David McKinley

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McKINLEY. By the way, I'm just a little happy right now. I just got a text that my grandson won his baseball game tonight, 15 14. It's a tournament he's playing in. So be nice over there now. Mr. Chairman, once again I would like to reference the Transportation Fuels Regulatory Committee created by H.R. 4480. My amendment will look at the analysis that the committee will develop. One of the problems our oil and gas industry faces is the vast, ideologically motivated regulations they must endure. However, other nations do not seem to impose such overburdensome policies and regulations upon them. Instead, countries in the Middle East and Asia promote their oil and gas industries and work to make it easier for these countries to get their gas products to market. This amendment would require the committee to conduct an analysis of other nations' regulations, policies and enforcements, or lack thereof, of their oil and gas industries. Saudi Arabia, China, and India do not overwhelm their oil and gas industries with excessive regulations. They help them to thrive. This committee needs to look at what these other nations are doing to grow, stabilize and sustain their oil and gas industries, and ultimately compare it to what we're doing here in the United States. We ought to help our industry, and this amendment helps to show how we can improve and stop hindering development of our natural resources. Ultimately, I offered this amendment because we are supposed to be a Nation leading by example over the rest of the world. With this economy and millions of people unemployed or underemployed we really ought to be saying to our regulators, just because you can doesn't mean you should. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Mr. Chairman, again, I wish to thank Chairman Upton for his support of this amendment and the opportunity to offer it here. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, under this legislation, Congress creates a Transportation Fuels Regulatory Committee with the Secretary of Energy chairing the committee. My amendment is simple. It will require the Secretary and the committee, during their deliberation, to consult and receive input from the National Energy Technology Laboratory. If we're going to analyze and report on the impacts of the rules and actions of the EPA on our Nation's fossil fuels, then we should make sure that the committee established under this legislation consults with our Nation's fossil energy laboratory. NETL is our only governmental research, design, and developmental laboratory dedicated to domestic energy sources. It's only fitting we make that they are included in this process. NETL works with academia on over 275 projects across this country, as well as private entities, having provided over 450 projects in 2011, nearly 400 private sector projects, and over 100 not-for-profit laboratories. NETL's work in 2011 alone provided over 2,000 projects, 89,000 jobs, and over $18 billion in total funding in every State in every congressional district. NETL's research and development into our transportation fuel sector began back in 1918 in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, with petroleum research. In fact, synthetic gas research began at NETL in 1946. To note some other successes, NETL worked in conjunction with academia and private industry to develop horizontal drilling in our Nation's natural gas fields. Now, some say that Secretary Chu, being the chairman of this committee, will consult with his own fossil energy team. Maybe that's true, Mr. Chairman, but this is the same Secretary of Energy who has worked with President Obama to slash our fossil energy research budget by 40 percent over each of the last 2 years. This is the same Secretary of Energy who should be promoting coal, oil and gas, but, instead, makes derogatory comments, such as ``coal is my worst nightmare.'' What we can do here today is ensure that the Transportation Fuels Committee and the Secretary consult with our government's fossil energy experts. If you support having input from government, private sector, and academia experts, then support of this amendment would be appreciated. Mr. Chairman, I also wish to thank Chairman Upton for his support of this. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 4348. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. McKinley moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4348 be instructed to insist on the provisions contained in title V of the House bill (relating to coal combustion residuals).

