Bill Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes the provision that would allow States to list a site on the National Priorities List once every 5 years. States have a great deal of experience and expertise in cleaning up sites contaminated by hazardous wastes, and States are often in a better position to understand the realities of site cleanup in their States and to understand the local or regional issues affecting the cleanup, but there are times when it would be better addressed by the EPA under CERCLA, and there would be a significant delay in the listing process. As a result, the bill also allows a State to designate a site that meets the criteria for listing to the National Priorities List once every 5 years. CERCLA currently permits States to list a site on the National Priorities List only once. States have taken to calling this their ``silver bullet.'' Using the silver bullet fast-tracks the listing of a site on the NPL and allows States to avoid the often lengthy listing process. Some States have already used their silver bullet, while others hold onto it and wait for a site that it believes would be better addressed by the EPA under CERCLA. My colleague indicated in a Dear Colleague letter she circulated earlier today that the bill could result in the EPA's placing silver bullet projects at the bottom of the priorities list while still remaining in statutory compliance. While I appreciate my colleague's concern, this statement is both misleading and incorrect. The reality is that the EPA can place a silver bullet site--or any other site for that matter--at the bottom of its priority list at any time. This bill does not change the EPA's ability to prioritize sites for cleanup. CERCLA is very process heavy, and States are often reluctant to wade into the drawn-out CERCLA process. They would rather clean up the sites themselves and avoid the stigma associated with having a Superfund site in their States. However, there are times when the only way to get a site cleaned up is to get it on the Superfund list. It is not an easy conclusion for States to come to, and States are not clamoring to list on the National Priorities List. So any argument that this bill would somehow result in an onslaught of new listings by the States would simply not play out. One of the arguments against allowing States to list a site on the NPL is that it will somehow change the EPA's prioritization of how to spend its cleanup dollars. Just because a site is listed on the NPL does not mean that it will automatically receive funding or will somehow jump to the front of the line to receive cleanup dollars. Nothing in this bill changes the fact that the EPA sets the priority for sites to be cleaned up, and the EPA decides how to spend its cleanup dollars. Furthermore, if a site is listed and is being cleaned up using Federal dollars, States are financially invested in making sure the cleanup is done right. States must contribute 10 percent of the overall remedial cost and all of the long-term operation and maintenance costs. With that, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, ironically, the EPA often pushes States to identify more sites that the EPA can put on the list so that the EPA can argue for more cleanup funding. The EPA incentivizes States to identify sites that meet the listing criteria by giving the States that identify sites more funds to do initial site assessments. So the long and short of it is that the EPA wants more sites on the NPL, and the EPA wants the States to assist with identifying NPL sites, but the EPA does not want to relinquish control over the actual selection of the appropriate sites. We are trying to help fix that. Again, I urge a ``no'' vote from my colleagues on the Sinema amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I am sure my colleague's amendment is well-intentioned, and in fact, I agree with him. I do not want to see an increase in litigation or a slowdown in the cleanup process or a decrease in funds available to clean up Superfund sites, but this amendment is not necessary because H.R. 2279 will not do any of those things. CERCLA has been implemented for over 30 years, and the EPA has developed many practices and policies during that time. Some of the policies work and are consistently implemented, but many of the policies or practices are ineffective or are not consistently applied across the EPA regions. The EPA has done a good job of getting contaminated sites cleaned up under CERCLA, but that doesn't mean that we can't do better. States are often in a better position to understand the local and regional issues affecting the cleanup, and States are well positioned to assist the EPA with all aspects of a response action. By ensuring that the States have a meaningful role in the Federal-State partnership under CERCLA and by making sure that Federal entities are on a level playing field with private entities engaged in CERCLA cleanups, we can do better and get more sites cleaned up faster. My colleague's amendment implies that the purpose of this bill is to thwart cleanup efforts. On the contrary, the purpose of this legislation is to make sure sites get cleaned up in a timely fashion by enhancing the existing role of the States, which are in the best position to assess the conditions at the site. The bill adjusts a top-down culture of CERCLA cleanups, but the bill does not alter the EPA's lead role in implementing CERCLA. States are already involved in the CERCLA process. Ensuring that States have a meaningful and substantial role will not slow down the cleanup process. My colleague's amendment also implies that H.R. 2279 will reduce the number of funds available for cleanup. This is simply not the case. Congress decides on the amount of money to be appropriated to the EPA or to other Federal agencies for cleanups, and that is not changed by this legislation. It is up to the Federal agencies to prioritize how they spend the appropriated cleanup funds, and nothing in this bill changes the way money appropriated for cleanups is spent. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, once again, I want to say how much I respect my colleague, Mr. Tonko. We continue to work together, have worked together, and have had some successes in holding the EPA accountable to the law. I appreciate working with him. But this amendment, although well-intentioned, is drafted in such a way that makes it impossibly vague. It is indeterminable whether a provision of the bill would increase the potential for litigation, and I continue to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Tonko amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, our goal with this legislation is clear and straightforward. We want to modernize outdated environmental laws. The part of the bill that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner) wrote makes modest, but important, improvements in environmental law. It allows the EPA to review and revise its solid waste disposal regulations as necessary. In a hearing that we had, we asked a mayor from New Jersey, Would you rather clean up the trash or revise regulations? The mayor made it clear he would rather focus on getting the real work done instead of getting bogged down in governmental red tape. The part of the bill written by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) says that Federal facilities should behave like anyone else in the State and meet the same natural resource protection requirements. Now, go figure: requiring the Federal Government to live under the same laws that the American people, the States and private-sector businesses have to live under. This is not a new concept. It is already the case under the Clean Air Act and RCRA. Let's just narrow the gap for the Superfund. Finally, the portion that I wrote ensures that States have a place at the discussion table throughout the process that the EPA set for developing remediation plans. I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit and a ``yes'' on final passage. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3588) to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to exempt fire hydrants from the prohibition on the use of lead pipes, fittings, fixtures, solder, and flux.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the Record on the bill.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, many Members think that the suspension calendar is reserved for unimportant legislation. That is not the case today. It is reserved for bills that need no amendments and on which more than two- thirds of the House agrees. The Community Fire Safety Act of 2013 meets those two tests. Sometimes when we budget our time, we ask ourselves, what should I work on first, the urgent or the important? H.R. 3588 is both urgent and important. It corrects a problem that first surfaced in October of this year, but which impacts all water utilities and firefighting units in the United States effective next month. Water utilities have made it clear that they have two choices come January 4: fail to comply with Federal law, or leave gaps in critical fire hydrant service. No one should ever face that choice. Here is the background. On January 4, 2011, the President signed into law the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act. This law prohibits the manufacturing and installation of pipes, fittings, and fixtures that have lead content of greater than two-tenths of 1 percent, but it exempts specific items, including tub fillers and shower valves. There is also a general exemption for pipes, fittings, and fixtures where the water is not anticipated to be consumed. The effective date of the law is January 4, 2014, the beginning of next month. I am told that when Congress wrote this law in 2010 and the President signed it in 2011, the issue of fire hydrants never entered the conversation--nor did the EPA suggest that fire hydrants were covered, at least not until October of this year, 10 short weeks before the law takes effect. On October 22, the EPA announced that because fire hydrants are occasionally, but rarely, used in the stream of human water consumption, they are not exempt under the act. This means any hydrant manufactured or installed 33 days from now must have a lead content that meets the statutory standard. The EPA's conclusion was based on a technical reading of the statute. Because the rule's announcement takes effect in early January, the solution is this brief but important legislation. The worry for water utilities and firefighters is that hydrants can break without warning, often as a result of vehicular accidents. Winter is a busy time for replacing hydrants due, in part, to freezing road conditions. But neither water utilities nor firefighters can tolerate hydrants that are not certified to meet strict performance parameters. Hydrants must never get stuck closed and should never leak. Why do hydrants contain tiny amounts of lead in the brass alloys in their valves and other parts? Because that