David McKinley

Mr. McKINLEY

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

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

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, again, I applaud the committee, and particularly the staff, for the hard work they have done in putting together this comprehensive piece of legislation on energy. It has been long overdue to have that energy bill, so I am delighted it is here on the floor. I rise today in support of an amendment which is cosponsored by my colleague from Montana, Congressman Zinke. This amendment will ensure that no permit for a coal export facility can be denied until all reviews required under the National Environmental Policy Act, known as NEPA, have been completed. The NEPA review process is critical to ensure that the communities can provide input on any proposed project, and it allows the developer the opportunity to work with the citizens of a community and the regulatory agency to address any concerns that may arise. Denying a permit request for a coal export facility before the NEPA process is complete would send a precedent that indicates that those voices of affected parties don't matter and diminish the value of the NEPA process. This amendment will ensure that a regulatory agency must first take into consideration the merits of the project, voices of the people, their thoughts, concerns, and the findings of the NEPA report before acting on a permit and simply not advancing an anticoal ideology. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Staff Sergeant Ryan Hammond of Moundsville, West Virginia. Staff Sergeant Hammond was one of six airmen killed last month when their C-130 crashed at Jalalabad. A native of Moundsville, Staff Sergeant Hammond joined the Air Force after graduating from John Marshall High School in Glen Dale. On Tuesday, I joined with Ryan's family and friends to honor his life, service, and sacrifice at Arlington National Cemetery. The burial service was a reminder that the expense of individual freedom is steep, row after row of white headstones with names of Americans who gave their ultimate sacrifice. Dozens of his fellow squadron members paid tribute to Staff Sergeant Hammond during the ceremony. As they filed past, they laid their wings upon his coffin, a final salute to a young airman who followed his dream of flying. There was not a dry eye at the grave site. Thomas Paine said, 200 years ago: Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must undergo the fatigue of supporting it. I offer my condolences to Staff Sergeant Hammond's family; his wife, Holly; his parents, David and Cathy; and his friends. Staff Sergeant Hammond will be missed, but his sacrifices will never be forgotten.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to commend three local citizens from Philippi, West Virginia. The first is Twila Smith, a teacher at Philip Barbour High School. On August 25, one of her students brought a gun to school and held her classmates hostage. Twila did a miraculous job in calming the teenager and buying time until the police could arrive. Philippi Police Chief Jeff Walters and the young man's pastor, Howard Swick, are our next two heroes. They negotiated the release of the student hostages and then convinced the teenager to surrender voluntarily. Because of these heroes and their courage in a threatening situation, more than 700 high school students were unharmed, and this man will now be able to receive the help that he needs.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, 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 topics of this Special Order.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, tonight, we want to talk about these three subjects as it relates to coal. You have already heard recent remarks made a few minutes ago about the war on coal, but we want to talk about the impacts of coal, the regulations, and the Clean Power Plan. That is what we are going to be talking about tonight are these three primary subjects. I want to put things in perspective. We want to talk about how does this coal industry--you hear us, many of us that come from coal country, we have been fighting about coal, fighting for coal--why do we do that? Look at the impact. For those of you that aren't coming from a coal community, now, we mine coal in 27 States, but just look at this, the impact, what it has--between coal mining at $58 billion a year and then the generation of power from coal totals $142 billion. Now, maybe that doesn't mean a lot to a lot, but $142 billion, put that in context with the automobile industry. All of us are familiar with cars. We all hear the commercials on television. We know about the discussion about how you have got to have the latest car. This is bigger than the car industry. The automobile industry is $130 billion. That is why many of us, all across this country, are concerned about this future of the coal industry. It is larger than the automobile industry. I want you to understand that. Everyone should make sure they grasp the impact of that. This war on coal that many of us have been talking about for some time, I want to make sure that people understand how it affects us individually and affects a State like West Virginia. Just 7 years ago the unemployment rate in West Virginia was the seventh best in the country. But after 7 years of a war on coal, after regulation after regulation after regulation, West Virginia's unemployment rate now has dropped and we are in the last place in the Nation. Think about that impact for all of us. You go from number 7 to 50th in just 7 years. Combine that with the families of our coal miners. Just in the past 3 years, 45 percent of the coal miners in West Virginia have lost their jobs, 45 percent. These are people. These are real people. They are not statistics. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) uses this chart. He has shown us over the years--my 5 years in Congress--he showed us that these are the people we are talking about all over this country who are losing their jobs. But in West Virginia, 45 percent of them have lost--in the coalfields of West Virginia, the unemployment rate is staggering, and that hasn't stopped the administration. We are talking about unemployment rates in counties two and three times the rate of the national figures: 13.5 percent, 13 percent, 12 percent, 10 percent. That is tough for a family, a community, a State, all to be able to survive. We keep talking about mines shutting down. I want people to understand, when you shut down coal mines, you really affect a community. These people all have families. When these men lose their jobs, it affects other people. The administration and the EPA can shut down our coal mining industry. Yes, they can. They are doing a pretty good job of it, if that was their intent, was to shut down and for people to lose their jobs. But think about it. When these men lose their jobs, it is not just the coal miners who are losing their jobs. It is the other individuals in the community. We are talking about the railroad workers, the barge operators, the trucking industry, all that come to pick up the coal at the mine to take it to the power plant. The machinists, the concrete suppliers, the people that put the conveyor belts in, and the building that we have to do with it, all of them lose their jobs. The timber industry. Then go outside and talk to the school board when the school boards are struggling to make ends meet because so many of their employers are gone and their tax base is eroded with it. But, also, go to the grocery store and find out that is the impact. Grocery stores, pharmacies, restaurants, apartment buildings. We have got a map that shows, again, the impact of this as we get into this. We have got several speakers here tonight to talk more about it. This is a location of all the power plants across America. There are over 500 coal-fired plants operating today around this country. But just in the last month the Sierra Club, Bloomberg, Earthjustice, and all have been touting the fact that they want by the year 2017 to take one-third of those red dots off the map. Almost a third of our capacity to generate electricity can be gone because of the rules and the way some of the environmental groups are pursuing this. One-third of them. Now, in terms of grid reliability with this, you have to deal with what they have talked about. If we continue to shut down coal-fired power plants and don't replace them, whether that is with wind, solar, or gas, our grid reliability is going to be in question. How many times are we going to lose our power? FERC has already said that, if we don't do something by 2017, they are saying the Midwest is going to start experiencing rolling blackouts. So let's be careful with this. I am going to stop now. We have tried to frame some of the argument about this history of how we got to this point that you are seeing the frustration in Congress. But I wanted to put that again in context. This industry is bigger than the automobile industry, but we don't have the big communities. We don't have the Detroits and the Grand Rapids. We just have Farmington, Lumberport, small towns that make up the backbone of rural America. That is what we are trying to fight for. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) for his comments.