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Madam Speaker, the State of West Virginia lost one of its greatest residents, greatest citizens last week, and I lost a very close friend. Former head coach of West Virginia University's football team and New Martinsville native Bill Stewart unexpectedly passed away on May 28. Stewart was a man of integrity and high moral character who practiced truly what he preached, both on and off the field. As the head coach of the Mountaineers, he represented our State and the university in the best possible way. His signature win over Oklahoma in the 2008 Fiesta Bowl launched him into the national spotlight. His legacy will be the type of life he led. Coach Stew never met a stranger, and he never lost sight of his home. He lived each day to its fullest and had a contagious enthusiasm that inspired everyone around him. Leave no doubt: Bill Stewart will be missed for years to come because he was a man of his word, a man who openly followed his faith, and a dedicated father, husband, and friend. Bill Stewart took that final, dusty, windy country road home to his place in Heaven.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, fossil energy research and development continues to evolve to reflect our Nation's key energy supply, security, and environmental needs. American fossil energy R&D takes place in our national energy technology laboratories throughout the country, including laboratories in Morgantown, West Virginia, and in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Over the years, these two labs alone have produced thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in investment into local and State economies, and an incredible working relationship among WVU, Pitt, Carnegie Mellon, Penn State, and Virginia Tech. Just to point out the importance of fossil energy R&D funding to the gentleman's home State of California: in 2011, over 200 projects were developing in California. This research provided $1.6 billion in funds being brought into that State, along with over 7,600 jobs. In Hawaii, there was over $36 million spent in research involving nearly 300 jobs. Fossil energy R&D has led the research that has significantly reduced acid rain, as well as in other advanced pollution controls and mercury emission reductions, and has led and/or conducted research that created technology used in 75 percent of our Nation's largest coal power plants. Today, fossil energy R&D continues to lead the Nation's efforts in carbon capture, sequestration, and utilization, and has led efforts in combustion and turbine R&D that led to substantial increases in power plant efficiencies and reductions in power plant emissions. Simply put, the research through this program focuses on developing affordable, safe, and clean mechanisms to enhance and utilize our domestic fossil energy resources in the most efficient manner. If this amendment passes, Congress will not be able to ensure our Nation of job security, job retention, growth, and the ability to meet our ever-increasing energy needs. Not only would this amendment destroy nearly 90,000 jobs, 2,100 research projects, and over $18 billion in investments, but would harm our educational institutions and the students, scientists, and professors who work in our national energy laboratories. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment and to continue to support our domestic fossil energy initiatives. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Madam Speaker, every year, in May, this country celebrates National Nurses Week. Often described as an art and a science, nursing is a profession that embraces dedicated people with varied interests, strengths, and passions because of the many opportunities the profession offers. As a husband of a critical care nurse, I know all about the lives they touch each and every day. They work in emergency rooms, school- based clinics, hospitals, and homeless shelters, just to name a few. They have many roles, from staff nurses to educators to nurse practitioners and nurse researchers, and serve all of them with a passion for the profession and with a strong commitment to patient security and safety. National Nurses Week occurs each year in May, surrounding Florence Nightingale's birthday. Our nurses strive for excellence in all they do. They provide patients and their families with skilled, compassionate care, and help them navigate a very complex and oftentimes overwhelming health care system to provide safe passage for the patients and their families. Regardless of their role or title, nurses educate, counsel, advocate, and lead. These men and women work to make a difference to countless patients, families, and communities who benefit from nurses' dedication and professionalism. This month is a time to reflect on all the good nurses do. It is a time to acknowledge and celebrate the differences our nurses make.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with the chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to discuss one of my top priorities with you today: NOAA's Comprehensive Large-Data Array Stewardship program, otherwise known as CLASS. This program has been funded at the same base level of $6.5 million for each of the past 10 years, despite an increase in their mission. This is NOAA's enterprise system for handling all of its environmental data critical for weather predictions. Simply put, CLASS therefore must rely on programs within the satellite program to overcome their $24 million funding shortfall. We should be creating certainty, Mr. Chairman, for the NOAA CLASS program, instead of expecting them to rely on these other satellite programs to transfer funds for their own budget to CLASS. Under last year's budget, CLASS fell short of the necessary funding to sustain core mission values. Mission failure of CLASS will continue if we don't provide CLASS with funding certainty this year and not depend on transfers from other satellite programs. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Appropriations Committee consider the importance of the CLASS mission in conference, and encourage the chairman to adequately fund their mission--a mission defined as a level of funding equal to last year and no job losses.

