectively indicated, in a statement for the Record submitted to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, that they would oppose any requests to stay the rule. Further, while the EPA's Clean Power Plan was recently stayed, the parties were only able to obtain relief by going to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here, the EPA's rule threatens the very existence of small brick and tile companies. These companies do not have unlimited resources to litigate against the Federal Government, and their jobs should not be put at risk due to a rule which has been vacated once already and has yet to be reviewed by the courts. Mr. Speaker, the brick industry is part of our American culture. It has helped build some of the most iconic buildings, cities, and towns in existence in our country today. We must make certain our regulations and laws preserve this industry, not destroy it. The BRICK Act will do that. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the chairman for those kind words. Mr. Chairman, this is an extremely important topic, and I couldn't agree more with what the gentleman has just said. This is largely an overreach by a Federal agency stepping all over the rights of the States to regulate their own use of their natural resources. So, for that reason, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1644, the STREAM Act, legislation that requires OSM to extend its new stream buffer rule while the National Academy of Sciences studies how current OSM rules affect the industry. Mr. Chairman, OSM's rule will cost jobs, increase electricity prices, and jeopardize grid reliability, along with usurping states' rights. Stop and think about it for a second. Shouldn't Federal agencies understand what that all means before enacting a rule like this? The Supreme Court certainly does. The Supreme Court has already told the EPA, for example, in one instance: You have got to consider the economic impacts of the rulemaking that you are doing. According to recent studies, OSM's proposed rule will have several very negative impacts. Let's talk about how it is going to cost jobs. As many as 80,000 people could lose their jobs. Now, OSM said it is only 7,000, but a recent study says that it could be upwards of 80,000 people. OSM denies this job loss because they say these jobs will be replaced by jobs created to comply with the rule. Something tells me that those supposed new jobs are not going to be in places where mining is going on, in places like eastern and southeastern Ohio. You are talking about entire communities rolling up the sidewalks. It is going to raise electricity prices and affect the energy grid reliability. Roughly 64 percent of Ohio's energy comes from coal. Ohio's electricity prices are currently below the national average. In total, 22 States rely on coal as their primary fuel source. This is going to usurp states' rights. State regulators who perform 97 percent of regulatory activities are completely left out of this rulemaking process. In fact, all but two cooperating agency States have terminated their agreement because of OSM's actions. Look, this administration and this rule reflect a callous disregard for American coal, American coal miners, their families, the businesses that rely on the energy, and the industry as a whole. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to put politics aside. This is about an industry. It is about people's lives. I urge my colleagues to support the STREAM Act.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I associate myself with the comments of my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis). This is a devastating rule. By its own estimation, the administration has said this is going to kill 7,000 jobs. We know that it is far more than that. We are looking at 80,000 jobs. The States of primacy are critical stakeholders in this, Mr. Chairman. It is my understanding in the interpretation of this language that OSM will be directed to reengage and meet with those States of primacy at the States' request.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. And based on that direction, under the weight of law, that would essentially mean, at a minimum, the comment period for those States of primacy that request meetings would have to be reopened. Is that your interpretation?