Mr. McKINLEY. Thank you. You have been one of our stalwarts in pushing this legislation for all 5 years you have been here on this. So I know people across this country recognize the work that you are doing on behalf of the coal miners and this whole industry.

Mr. McKINLEY. We have a host of other folks here to address the issue. We have got this chart up. Eventually, we are going to get to that in the next part of it. But what we are talking about here is here are all the regulations. These are all the regulations that are affecting the coal industry, the manufacturing industry, all promulgated from the Clean Air Act. We will get to that in a minute. But, in the meantime, let's hear from some more individuals. I yield to the gentleman from the Third District of West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).

Mr. McKINLEY. Thank you for your comments. Before we go to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Congressman Kelly, I just wanted to add, because you talked about education, that the Duke Energy plant over in New Richmond, Ohio--the closure of that cost them $1.5 million out of their school system, out of their property taxes, with that. You are absolutely right when we talk about the impact it is going to have on schools when we start depriving that. But then you have FirstEnergy's Albright plant. They lost $380,000. The AEP plant over in Lockbourne, Ohio, is $406,000. This is real money that is hurting the communities. It is depriving our school systems of money, all pushing an ideology. So thank you for joining this fight. I yield now to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I think one of the biggest shortcomings here is I don't think other Members of Congress and I don't think the American public understand the magnitude of this industry. That is why I started off with that chart, to show you that between the coal and the coal-fired electrical plants, it is larger than the automobile industry. Now, just walk with me, just imagine that if we told the automobile industry that they had to cut back one-third of their capacity of cars, but that is okay, they are going to say, because what we do is people will ride bikes or they will take the train or the bus. That is not our culture in America. They would fight back, too. You and I are fighting--and the rest of these people that represent our coal fields. We have enjoyed the cost of electricity coming from low cost because of coal. In America, all across, we showed 49 of the 50 States burn coal--49--and this administration wants to stop that, wants to cut back. I would say, if you are going to cut back the coal industry, then look at the automobile industry as well; if you are going to go after one huge component of our economy, go after the automobile industry as well with it. Thank you very much for what you said. We talked about a lot. Now, let's continue on. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs). I think Congressman Gibbs from Ohio, I think you had some remarks you wanted to make.