alloy gives a cleaner fit that doesn't leak and doesn't get stuck. Confidence that a hydrant meets this standard is crucial. Mr. Speaker, even though a couple of manufacturers claim to have developed hydrants that can meet today's lead-free standard, none of them claims independent verification of the lead-free standard, much less proof that the extreme low-lead hydrant will work for fire safety. If such hydrants are developed and later certified, communities will certainly always be free to choose them. But in the meantime, the 2010 law is unforgiving. It does not allow exemptions for even the least frequent and briefest exposures to water that may pass through a hydrant. Communities that never allow any human consumption from a hydrant will be barred from installing hydrants that today are in stock and ready to meet emergency repairs. The risk to human health from lead in water is from long-term exposure. That is why there is no scientific data showing health effects from people drinking water from hydrants. But there are documented times when firefighters have arrived on the emergency scene only to find the hydrant is out of service. This leads to tragedy we can and must avoid. If shower valves and tub fillers should be exempt--and they are-- let's exempt hydrants so there are no gaps in fire safety. I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3588. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further Members who wish to speak on this issue. If my good friend is prepared to summarize, I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I too want to say thanks to my good friend and colleague, Mr. Tonko, for his support of this legislation. It may seem trivial to some; but trust me, it is not trivial to the many communities who are sitting on stockpiles, literally millions of dollars worth of current hydrant technology that would have to be replaced as a result, and that money just going down the tubes. I, too, urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 3588. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1990, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, legislation that will help bring America closer to energy independence and security. The United States is blessed with God-given natural gas resources that many experts believe exceed the reserves in places like Saudi Arabia. In eastern and southeastern Ohio, we are blessed with the Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale deposits that are beginning to produce never before seen volumes of natural gas and natural gas liquids. This part of rural Ohio, a region of the country that is often forgotten by elected officials in the capital cities of Columbus and Washington, D.C., a region that sorely needs economic growth, is seeing billions of dollars of private sector investment in domestic energy production, and even more is in the planning stages. But we have a major challenge to overcome. You see, we can't always get the natural gas from the drilling site to the end-users because there is a lack of pipeline networks. Pipeline companies are working 24/7 to remedy this problem, but they often face procedural roadblocks from Federal agencies that slow down progress and hamper job creation. H.R. 1900 would give production companies the confidence and certainty that if they invest the millions of dollars to drill wells, they will have a way to get the natural gas to market. This legislation could decide whether or not my constituents have a job, but I was disappointed that the administration is opposed to it. From the President on down, the administration has acknowledged that hydraulic fracturing is environmentally safe. Just yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry mentioned the importance of natural gas to America. But with their opposition to this legislation, I guess they aren't really serious about America's energy independence and energy future. It seems they would rather leave Ohio's natural gas in the ground than let all hardworking Americans benefit from its production. I urge my colleagues to support this important job-creating legislation, and I urge the Senate to take it up immediately.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act. This important legislation will help streamline onshore energy production and create jobs right here in America. I want to thank the chairman for including legislation I have introduced, the BLM Live Internet Auctions Act, as a title in this legislation. As we are all aware, oftentimes the Federal Government is behind the private sector when it comes to technological innovation. As a former chief information officer of a publicly traded company, I understand how much more efficient the Federal Government could become if we were able to provide some much-needed technological innovation. The BLM Live Internet Auctions Act will allow the Federal Government to come into the 21st century and do what the private sector has already been doing for over a decade. This legislation fixes an unintended consequence of a 26-year-old law that requires that BLM conduct auctions by oral bidding. Back in 1987, the Internet hadn't even been created by a certain former Vice President, and this bill simply gives the Bureau of Land Management the option to conduct auctions for their lease sales over the Internet. Traditional in-person auctions will still be held, but we can more effectively speed up sales, reduce fraud, and ensure the best return to Federal taxpayers for oil and gas leases by