[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 88 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3942-S3945]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                        President's War On Coal

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think I have time reserved now for up to 
30 minutes. I wish to first of all say that the subject we have been 
listening to is life threatening. It is critical. That is not why I am 
down here today because we have something else that is very important.
  I have come to the floor today with some breaking news. The momentum 
to stop President Obama's war on coal is now so great that some of my 
colleagues--Senators Alexander and Pryor--are going to introduce a 
countermeasure to my resolution. My resolution would put a stop to the 
second most expensive EPA regulation in history--a rule known as 
Utility MACT, with which the occupier of the chair is very familiar. 
The countermeasure is a cover bill, pure and simple.
  While my resolution requires the EPA to go back to the drawing board

[[Page S3943]]

to craft a rule in which utilities can actually comply, the measure 
that Senators Alexander and Pryor are offering would keep Utility MACT 
in place but delay the rule for 6 years. This alternative is a clear 
admission that the Obama EPA's policy is wrong, but it does not fix the 
problem. It simply puts off the day of execution for a matter of 6 
years.
  What is really going on here? Since my S.J. Res. 37 is a privileged 
motion, it must be voted on by Monday, June 18, unless we extend it, 
which I would be willing to do, until after the farm bill takes place. 
That might be a better idea. It requires 50 votes to pass. The 
Alexander-Pryor cover bill will likely be introduced tomorrow. It is a 
bill that will likely never be voted on and would require 60 votes to 
pass. Therefore, the Senators who want to kill coal by opposing S.J. 
Res. 37 will put their names on the Alexander-Pryor bill as cosponsors 
to make it look as if they are saving coal, when in reality that bill, 
the Alexander-Pryor bill, kills coal in 6 years.
  We have seen this before. I remember when we considered the Upton-
Inhofe Energy Tax Prevention Act when it came to the floor last year. 
It was a measure that would have prevented the EPA from regulating 
greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. I would like to expand on 
that, but there is not time to do that.
  My colleagues offered a number of counteramendments so they could 
have a cover vote. They wanted to appear as if they were reining in the 
out-of-control EPA--and I think everybody knows what is going on right 
now with all those regulations--for their constituents back home, all 
the while letting President Obama go through with his job-killing 
regulations. Some chose to vote for the only real solution to the 
problem--the Energy Tax Prevention Act--and some chose the cover vote. 
But all in all, 64 Senators went on record that day as wanting to rein 
in the EPA. But some of them did not have the courage to stand by it.
  Of course, it is highly unlikely the Utility MACT alternative by 
Senators Alexander and Pryor will ever get a vote, but that is not the 
point. The point is just to have something out there that Senators in a 
tough spot can claim to support.
  As I have said many times now, the vote on S.J. Res. 37 will be the 
one and only opportunity to stop President Obama's war on coal. This is 
the only vote. There is no other vote out there. If we do not do this, 
and that rule goes through--Utility MACT--coal is dead. This is the 
only chance we have.
  Fortunately, we have a thing called the CRA. It is a process whereby 
a Senator can introduce a resolution to stop an unelected bureaucrat 
from having some kind of an onerous regulation. That is exactly what I 
have done with this. But this is the only chance for my colleagues to 
show constituents who they do stand with. Which of my colleagues will 
vote for the only real solution, which is my resolution, and which of 
my colleagues will vote for a cover vote?
  What has changed over the past few weeks to the extent of my 
colleagues suddenly feeling it necessary for a cover vote?
  A lot has changed because the American people are speaking up, and 
they are not happy about the Obama EPA. When I go back to Oklahoma, 
that is all I hear. It does not matter if you are in the ag business, 
if you are in the military business, if you are in the manufacturing 
business, they are all talking about the onerous regulations that are 
taking place in the EPA. I am pleased to say we have picked up the 
support of groups representing business and labor. Even more 
encouraging is a growing number of elected officials are working across 
the aisle to save coal. The Senate has taken notice, and the first 
Senate Democrats are beginning to come on board.
  I want to commend Senator Joe Manchin, who happens to be occupying 
the chair at this time, and Senator Ben Nelson. They were the first two 
Senate Democrats to come out publicly in support of our resolution. I 
must say, I am very glad to see that they have made the right choice to 
stand with their constituents.
  Senator Manchin's announcement came just after the Democratic 
Governor of West Virginia, Governor Tomblin, sent a letter asking him, 
as well as Senator Rockefeller, to vote for my resolution because, he 
said, EPA's rules have--and I am quoting now the Democratic Governor of 
West Virginia; and the occupier of the chair will know this--EPA's 
rules have ``coalesced to create an unprecedented attack on West 
Virginia's coal industry.'' Still quoting, he said: ``This attack will 
have disastrous consequences on West Virginia's economy, our citizens 
and our way of life,'' and that EPA ``continues on this ill-conceived 
path to end the development of our nation's most reliable cost-
effective source of energy--coal.''
  I am very proud of a lot of the officials in West Virginia for what 
they have come out with. Governor Tomblin is not the only Democrat to 
be concerned. West Virginia Lieutenant Governor Jeffrey Kessler sent a 
separate letter to the West Virginia Senators and others asking them to 
pass S.J. Res. 37 in order to save what he called West Virginia's 
``most valuable state natural resource and industry.'' He reminded the 
Senators that:

       On May 25, 2012, the State of West Virginia challenged the 
     MATS rule--

  that is the kill coal rule--

     and cited four reasons the defective rule should be rejected.

  That is not all. A group of bipartisan State legislators from West 
Virginia also wrote the Senators and others urging them to support S.J. 
Res. 37 out of concern for the devastating impact on West Virginia. As 
they wrote:

       Several West Virginia power plants have announced their 
     closure and the loss of employment that comes with it. 
     Additionally, it is projected that with the implementation of 
     this rule, consumer electric rates will skyrocket.

  We all know that is true. Even the President has stated that.
  I wish to note that we have support from nearly 80 percent of the 
private sector--those businesses that President Obama claims are 
``doing just fine.'' Apparently, they do not think they are doing all 
that fine. American businesses are suffering because of aggressive 
overregulation by the Obama administration.
  Let me take a minute to read the names of just some of the groups 
that are supporting our efforts to pass S.J. Res. 37: The National 
Federation of Independent Business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
American Farm Bureau, the National Association of Manufacturers, the 
Industrial Energy Consumers of America, the American Chemistry Council, 
the Association of American Railroads, the American Forest and Paper 
Association, the American Iron and Steel Institute, the Fertilizer 
Institute, the Western Business Roundtable, and the National Rural 
Electric Cooperative Association.
  That is just part of it.
  Then the unions. The unions are coming too--I have talked about the 
businesses and read all of their groups--they have come to stop the 
overregulation that is killing jobs. Cecil Roberts, I had the occasion 
to meet him once. He is the president of the United Mine Workers, one 
of the largest labor unions in the country. He recently sent a letter 
to several Senators saying the union's support for my resolution is 
``based upon our assessment of the threat that the EPA MATS rule''--
that is the coal-killing rule--``poses to United Mine Workers 
Association members' jobs, the economies of coal field communities, and 
the future direction of our national energy policy.''
  Remember, Cecil Roberts is the one who traveled across the country in 
2008 campaigning for President Obama. But after 4 years of his 
regulatory barrage designed to kill the mining jobs his union is trying 
to protect, Mr. Roberts has said his group may choose not to endorse 
President Obama or just sit the election out. As he explained:

       We've been placed in a horrendous position here. How do you 
     take coal miners' money and say let's use it politically to 
     support someone whose EPA has pretty much said, ``You're 
     done''?

  With even Democrats and unions supporting my effort to save millions 
of jobs that depend on coal, EPA has to be feeling the pressure.
  Gina McCarthy, the Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office for Air 
and Radiation, came out with a statement last week vehemently denying 
that Utility MACT and EPA's other rules are an effort to end coal. She 
said:


[[Page S3944]]


       This is not a rule that is in any way designed to move coal 
     out of the energy system.