Mr. McKINLEY. Thank you very much. Thank you for bringing up the Ratepayer Protection Act because, as you know, after we followed the MATS rule, after the Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional, you didn't hear the President complain because they had effectively accomplished everything they wanted before that rule. I am afraid that is why the importance of this Ratepayer Protection Act is because, if we continue to shut down our coal power plants and deprive our communities of taxpayer moneys to run our schools, then that winds up--if it is ruled unconstitutional later on, then how do we recover the moneys that we have lost? Can we reopen a school that was closed because a community lost its operation? Do we recover? How do we recover that? That is why it is important. I am really glad you brought up the Ratepayer Protection Act because we need to make sure that the courts have ruled before the action is taken. You and I are going to be paying more for our utility bills as a result of that if and until it is ruled unconstitutional. We know it is coming; they know it is coming. Thank you for bringing that up. Our next remarks we have are from one of our--I can't say one of our newest Members, but he is a Member from Kentucky that has been very outspoken. I appreciate very much Congressman Barr from Kentucky. Can you share some thoughts tonight? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman touched on something that I don't know that our listeners or even the other Members of Congress quite grasp, but the gentleman touched on it in one statement he made. It is the claim that CO2 emissions of the world are the target of our global warming issue. I will just accept, for discussion purposes, that that is the basis of their war on coal, this ideological fight that we are involved in. I will use the United Nations' statistics--not the Republican caucus', not the coal country's numbers, but the United Nations'. They say: Congressman Barr, if you were to stop all coal-fired capacity in every school, church, hospital, power station--if we were to stop all burning of coal in America in total so that there became no coal being consumed in America--you would reduce the CO2 emissions of the world by two-tenths of 1 percent.