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all the hard work that has been done on this.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I couldn't agree with my chairman more on his comments. I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 24, a joint resolution disapproving of the EPA's regulations targeting existing power plants. If the administration allows the Clean Power Plan to move forward, countless coal and coal-related jobs across the country will be eliminated, families and small businesses will be forced to pay higher electricity prices, and grid reliability will be seriously jeopardized. It is estimated that, to comply with the EPA's existing power plant regulations, energy sector expenditures would increase from $220 billion to $292 billion, with retail electricity prices doubling in 40 States. In fact, by 2030, one study predicts Ohio's wholesale electricity prices will increase by 31.2 percent due to this regulation. The regulation will force consumers to absorb a $64 billion cost just to replace the power plants shut down by the rule. This resolution of disapproval sends a clear message to the President that a majority of the Senate, the House, and America do not approve of higher electricity prices and an unreliable electric grid. At least 27 States, including Ohio, are now challenging the regulations in court. Ohio EPA Director Craig Butler is correct; it would be irresponsible for the U.S. EPA to force immediate compliance until the legal issues are resolved. America faces real challenges. ISIS and other terrorist groups are plotting to attack us. We have a staggering national debt that our children and grandchildren will be buried under if we don't address it. We have a Tax Code and regulatory framework that are stifling and strangling innovation and job creation. And our education system isn't keeping pace with those of our rivals. These are real problems. America's air and water have never been cleaner. For the President to continue his crusade to shut down the coal industry and all the jobs that go with it is shortsighted, foolish, and wrong. And it won't just be the coal miners who pay for the President's policy on coal, Mr. Speaker. It will be every family and small business who end up paying more for their electricity as a result. I strongly urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 24.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Absolutely.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the gentleman. Our whip comes from a State that has a very rich heritage, a rich legacy of energy production, both onshore and offshore. And so you have lived it. The people that you represent live it every day. I thank you for your passion on this issue as well. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, seeing as there are no further Members to speak this evening, I will summarize. I mentioned earlier that coal-fired power had provided the energy for America's innovative engine for generations. We have now got new energy resources that have become available to us. I can remember--and I am sure many Members can--where they were the day that Neil Armstrong stepped foot out on the Moon. I am reminded of the excitement and the energy that we felt, the enthusiasm, the pride that we felt, when President John F. Kennedy announced that we were going to put a man on the Moon within the next decade. That was in 1960, I believe, when he made that statement. It didn't take us until the end of the decade. We did it in 1969. Mr. Speaker, look what happened as a result of that. Every institution in America--academia, the medical industry, and the scientific community--everyone got behind the Moon race. We have got a stagnant economy struggling to get its feet underneath us in light of the staggering pressure from Federal regulations from the likes of the EPA, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, the Interior, and so forth. Imagine what would happen if we had an all-of-the-above energy policy that sounded something like this: starting today, we are going to set a goal to become energy independent and secure by the year 2020. That is only 5 short years from now. But we have made tremendous progress. We are going to continue to use the vast coal resources that we have at our disposal. We are going to harvest and use the natural gas and oil resources that we possess. We are going to expand on our nuclear energy capability. And, yes, we are going to let a private sector free market pursue alternative forms of energy--not at taxpayer expense, but at entrepreneur expense where brilliant minds will try and break the code of being able to store up and harness, for future use, energy from the wind and the Sun. They can't meet our heavy-lifting energy needs today, but who knows what great discoveries that we will find in the future? I believe if we had an energy vision, a true, all-of-the-above energy vision that sounded like that, you would, once again, see our young people lining up to get into institutions to prepare themselves for careers in energy production, storage, distribution, and usage. You would find companies with the certainty to be able to grow and expand. You would see a resurgence of manufacturing as America, once again, began to innovate and put its research and development ingenuity to work to find new products and new discoveries. The Pope stood right here on this House floor just a few short weeks ago. He said: Why do so many people around the world want to come to America? I am paraphrasing, but he said that they want to come here because America is the land of dreamers. We are the problem solvers. From the discovery of electricity, the invention of the light bulb, the invention of the combustion engine, mass production of automobiles, flight, space travel, computing and telecommunications innovation, and medical marvels beyond belief, so much of what the world enjoys today came from the ingenuity and the innovation of the American Dream--a dream powered by the coal industry, a dream powered now by a combination of oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy. Mr. Speaker, we now know that our policies in the energy sector have been based on fears of scarcity, but we no longer have to yield to those fears. We have the resources, the know-how, and the wherewithal to be energy independent and secure. With H.R. 8, the Architecture of Abundance, we are going to be giving the Senate and the President an opportunity to launch America into this next great vision of energy independence and security by the end of the decade. I hope they will take that opportunity seriously. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as the House begins to consider and debate important energy legislation this week, I want to take just a moment to reflect on the opportunities America has in energy development. Our energy landscape has tremendously changed in recent years. Thanks to new innovative technologies, we have gone from a Nation of scarcity to one of energy abundance. Our new and existing natural resources have created jobs, lowered energy costs, and spurred new investments in manufacturing and chemical industries. Today the United States has an opportunity to take advantage of this era of energy abundance. Congress must first ensure our laws reflect this new energy-abundant era so that we can fully harness our potential as the world's dominant energy superpower. The legislation we are considering this week will allow our country to do just that. Unfortunately, the rules and regulations coming out of this administration conflict with this type of energy-independent and secure vision. Most concerning is the Office of Surface Mining's proposed rule to further regulate the coal mining industry, which has already lost more than 40,000 jobs since 2011. If the administration allows this rule to go into effect, an additional 40,000 to 78,000 coal mining jobs will be at risk. Dubbed the stream protection rule, this regulation will amend or modify 475 existing rules and add new rules on top of that. Make no mistake about it. This is not an effort to protect streams. It is an effort to regulate the coal mining industry out of business. In fact, between 95 and 100 percent of coal operations occurring in the States that account for almost 75 percent of the Nation's coal production have no offsite impacts. So what does this rule accomplish? This rule means increased energy costs for families and small businesses. At least 22 States, including mine, Ohio, rely on coal for their primary fuel source. Not surprisingly, these States' electricity prices are well below the national average. I fear, however, that will no longer be the case if we allow this rule to go into effect. Consequently, companies will be forced to pay more for their energy bills instead of hiring additional employees. Families will be forced to make tougher decisions as well, like paying the increasing electric bill or putting food on the table, clothes on the kids, and providing for their education. Furthermore, U.S. household income is stagnant and the economy remains mired by sluggish economic growth. We need to be enacting policies that encourage an economic recovery, not promoting further stagnation by shutting down access to America's most abundant and lowest cost energy resource. What is worse, this is not the only regulation currently threatening our energy security, reliability, and low electricity costs. The Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan will also change how we generate, distribute, and consume electricity by forcing States to comply with CO2 targets through a Federal takeover of electric power generation. It is for this reason I will be voting in favor of S.J. Res. 23 and 24 this week. These resolutions of disapproval send a clear message to the President that a majority of the Senate, the House, and America do not approve of higher electricity prices and an unreliable electric grid. Mr. Speaker, America was built on ingenuity and resourcefulness. Unlike the stream protection rule and the Clean Power Plan, H.R. 8, the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act, will encourage that entrepreneurial spirit, not hinder it. It will pave the way for a resurgence of manufacturing where new innovative products are designed and built right here in America, and it will keep America in our rightful place as a leader in the global economy. I am proud to support this legislation, which the House will be considering this week. H.R. 8 will modernize our energy infrastructure, protect the electricity grid and the delivery system, improve energy efficiency, and strengthen our energy diplomacy. Based on language that I have introduced and that previously passed the House with bipartisan support, this legislation includes a streamlined process for natural gas export projects currently pending before the Department of Energy. This language will help strengthen America's standing as a world- class exporter of natural gas, create tens of thousands of new jobs, add billions to our economy, and help our allies abroad by providing a reliable source of energy. I am honored to lead this Special Order that will highlight the House's approach to a truly all-of-the-above domestic energy strategy, a strategy that focuses on a secure and reliable energy sector with affordable electricity rates for hardworking taxpayers as well as small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, because of the number of Members wishing to participate this evening, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the topic of this Special Order.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded that even this week our President is in Europe trying to advance his climate change agenda. I, too, was in Europe back in May, talking to some of our key friends and allies within the European Union. Surprisingly to some, we learned that some of our friends in Europe, in those countries, are actually going back to a higher mix of coal in their overall energy profile because their ratepayers, their manufacturers, their consumers, their small businesses, their residential customers have finally reached the tipping point where they are no longer willing to pay the exorbitant high prices for alternative sources of energy. Coal remains the most low-cost, affordable, reliable form of energy on the planet. It is essential that coal continue to be a part of our energy profile, along with oil and gas and nuclear and all of the energy capabilities that America has. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), my friend and my neighbor.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his passion on this issue. He understands it. As a current businessowner, he understands how important this is.

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

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Absolutely. Absolutely. You hear some of those in opposition to using fossil fuels talking about how they would allocate taxpayer funds to retrain people in those communities like coal production communities. Well, my question is, where are the jobs going to come from to retrain them into? These are communities that have had coal miners for generations, as Representative Kelly just talked about. I thank him for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from the great State of Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), another friend and neighbor.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I, too, thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for those eloquent remarks on a very, very important subject. I know he has a lot of other things he could be doing tonight, but this is important to him, and I appreciate him being here to sound off.