Mr. McKINLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. McKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you on this matter. I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Mr. Landry

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Mica and the leadership for working with our office to allow this amendment to proceed and to be offered. Just a reminder, this issue passed the House on a 2 1 vote last October and previously on a continuing resolution. The legislation has had strong bipartisan support, with numbers of Democrats voting in favor. So we're not here to rehash those old fights. What we're here to do is discuss how fly ash pertains to maximizing funds for our roads and our bridges and our construction projects and protecting hundreds of thousands of jobs all across America. But there are those that don't see the correlation between coal ash and concrete, even though it's been an integral part of concrete in America for over 80 years. Quite frankly, upwards of 316,000 jobs are at stake with this amendment and over $100 billion in roads, bridge, and infrastructure projects if coal ash is not recycled into concrete. Keep in mind, 60 million tons of fly ash are recycled annually. Let's read some quotes from some of the individuals that have talked about this. The Veritas Economic Consulting report talks about 316,000 jobs. There's one from the American Road and Transportation Builders Association talking about the $100 billion. Here's one from the Home Builders Association: Removing coal ash from the supply chain would increase the price of concrete by an average of 10 percent. Fly ash replaces the American concrete pipe and replaces 15 million tons of cement in its use. Look at what the administration's agencies are talking about under the Department of the Interior and the Department of Transportation. Department of the Interior: We concur with industry leaders who feel strongly that if fly ash is designated a hazardous waste, it will no longer be used in concrete. Here from the same Department: Fly ash costs approximately 20 to 50 percent less than the cost of cement. From the Department of Transportation: Fly ash is a valuable byproduct used in highway facility construction. It is a vital component of concrete and is important for a number of other infrastructure uses. And the last: Cement is more costly than fly ash. In some areas, it is as much as twice the cost. So what does EPA say? Their own statement: One ton of fly ash used as a replacement for cement reduces the equivalent of nearly 2 months of an automobile's carbon dioxide emissions. One ton of fly ash used as a replacement for cement saves enough energy to provide electricity to an average American home for nearly 20 days. Coal ash leads to ``better road performance.'' Mr. Chairman, let's be honest. What we're relating to here is about the use of fly ash in concrete that's been for over 80 years. Anyone opposing this legislation clearly has an agenda, and that agenda is anticoal. So that's why I'm asking my colleagues to join me today in supporting this amendment, once again, and protecting 316,000 jobs and maximizing the highway funds available for upgrading our roads and bridges all across America. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, just a quick couple of observations, just to remind everyone, we've been using fly ash in concrete for over 80 years, and the President has not--has not--issued a veto threat on this legislation. Perhaps he's aware of the 316,000 jobs that others are not as concerned about. I want to thank my colleague from West Virginia for cosponsoring this legislation, and I hope he will continue to help us find the bipartisan support in protecting the jobs. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. McKINLEY. I'm going to yield time to the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the committee, for the purpose of closing.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, March is National Developmental Disability Awareness month. This is a time that we can all take a moment to bring attention and understanding to both the needs and the potentials of people with developmental disabilities. This awareness month was first declared by President Ronald Reagan in 1987 to recognize the bright future that these American citizens have in front of them. Thanks in part to proclamations like this, the perceptions of young people and adults with developmental disabilities has changed. On a personal note, as an individual with a significant hearing disability and a grandfather of a child with special needs, I am very familiar with the hardships of overcoming the obstacles of disabilities. My grandson, Maxwell, has CHARGE syndrome and deals every day with intense developmental and medical challenges. He is a true inspiration to his mother and our entire family. During Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month, I encourage everyone to engage with people in our communities who have developmental disabilities and recognize their talents and abilities that will make this a better Nation.