conducting them securely online. Most importantly, this legislation will ensure efficient and timely lease sales so that developers can more quickly begin producing homegrown energy for American consumers and create much-needed jobs for Americans. We know that BLM has the capability to do this because back in 2009 BLM conducted a test run of the program, selling 28 land parcels via live Internet auctions. By all accounts, they were very successful. The pilot program resulted in 1,500 unique visitors from 46 States, increasing the number of bidders and the sale price when compared with traditional in-person auctions. Even the administration supports this legislation, and I am hopeful that the Senate will act on it quickly so that we can bring the BLM process into the 21st century. I urge all of my colleagues to support the underlying legislation.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, since 2010, President Obama has touted his well-known phrase: If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. The past few weeks have made it very clear that President Obama has failed to keep that promise. According to the Associated Press, 3.5 million people have already seen their health plans canceled. Constituents from all over eastern and southeastern Ohio have been contacting my office, notifying me of skyrocketing premiums and canceled health plans. Take, for instance, Cathy, from my hometown of Marietta, Ohio. Here is the letter she received. She was notified that her plan is not in compliance under the requirements of the ACA and that it would, instead, be rolled over into a better plan. It turns out that the ``better'' plan increases her premiums from $670 a month to $1,600 a month--more than double. Skyrocketing premiums, canceled plans and a complete takeover of health care do not make health care affordable. The President should keep his promise to the American people, let Congress work to fix this problem and support the Keep Your Health Plan Act.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the chairman for recognizing me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support today of H.R. 1405, which, in addition to improving the disability claims appeals process for veterans, contains language from H.R. 894, legislation I introduced to provide necessary reforms to the Department of Veterans Affairs' Fiduciary Program. In response to an investigation by the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, which I chaired in the last Congress, this legislation includes significant changes that will strengthen the VA's standards for administering the Fiduciary Program and increase protection for vulnerable veterans. Requiring background checks and lowering the fee a fiduciary can charge would increase scrutiny over fiduciaries and help root out potential predators. It also adds a layer of protection for veterans with fiduciaries by allowing veterans to petition to have their fiduciary removed and replaced. Importantly, it would also enable veterans to appeal their incompetency status at any time. That is a right not currently granted to veterans. I would like to thank Chairman Runyan and Ranking Member Titus of the Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee for their support of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if you go into a restaurant and you order two eggs over medium with sausage and toast and if the server brings you two eggs scrambled with bacon and a muffin, you have got two choices. You either eat what you have got or you send it back, and you start over--double the cost, double the time. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what has happened with Healthcare.gov, the ObamaCare Web site. It doesn't work. These are not glitches. It is broken and it can't be fixed. The President needs to own up to this. He needs to reimburse the American people for the over-$400 million that has been spent; he needs to hold those in his administration accountable who misled him and the American people; and he needs to give the American people a break on this individual mandate until the Web site does work.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the basic concept of fairness. In July, the Obama administration announced that it would be providing Big Business a 1-year reprieve from having to comply with ObamaCare. The White House indicated that this decision was made to give employers time to adjust to what the Federal Government was about to impose on them: cover your employees with plans that have been blessed by Washington, or be fined. It was a stunning move, a move some have said was an admission that either ObamaCare wasn't ready for prime time or that it was a political calculation that employers offloading their employees' health insurance would not be rewarded in the 2014 elections. The other possibility is that delaying the employer mandate was simply the fair thing to do. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the President that if the delay is good enough for Big Business, wouldn't it also be fair to delay the individual mandate that every American must comply with, or be fined?