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

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to touch base again before we go to our last speaker. Again, these are all of the rules. This is the overwhelming number of rules that we are trying to deal with in America in dealing with fossil fuels, from ozone to new source performance standards. I could go on. There is the regional haze and the greenhouse gas tailoring rule. We have to deal with those. Let me show the impact as already predicted is going to happen. It is that we are going to see higher utility bills. If we want to see that, just keep doing it because that is exactly what is going to happen. This chart has been produced that shows, just in West Virginia 7 years ago--let's just say for discussion--you had a $100 bill for your monthly electric. Now, because of all of the rules, we are at $160. That is a 60 percent increase in the cost of utilities. Some might argue it is because of the cost of coal. No. The cost of coal has dropped. The point here is that the power plants--the utilities--are having to put excessive money into the production of electricity to meet some of those rules that we talked about over there. It is coming out of our pockets. Someone is paying for that. You and I are paying for that. In addition, we are already 60 percent up. Look at Arizona. They are suggesting that the increased cost in Arizona is going to go up 40 percent; in the State of Washington, 37 percent; in California, 24 percent. All we have to ask is: Is this what the consumers want? Let me show you another chart here. This talks about where coal is being used. Now, this administration has been very effective in shutting it off. You have heard the horror stories of what has happened in Kentucky. I have heard of some of it in West Virginia. In Ohio, it is the same story--in Indiana, in Illinois. The impact it is having on our industry is destructive. They are destroying the industry. The industry is on its knees now. But what about overseas? The International Energy Agency has already indicated that they have a voracious appetite for coal elsewhere outside of America. No one else is following the administration's lead on this idea of this war on coal. They are still burning coal. They are burning coal every which way they can. Whether it is in China or in India--wherever they are--they are using coal. As a matter of fact, from the year 2000 to 2013, they increased their appetite for coal by 70 percent; but in America, we dropped. It is important to understand where this fight is and what we have to do to fight for the individuals. Mr. Speaker, as we start to wrap up our discussion tonight about coal and its impact, about the Clean Power Plan and the effective regulations, I yield to the gentleman from the Second District of West Virginia (Mr. Mooney), one of our newest Congressmen.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments on that and for bringing up also the Clean Power Plan as we were wrapping up with that. Because I am intrigued--and maybe the rest of the Members should be as well--with the idea that is being promoted by the senior Senator from Kentucky, which is maybe we should not be so quick to jump on the Clean Power Plan. The President may very well be overturned on this constitutionally. But if the States implement this voluntarily and impact our schools, our communities, our environment, our health care, our hospitals, by shutting down, we won't be able to recover from that. So the Senator has come up with an intriguing concept, and that is just say no. It kind of reminds me of Barbara Bush a few years ago. As a result of that, we already have several States that are either saying no or are deeply and seriously considering saying no. States like Oklahoma, Indiana, Wisconsin, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi are not going to jump on this legislation just yet. The rule, they are coming from the administration because they have seen the strategy here, which is just to use a bullying tactic, push it through, knowing full well 5 or 6 years from now it is going to be overturned in the courts. But we will never get our jobs back. Those individuals that you were talking about, Congressman Barr, those individuals that came up to you, they are not going to have a job. They will have left Kentucky. They will have gone someplace else to try to find something else. They are going to be uprooted from their communities. No, we have to fight. This is the fight now. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. McKINLEY. I do appreciate the gentleman's additional comments. So as we leave here tonight, let's make sure that we go back over what we have talked about. We have talked about the impact on coal. We have talked about the individuals, as you just referred to on their electric bills. We see the drama that is going to play out over this. We have seen the numbers of regulations that are coming forth with this, with these bullying tactics, this hostility toward coal. We have seen this last result, the Clean Power Plan. These have to stop. America needs to wake up. This is something that is happening, but we have the ability here to reach out and try to communicate to more people across West Virginia and the Nation, in Kentucky and Illinois, to Montana, to California, to demonstrate to them that you are already using coal. You are getting the advantages of coal. Work with us to get the clean coal technology so that we can cut down our emissions. The idea of shutting off coal is short-sighted, and the rest of the world isn't following. Someone said about leadership: You know, if no one is following you, then all you are doing is a man taking a walk. So we have to find people that can lead. We have groups that are willing to take this on and fight for coal, fight for the jobs and the people that are affected by this. So I thank you all for coming out here tonight. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, for 35 years, Congress has wrestled with how to deal with coal ash, an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal. Every day, coal ash is produced in more than 500 coal-fired plants located in 49 States, spread across 207 congressional districts. Each one of those dots represents where every day in America coal ash is being produced. This issue is not a State issue; this is a national issue that needs to be addressed. Over 140 million tons of coal ash are produced annually in each one of those red dots. I recently received a letter of support from the pulp and paper industry which recycles fly ash and employs nearly 900,000 people in 47 States. Their comment, they want to see this bill pass because, ``The EPA's proposed regulation provides a complicated approach to enforcing the regulation,'' and this bill ``provides clarity and certainty.'' Now, last year, in December, the EPA issued its regulation--indeed, they did--on fly ash. To its credit, the EPA addressed one of the more immediate concerns and opted, however, just for now, to regulate coal ash as a nonhazardous waste. The question legitimately needs to be raised, and it has been: Why is this legislation needed? It is two issues. First, the nonhazardous designation is not permanent; and, secondly, the only oversight mechanism in the rule is lawsuits. Let's be more specific. The nonhazardous designation