  Everybody knows better than that.
  EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson echoed this sentiment saying that it 
is simply a coincidence that these rules are coming out at the ``same 
time'' that natural gas prices are low so utilities are naturally 
moving toward natural gas. Her message was: Do not blame the EPA.
  Last week on the Senate floor, I described why their public health 
and natural gas arguments do not hold up, so I will not go into that 
today. But what I wish to focus on today is that these claims backing 
up their efforts to kill coal are just a part of the far-left 
environmental playbook.
  There is a pretty big difference between what EPA is saying publicly 
and what they are saying when they talk with their friends, when they 
feel as though they can let their guard down and admit what is really 
going on down at the EPA. That is exactly what happened in a video 
recently uncovered of Region 6 Administrator Al Armendariz. While 
President Obama was posing in front of an oil pipeline in my State of 
Oklahoma pretending to support oil and gas, Administrator Armendariz 
told us the truth, that EPA's ``general philosophy'' is to ``crucify'' 
and make examples of oil and gas companies.
  You may remember last week when I spoke on the Senate floor, I talked 
about a newly discovered video of EPA Region 1 Administrator Curt 
Spalding who is caught on tape telling the truth to a group of his 
environmental friends at Yale University. At a gathering there, he said 
that EPA's rules are specifically designed to kill coal and that the 
process isn't going to be pretty.
  He openly admitted:

       If you want to build a coal plant you got a big problem.

  He goes on to say that the decision to kill coal was ``painful every 
step of the way'' because it will devastate communities in Virginia, 
Pennsylvania, and any area that depends on coal for jobs and 
livelihoods. That is kind of worth repeating. He said it is going to be 
painful. At least he recognized that. And we all know exactly what he 
is talking about.
  I read his whole quotes on the floor of the Senate. They are a little 
too long to read now. But he talks about how painful it is going to be 
for all these families who are losing their jobs because we are killing 
coal.
  I talked a lot about President Obama's war on coal last week, but 
what I did not have time to address was the Obama administration's 
allies in this war. It would come as no surprise that Administrator 
Spalding and, indeed, many at EPA are working hand in hand with the 
far-left environmental groups to move these regulations to kill coal.
  Last July, Administrator Spalding spoke at a Boston rally for Big 
Green groups--that is capitalized: ``Big Green''--supporting EPA'S 
Utility MACT rule. That is the rule that would kill coal. In a YouTube 
video of this rally, Administrator Spalding gushes over the 
environmental community, thanking them profusely for ``weighing in on 
our behalf.'' So here we have EPA admitting that Big Green is working 
for them.
  His whole speech was directly out of the environmental playbook. This 
is something that really exists: the environmental playbook. It was all 
about the so-called health benefits of killing coal. And he said:

       Don't let anybody tell you these rules cost our economy 
     money.

  This is out of their playbook.
  Administrator Spalding is not alone in his alliance with Big Green. 
Also appearing with these far-left environmental groups was Region 5 
Administrator Susan Hedman. According to Paul Chesser, an associate 
fellow for the National League and Policy Center, Hedman told 
supporters at the rally:

       We really appreciate your enthusiastic support for this 
     rule. It's quite literally a breath of fresh air compared 
     with what's going on in the nation's capital these days.