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it's an honor to be standing before the House this evening to talk about a very, very important issue, an issue that is important not only to my constituents in eastern and southeastern Ohio, but to Americans across the Nation, and the issue is the survival of the coal industry. Coal has provided America's energy engine for generations, and can for many future generations if we have policies out of this administration that reflect the value that the coal industry has meant to America and the future that it has in front of us. Coal is an abundant, affordable, and reliable form of energy. Coal directly or indirectly employs nearly 800,000 Americans and supplies approximately 40 percent of our Nation's power generation. Coal mining employees across my district number in the thousands in eastern and southeastern Ohio. It also provides nearly 80 percent of Ohio's electricity, and it's the energy engine for Ohio's manufacturing industry which so many of my constituents depend on for their livelihood. I'm very proud to be joined tonight, Mr. Speaker, by some of my colleagues who are equally passionate about the coal industry and its value to America, both in the past and in the future. At this point, I yield to my friend and colleague from the great State of Kentucky's Sixth District, Representative Andy Barr.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank our colleague. I think you can see, Mr. Speaker, the passion that's coming to Washington to advocate on the part of the coal industry. We're not just talking about a black rock that's dug out of the ground; we're talking about lives. We're talking about American lives. We're talking about jobs and the ability to put food on the table, to put clothes on our children, to provide a manufacturing base so that Americans have somewhere to work and to do what America knows how to do best--innovate and compete and solve problems. I'm proud now to yield to another one of our colleagues, Representative Kevin Cramer, from the great State of North Dakota.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the gentleman. And the point that you just made and that our colleague from Kentucky made--it's not simply a war on coal, it's a war on American jobs. It's a war on the American way of life. We have to stand. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud now to yield to another one of our colleagues who--no one in the House knows more about the impacts of the coal industry to the economy of her State and her region than does our colleague from West Virginia, Representative Shelley Moore Capito.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. I thank the gentlewoman, and certainly we can see the passion that she brings to the table. I think one of the things that is important for the American people to understand is this notion of energy independence and security. We hear those terms a lot, but not everybody understands what those terms really mean and how it affects them, their families, their future. I think there are some lessons that can be learned about America's past that would help us understand how energy independence and security might affect our future, and I'd like to spend a little bit of time talking about that. To do so, I want to set the stage just a little bit by taking us back to March of 2011 when right here in this Chamber the Prime Minister of Australia addressed a joint session of Congress. She came to this Chamber and she started her speech off by saying: You know, I remember being a young girl sitting on my living room floor watching Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin land on the Moon, thinking to myself, ``Wow, those Americans can do anything.'' She went on to talk about America's and Australia's engagement in world issues, how America stood alongside of and often in front of Australia during World War II. At the end of her speech, she summarized by saying: I'm not that young girl anymore. Today I'm the Prime Minister of our country, and yet still today I believe that Americans can do anything. When she said that phrase the second time, this notion that Americans can do anything, you could have almost heard a pin drop in this Chamber. There was a hush as Members from the Senate, from the President's Cabinet, dignitaries, military leaders, Members of the House sort of took a collective cleansing breath, sucking that air in, that notion that Americans can do anything. It's not like we don't believe it. It's certainly not that we haven't proven it. But we don't hear it these days. We're certainly not teaching it to future generations the way we once did. You see, when President Kennedy launched us on that great vision to put a man on the Moon in 10 years, he engaged every fabric of our society--our scientific community, our technological community, our academic community, our military, our economic will, our political will. And he said before the American people, We're not doing these things because they're easy. In fact, we're doing these things because they're hard and because by doing these things we're going to invent and innovate and discover things that we might not have discovered otherwise. I'm paraphrasing what President Kennedy said, but that was the message that he delivered to the American people. He did such a good job of rallying the American people around this vision of American exceptionalism on that day that we didn't make it to the Moon in 10 years; we actually made it in 8 years. We saw one of the most expansive and innovative periods in American history unfold right before our very eyes, and we still see the benefits of that era today: the cell phones that we carry around, the flat-screen TVs that we watch, the computers that we use, the GPS systems that navigate us from place to place, medical technology, communicating technologies. So