is merely applicable as long as this rule is not modified. Even in the preamble, the EPA indicates they may reverse their decision and ultimately regulate fly ash as a hazardous material. More specifically from the rule, it says: The EPA is deferring its final decision because of regulatory uncertainties that cannot be resolved at this time. This uncertainty could be devastating to recyclers. The science is settled on fly ash, and it should trump political and ideological interference. Are we living in a nation of rules and regulation or are we living in a nation of laws? This bill ensures that the EPA will not be able to retroactively reverse its original decision. But secondly and equally and maybe more so important is the rule of this omission of specificity and the lack of State or Federal oversight of coal ash disposal. And remember what I just said, the lack of State or Federal oversight that is provided in the rule. The way the rule is currently written, oversight will occur only through lawsuits, not through regulators. The bill, however, addresses regulatory uncertainty by guaranteeing that every State will have a coal ash permit program in concert with the EPA, but with State oversight and that every program will meet the standards set forth under the proposed EPA rule. Nothing in the rule was omitted in the legislation. Rather, the bill modifies the rule to allow States the flexibility to implement an adequate, sufficient, and successful coal ash permit program. It simply ensures that the lawsuits are not the only regulatory component. Let me give you an example on how the language within the rule could be a problem. The rule states: The owner or operator of a CCR unit must install a sufficient number of wells to yield groundwater samples. Mr. Chairman, who defines what ``sufficient'' is? One utility in one State may say it is 10 wells. In another State, it may be 20 or 30. Under this rule, the decision will be handled by a Federal judge rather than a State environmental agency. That is what we corrected with this bill. This is not the fly ash bill from 30 years ago. We have worked with the EPA in developing this legislation. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the administration hasn't read the bill because the bill, one, codifies the rule. It doesn't eliminate anything. It codifies the rule. Secondly, it removes the uncertainty with the regulatory designation. Three, it enhances oversight. Fourthly, it requires every State to have a coal ash program.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chair, in so doing, in providing for the coal ash program, we finally have a national system for oversight of dams. Think about that. We haven't had that up to this point. That is what caused the problem in the first place, was lack of dam safety. Secondly, we are going to have enhanced water quality. We are going to have improved environmental considerations. This rule will go into effect October 19 of this year. Without this legislative action, regulatory uncertainty surrounding the disposal of coal ash will continue as it has for 35 years. It is imperative we pass this bill today and continue to move forward. The clock is ticking, and the time is now to finally put this issue behind us. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put this issue to rest. We have come to a compromise with the EPA. The administration needs to come on board finally.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, when we analyzed all of the proposed amendments to H.R. 1734 earlier this week, we were eager to accept those amendments that might improve the legislation and make the State permitting process even stronger so we can ensure that the coal ash impoundments are closed in a safe and efficient manner. Unfortunately, this amendment would have the opposite effect. This amendment would require that all inactive impoundments or legacy sites, as they are known, comply with the requirements in the final rule to conduct postclosure care, which includes the installation of groundwater monitoring. While I appreciate and share my colleague's concerns about inactive surface impoundments, this amendment would not achieve what I believe is my colleague's goal of ensuring the timely closure of inactive surface impoundments. In the final rule, the EPA recognized the need for efficient and timely closure of the inactive impoundments. In fact, the EPA incentivized the closure of legacy sites by ensuring that the utilities that are able to safely closed inactive impoundments within the 3-year deadline would not need to comply with any of the other requirements in the final rule, including groundwater monitoring. This amendment would wipe out the EPA's incentive for utilities to complete closure of inactive surface impoundments in a timely manner by requiring that utilities comply with certain requirements immediately. In addition, I think there is a broad agreement that the EPA final rule is protective with respect to taking steps to address inactive surface impoundments. The gentleman's amendment goes farther than even what EPA determined would be protective to address the legacy site by requiring immediate compliance with certain requirements which, as I indicated, would remove the incentive for EPA to close inactive impoundments by the deadline. Many of the inactive surface impoundments will be clean-closed. To explain that, that means that all of the coal ash will be removed from the impoundment. There is no need for 30 years of postclosure care for these particular impoundments. So for all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is the most trying times that bring out the best in people. West Virginia has faced high water and floods over the past few weeks. Recently there was an act of heroism in Wood County that deserves recognition on the House floor. On their way home on Sunday, 15-year-old Brant Freeland and his mother pulled over to wait out high water blocking the road. Brant noticed a car caught in the rising water ahead of him. Not thinking twice, Brant bolted from his car to see if someone was inside. There he found 69-year-old Connie Boggs trapped inside with the water rising. He wrenched open the door and got her to safety. Connie said, ``If it wasn't for Brant, I would more than likely have drowned.'' For his part, Brant said the last thing on his mind when he entered the water was being a hero. ``I was just worried about saving that lady's life. That is all.'' Brant did more than that. He showed us the kind of courage that is too often missing these days.

Mr. McKINLEY

Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of H.R. 6. By encouraging innovation and providing more resources for groundbreaking research, we can provide a better future for our children and our grandchildren. America has a rich history of scientific discovery, from putting a man on the Moon to finding a cure for polio. With the right focus, we can do the same in finding cures for devastating diseases, like cancer and Alzheimer's. I want to thank Chairman Upton for his commitment to making Alzheimer's one of the neurological diseases on which the CDC will collect data. 21st Century Cures will improve the lives of all Americans by bringing research from the lab to our families. I thank the chairman, the committee, and the staff for all of their dedicated work on this.