  Of course, the former EPA region 6 Administrator Armendariz showed us 
again last week just how close EPA's relationship is with the far left 
groups. Armendariz had agreed to testify before Congress. It was 
actually over in the House, but at the last minute he canceled. As it 
turns out, Armendariz was in Washington that day. But while he 
apparently could not find time to testify before Congress, he did have 
time to stop by the Sierra Club for what has been described by the 
group as a private meeting. I suspect that Armendariz was there for a 
job interview. His ``crucify them'' resume makes him the perfect 
candidate.
  Of course, EPA and their Big Green allies cannot tell the public the 
truth that they are crucifying oil and gas companies or that their 
efforts to kill coal will be ``painful every step of the way'' so they 
are deceiving the public with talking points from their playbook. When 
I say ``playbook,'' I mean a literal document telling activists exactly 
how to get the emotional effects they want.
  We recently got a copy of this, and I have to say its contents are 
quite revealing. It comes from usclimatenetwork.com, a coalition of 
several major environmental groups, and it is a guideline for 
environmental activists when they attend hearings with the EPA to 
support the agency's greenhouse gas regulations.
  A quick search revealed it was apparently written by a key player in 
the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, which is an aggressive effort 
to shut down all coal plants across America. After offering some tips 
on the word limit and how to deliver the message, the document urges 
activists to make it personal. It asks: Are you an expectant or new 
mother? Grandparent? If so, it suggests you bring your baby to the 
hearing. As it states, some examples of great visuals are ``holding 
your baby with you at the podium or pushing them in strollers, baby car 
seats,'' and so forth. ``Older children are also welcome.'' It 
encourages the visual aids of ``Asthma inhalers, medicine bottles, 
healthcare bills'' and all these other things that are good visuals.
  The American Lung Association certainly took a page of this playbook. 
We have all seen the commercials of the red buggy in front of the 
Capitol. Of course, the Sierra Club put their principles to practice by 
inundating the American people with images of small children with 
inhalers.
  The posters for the Beyond Coal campaign also featured abdomens of 
pregnant women with an arrow pointing to the unborn baby. The words on 
the arrow are, ``This little bundle of joy is now a reservoir for 
mercury.'' Another one says, ``She's going to be so full of joy, love, 
smiles, and mercury.''
  Of course, the supreme irony is that the campaign that claims to be 
protecting this unborn child is the same one that is aggressively 
prochoice. It is coming from a movement that believes there are too 
many people in the world and actively advocates for population control 
and abortion.
  Just after a hearing in May of this year, the Sierra Club posted 
pictures of their efforts. Sure enough, there is one of Mary Anne Hitt, 
director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, holding her 2-year-
old daughter Hazel. But for all their efforts, it is clear the campaign 
is about one thing only; that is, killing coal.
  At a hearing, Mary Anne Hitt with the Sierra Club said, ``We are here 
today to thank the Obama administration and to show our ironclad 
support for limiting dangerous carbon pollution being dumped into the 
air.'' She apparently sees the Obama administration as the closest ally 
in the Sierra Club's effort, and she has said about the Beyond Coal 
campaign:

       Coal is a fuel of the past. What we're seeing now is the 
     beginning of a growing trend to leave it there.

  Of course, it is not just coal they want to kill; they want to kill 
coal, oil, and gas. A lot of people do not realize that. It was not 
long ago that Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, 
said:

       As we push to retire coal plants, we're going to work to 
     make sure we are not simultaneously switching to natural gas 
     infrastructure. And we're going to be preventing new gas 
     plants from being built wherever we can.

  So it is not just coal. It is oil. It is gas. We have to ask the 
question--at least I get the question asked when I go back to my State 
of Oklahoma because there are normal people there. They say: If we do 
not have coal, oil, and gas, how do you run this machine called 
America? The answer is we cannot.
  As this vote on my Utility MACT resolution approaches, look for many 
of

[[Page S3945]]

my liberal friends to take their arguments directly out of the far left 
environmental playbook. Get ready to see lots of pictures of babies and 
children using inhalers. But these are the same Members who voted 
against my Clear Skies bill, that would have given us a 70-percent 
reduction in real pollutants, I am talking about SOx, NOX, 
and mercury. We had that bill up, and that was one that would have 
actually had that reduction--a greater reduction than any President has 
advocated. When President Obama spoke--at that time he was in the 
Senate--he said: I voted against the Clear Skies bill. In fact, I was 
the deciding vote, despite the fact that I am from a coal State and 
half my State thought I had thoroughly betrayed them because I thought 
clean air was critical and global warming was critical.
  At an April 17 hearing this year, Senator Barrasso and Brenda 
Archambo, of the Sturgeon for Tomorrow, who testified before the EPW 
Committee, ``Would Michigan lakes, sturgeon, sportsmen, families have 
been better off had those reductions already gone into effect when they 
had the opportunity to pass [Clear Skies]?''
  Her answer was yes. We are talking about, by this time, 6 years from 
now, we would have been enjoying those reductions. There are crucial 
differences between Clear Skies and Utility MACT. Clear Skies would 
have reduced the emissions without harming jobs and our economy because 
it was based on a commonsense, market-based approach. It was designed 
to retain coal in American electricity generation while reducing 
emissions each year.
  On the other hand, Utility MACT is specifically designed to kill coal 
as well as all the good-paying jobs that come with it. EPA itself 
admits the rule will cost $10 billion to implement, but $10 billion 
will yield $6 million in benefits. Wait a minute. That does not make 
sense. That is a cost-benefit ratio between $10 billion and $6 million 
of 1,600 to 1.
  If their campaign is so focused on public health, why did Democrats 
oppose our commonsense clean air regulations? Very simple. Because we 
did not include CO2 regulation in the Clear Skies 
legislation. President Obama's quote only verifies that. He is on 
record admitting he voted against these health benefits because 
regulating greenhouse gases, which have no effect whatsoever on public 
health, was more important. In other words, the real agenda is to kill 
coal.