much innovation came out of that period of time. We have an opportunity in America to harness that great American character of innovation just like President Kennedy did around an idea of energy independence and security. As my colleague from West Virginia just pointed out, the President stood in this Chamber and said that back in January. He advocated, in his words, for an all-of-the-above energy policy, one that includes all forms of energy, yet his policies continue to do the opposite, particularly where the coal industry is concerned. What if we had a national energy policy that went something like this? Starting today, America is setting a goal to become energy independent and secure in America by the year 2020. And we are going to harvest the vast oil and gas resources that we have? Experts say we have more of that resource now than any nation on the planet. We are going to expand our nuclear footprint. It is the cleanest form of energy on the planet. We're going to invest in and advocate for alternative forms of energy like wind and solar, biofuels and hydro, but we are going to let the market drive those innovations. And yes, we are going to continue to mine and use the vast coal resources we have because we have got enough coal in this country to fuel our energy needs for generations. It's the most affordable, most reliable form of energy that we know. But we're not going to stop there. We're going to have a regulatory process that requires that regulatory agencies, like the EPA, become partners in progress with America's industries and businesses, rather than just throwing up barriers and saying ``no.'' If there's a reason to say no for public health or public safety reasons, then say no, but don't let no be the final answer. The American people have an expectation that their tax dollars are going to be used to move America forward, not to put on the brakes, kill jobs, ruin families, and make America less competitive in future generations. I believe if we had that kind of energy vision we would once again see America's innovative wheels begin to turn. We would see young people lining up to get into technical programs and college programs to prepare them for careers in energy development, domestic energy development. We would see millions of jobs created. We would see industries crop up, and we would see a resurgence in manufacturing. We would see America go back to work. And it would put in play the American Dream once again for millions of Americans, millions of middle class Americans, that have begun to think that perhaps the American Dream doesn't apply to them anymore. The American Dream is still alive and well in our country, and all we have to do, all we have to do is plug in to the type of American exceptionalism that put us on the Moon, and go after a real energy independence and security policy that harvests our coal, uses the natural resources that we have, and puts Americans back in charge of their own destiny. I want to go into a little detail here on some of the comments that my colleagues from West Virginia, Kentucky, and North Dakota made just a few minutes ago. We know that coal-fired power plants like the Cardinal, Ohio, and Sammis plants, both of which are in my district, can be built with scrubbers in place so that coal can be used in a very environmentally safe way. The President and his administration have started this war on coal that focuses on both the mining of coal and the use of coal in power plants. This week the EPA is expected to issue a rule on new power plants that will almost certainly ensure that under existing technology no new coal-fired power plant will be built in America. The new rule will require a technology called carbon sequestration and storage, and it's not commercially available nor commercially viable. My friend from West Virginia, David McKinley, has legislation that says that the EPA can't issue a rule that requires technology that isn't commercially viable. I hope we will consider that legislation in the House for two reasons. I think the American people have an expectation that people that make regulations that affect the economy, that affect the jobs, that affect the livelihood of Americans all over this country, that those rules are based on scientific fact and that they are technologically viable. That's not what we're seeing out of the EPA today. And number two, I think it is absolutely irresponsible for the Federal Government to ban, essentially ban a form of energy that has fueled America's energy needs for generations and can for future generations. Remember what I said earlier: 800,000 jobs are produced either directly or indirectly across our country by the coal industry. Before long, grid reliability will be in question, and rolling blackouts will be the norm again if we don't have coal power as part of our energy mix. I come from a background in information technology, and I can tell you that much of our technology is designed to operate on stable, reliable power, and blackouts and brownouts and dips in our power grid will put great stress on our technological resources. Don't take my word for it, ask the experts. Not to mention that energy costs are going to rise. People will lose their jobs and hardworking families will be forced to pay higher utility rates. Sadly, this new rule on power plants is just the beginning. Next year, the EPA is expected to release a new rule regulating existing coal-fired power plants. Now if that rule is anything like the rule coming out