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Madam Chair, I rise today in favor of H.R. 1173. This bill would save hardworking taxpayer dollars and eliminate a costly and flawed ObamaCare provision known as the CLASS Act. This program was sold as a self-sustaining program, one that would reduce Federal spending. However, the program was problematic from the start. The President and the Democrat leadership in the Congress knew this fact over 2\1/2\ years ago and still included the CLASS program in the health care bill. During an investigation, it was revealed that Obama administration officials and Senate Democrats were very much aware that this was not going to work and that Department officials warned for a year before passage that the CLASS program would be a fiscal disaster. As far back as May of 2009, the CMS Chief Actuary sent an email that warned officials that the program doesn't look workable. These 200 pages of exhibits from the investigation show that Department officials were voicing concern to Senate leadership all the way up until passage in December of 2009. This was all concealed from Congress and the American public. After enactment, the concerns continued. On February of 2011, Secretary Sebelius testified before the Senate Finance Committee that the CLASS program is totally unsustainable in its present form. And finally, this past October, the Department announced that the program was still not financially feasible. What we are seeing now is that, as well intended as it is, the CLASS program is unworkable. The objective of providing long-term health care is laudable and should be a priority of Congress. Therefore, we must identify a long- term, commonsense solution for our health care. That is why last week I asked GAO to conduct a study of the Medicaid Long-Term Care Partnership Program and survey States on how to improve the partnership program so that more Americans can properly plan for their long-term care needs. This public-private partnership between States and long-term care insurance plans was designed to reduce Medicaid expenditures by lessening the need for some people to rely on Medicaid to pay for long- term health care services. The partnership program is not the only solution to our long-term health care, but it is a helpful tool to help Americans plan for their health care long-term needs, unlike the unsustainable and costly CLASS Act embedded in ObamaCare. The repeal of the CLASS Act marks a small victory. Let's not try to force this costly program on the backs of hardworking American taxpayers without fully investigating how we can improve existing programs or how we can create an affordable, sustainable, long-term care program. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1173.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, on January 4, the West Virginia University Mountaineers football team faced the Clemson University Tigers in the prestigious Orange Bowl. Through an outstanding record-setting performance, the blue-collar work ethic of the West Virginia Mountaineers prevailed. Eighty-four percent of the country had predicted that West Virginia would lose, but in case you missed it, the final score was 70-33. West Virginia's unheralded players proudly showed once again that as a team, they can dominate the best of schools on any given day, just like they've done defeating Georgia and Oklahoma in previous BCS bowl games. Everyone in West Virginia should be proud of their State and their flagship university. So let me end with this: For those Clemson supporters who still don't know where West Virginia is, look in your end zone.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Madam Speaker, today I am happy to announce that Company C, 150th Aviation United of the West Virginia National Guard is on the way home to their families and should arrive this afternoon after serving our Nation for the past 12 months in Kosova. Truly, there could not be a better Christmas present. Company C is based in the First District of West Virginia in my hometown of Wheeling and was deployed 1 year ago to Kosova on a peacekeeping mission. While overseas, the unit was responsible for all aerial operations within their area of responsibility. Company C soldiers logged 2,899 flight hours in 951 missions, they ran multiple mechanical inspections and refueling missions, and dispensed 246,260 gallons of fuel. The West Virginia National Guard plays a key role in the defense of our country and interests around the world. America could not be prouder to have these men and women as our representatives. Today I am thrilled to say, Welcome home, Company C.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I voted to protect the Social Security Trust Fund by opposing H.R. 3630 and would like to take this opportunity to discuss my decision. This bill was a patchwork of many policies that were thrown together at the last hour and created a flawed piece of legislation that I could not support. Primarily, the corner stone of this legislation--the extension of the payroll tax reduction--did not create jobs for the last year it has been in effect. Over the past five months, I have been vocal in my opposition to the President's unproductive plan. Since, I do support a long-term ``doc fix'' to ensure that doctors continue to accept Medicare patients, I do not support the $17 billion cut from hospital payments, including those that are essential to help hospitals care for low-income Medicare patients. I do support the Keystone XL pipeline and efforts to reform unemployment insurance; however, these were not the central issues of the legislation we considered yesterday. Over the last several days, I have conducted numerous town hall-like meetings to discuss this legislation