this week, coal-fired power plants could go extinct in just a few years. We're already seeing the effects of the EPA's crusade against coal. In my district alone, one coal-fired power plant has already closed, leaving over 100 people without jobs. Furthermore, there are six other coal-fired power plants in my district, and if the EPA issues that unworkable rule next year, thousands in my district could be without jobs. Now, if the President's war on coal simply stopped here, the coal industry and the people employed either directly or indirectly by the coal industry might be okay. However, the EPA rules are just the tip of the iceberg because the rest of the administration is also actively trying to shut down coal producers with a series of new rules. First, at the Department of the Interior, the administration has been trying to rewrite the 2008 stream buffer zone rule for nearly 5 years now. This rewriting of the rule has been a disaster from the beginning as the administration has wasted nearly $10 million and 5 years of our time on this environmentalists' dream. It might be a dream of theirs, but it is going to be a nightmare for the coal industry and the families across this country that are dependent upon it. We know that the preferred rule by the administration would cost thousands of jobs because the consultants they hired to do the analysis told us so, and it will lead to coal production being cut by nearly half in America. And yet, the administration appears unfazed and continues its effort to rewrite the rule. That's why last year I introduced the Stop the War on Coal Act that would have stopped not only the rewrite of the stream buffer zone rule but also the EPA's misguided attempts to regulate coal-fired power plants. My colleague from Colorado, Doug Lamborn, and I, have reintroduced similar legislation this year, and I hope that the House will once again pass it and send a strong signal to the President to stop this rewrite. Next, let's look at the Department of Labor. The President's Department of Labor is actively writing a rule dealing with coal dust that could potentially shut down totally underground mining. The rule is so unworkable and unreasonable that it has even been said that coal miners wearing full oxygen masks and tanks would not be in compliance with the rule. Think about that. Coal minors that would be breathing in pure oxygen would still be in violation of this new rule. And I'm not sure how a coal company can continue with a rule like that, and that's why we've been fighting against the implementation of this rule, called the coal dust rule, as well. We and the American people should not be surprised by the President's actions nor the actions of his administration against the coal industry since he came into office. As our colleague from West Virginia pointed out, he told us back before he was first elected that his anti-coal policies would cause electricity prices to skyrocket and that it would bankrupt a utility company if it wanted to build a new coal-fired power plant in America. It might have taken him almost 5 years to deliver on those promises, but we're about to see him issue rules that will cause energy prices to skyrocket, make it impossible to build a coal-fired power plant, and kill thousands of jobs across the country. However, as we have seen tonight, there is a strong will here in the House of Representatives to stand up and fight back against the President's policies. So here's the message: we will not roll over because the future of our economy and the livelihoods of our constituents, our children and grandchildren are on the line. We will continue to fight through the appropriations process. We will continue to work hard to educate the public on these destructive policies until the President backs down. I want to share one final story before I yield back. I wasn't born into the coal production industry. I didn't grow up knowing a lot about coal production, but I sure learned a lot about coal consumption. I spoke to the Ohio association of rural electric co-ops about a month ago and I shared with them that as a small boy, I was the utilities manager at a rural utility co-op. Now they looked at me like some of you are looking at me. They cocked their head kind of sideways and said, how can a young boy be the director of a utility co-op? You see, on that rural farm where we worked, we had no indoor plumbing, and my grandmother heated and cooked on a big, black, round potbellied stove. My job as a young boy before I went to bed each night was to make sure that the coal bucket was full on the back porch so when my granddad got up at 4:30 in the morning to fire up that stove so grandmother could get up and start breakfast, it was there. It was also my job to bring in a cistern of water from the outside pump so she didn't have to go outside and get it. So in a very real sense, I was the utilities manager for that farm. I provided the fuel and ensured that the fuel was there to heat and cook, and provided the water. Folks, that's the character that America was built on. That's what hardworking people along Appalachia, Ohio remember. They dreamed of a future for their children and their grandchildren because they lived that kind of character. They still live it today. I want to thank my colleagues for coming tonight and joining me in this effort to stop the administration's war on the coal industry. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

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