with constituents. As a result of these conversations with everyday West Virginians, it was apparent to me that breaking from both President Obama and even my own party on this bill was the right thing to do. Washington just doesn't get it. This tax cut has been in effect for the last year and it clearly did not improve the economy. And at what cost? For the second year in a row, this bill would take another $180 billion from Social Security with a promise to be paid back over the years, all to give the average West Virginia worker an extra $30 in his or her paycheck every two weeks. That's not a jobs plan--it's a re- election plan. We have seen these same unsuccessful economic plans for the past three years, and for those three years they have failed miserably. Does it make sense to continue to make choices that we know from experience do not work? I will concede that after spending most of this past year above 9 percent, unemployment has dropped to 8.6 percent. But the primary driver of this change is simply that 315,000 Americans simply stopped looking for work. Also, at this time of year, the retail industry increases their staff by almost 50 percent; those people will be back on unemployment benefits in February. Nobody can say that the payroll tax ``holiday'' has had a meaningful impact on the unemployment rate thus far, nor will it likely prove beneficial if extended for another year. We've all been told that Social Security's finances are in trouble, yet President Obama's plan makes the situation worse. We cannot continue to send mixed messages to senior citizens and current workers. They need to be able to trust that Social Security will be there for them. If we do not stop extending this payroll tax cut, then Social Security will cease to be a guarantee and instead become another typical government program reliant entirely on politicians' whims. That's not fair for our seniors or current workers who are currently paying into Social Security. So the question becomes, if not now, when we will stop raiding Social Security? H.R. 3630 is just another temporary tax reduction that only produces more uncertainty for employers and fails to protect our seniors. Real structural reforms are needed to stabilize Social Security. Past experience shows that Congress will spend the next 10 years figuring out how to spend the money designated as offsets for today's bill on other projects. It won't be used to pay for the bill; I could not in good faith support a measure that will raid the trust fund without comprehensive reform to the system. As Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said, ``People don't generally respond well to temporary tax cuts so it's unlikely you're going to see a strong economic response.'' House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has likened the payroll tax cut to ``sugar-high economics.'' And Chris Edwards, a tax scholar at the Cato Institute, said that the president's plan ``is based on faulty Keynesian theories and misplaced confidence in the government's ability to micromanage short-run growth.'' Perpetuating the president's failed economic policies, especially if we have to rob Social Security to do it, has to stop. Additionally, the reductions in federal reimbursements to hospitals that are contained in this legislation are not acceptable. Hospitals in northern West Virginia are already being paid at some of the lowest Medicare rates in the country; we should not be making it even harder for the hospitals to provide quality healthcare to our seniors. Again, since this bill was loaded up at the last minute with several items which I have already strongly supported throughout this Congress--including jumpstarting the Keystone Pipeline, relaxing EPA regulations on boilers, extending and reforming unemployment benefits and other government programs, and preventing a scheduled 27% cut to doctors' Medicare reimbursement rates--it is simply unacceptable to continue the president's misguided economic theories at seniors' expense. This bill has a long way to go despite the short timeframe in which Congress is operating, and if significant changes are made, it may be worth another look. But I came to Washington to get something done, create jobs, and restore common sense to the process. Unfortunately this particular bill fails that test.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. I rise today in support of H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust bill. Earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 2273, the bipartisan coal ash legislation. Unfortunately, opponents of the Farm Dust bill believe that nuisance dust in this bill might include fly ash. Therefore, an amendment was offered and adopted to clarify that the definition of ``nuisance dust'' in the Farm Dust bill does not include coal ash or other coal combustion residuals. The amendment makes it perfectly clear that nuisance dust is not composed of any residuals from coal combustion. Unfortunately, opponents of the Farm Dust bill are still, apparently, unaware of the changes that have been made to the bill to address their concerns. Don't oppose the Farm Dust bill because you don't like fly ash. Let's relieve one more threat to our agricultural community with the passage of this bill. We should be striving to create more jobs, not putting up more barriers with misinformation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.