  Just before President Obama made the decision to halt the EPA's plan 
to tighten ozone regulations, the White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley 
asked: ``What are the health impacts of unemployment?'' That is one of 
the most important questions before this Senate in preparation for the 
vote on my resolution to stop Utility MACT. What are the health impacts 
on the children whose parents will lose their jobs due to President 
Obama's war on coal? What are the health impacts on children and low-
income families whose parents will have less money to spend on their 
well-being when they have to put more and more of their paychecks into 
the skyrocketing electricity costs?
  EPA Administrator Spalding gave us a clue about the impacts of 
unemployment. It would be, as he said, ``Painful. Painful every step of 
the way.'' Do my colleagues in the Senate truly want that? I deeply 
regret that I have to be critical of two of my best friends in the 
Senate, Senators Alexander and Pryor, particularly Senator Pryor. Three 
of my kids went to school with him at the University of Arkansas. He is 
considered part of our family. He is my brother. But if someone has 
been to West Virginia and to Ohio and to Illinois, to Michigan, to 
Missouri, and the rest of the coal States, as I have, and personally 
visited with the proud fourth- and fifth-generation coal families, as I 
have and certainly the occupier of the chair has, they know they will 
lose their livelihood if Alexander-Pryor saves the EPA's effort to kill 
coal. I cannot stand by and idly allow that to happen.
  Let me conclude by speaking to my friends in this body who have yet 
to make up their minds as to whether they will support my resolution. I 
know everyone in the Senate wants to ensure we continue to make the 
tremendous environmental progress we have made over the past few years. 
We truly have.
  The Clean Air Act many years ago cleaned up the air. We have had 
successes. Unfortunately, this administration's regulations are failing 
to strike that balance between growing our economy and improving our 
environment. Rather, this agenda is about killing our ability to run 
this machine called America.
  Again, I wish to welcome the support of Senators Manchin and Ben 
Nelson, who listened to their constituents. It is the rest of the 
Senators from the coal States that I am concerned about. What about 
Senators Levin and Stabenow, who come from a State that uses coal for 
60 percent of its electricity?
  What about Senator Conrad from a State with 85 percent of the 
electricity coming from coal? In Ohio, where Senator Brown is from, 
19,000 jobs depend on coal. Then there is Virginia, home of Senators 
Warner and Webb, which has 31,660 jobs, a 16 to 19 percent increase in 
the electric rates.
  Arkansas, the war on coal there, that is 44.9 percent of electricity 
generation in the State of Arkansas; Tennessee, 52 percent of 
electricity generation, 6,000 jobs; Missouri, 81 percent of electricity 
generation--81 percent in the State of Missouri. That is 4,600 jobs at 
stake; Montana, 58 percent; Louisiana, that is 35 percent of 
electricity generation. These are all States that depend on coal for 
their electricity generation; lastly, Pennsylvania, 48.2 percent of 
electricity generation, 49,000 jobs would be lost in Pennsylvania if 
utility MACT is passed. That is significant. I would not be surprised 
if all these Senators from coal States that I just mentioned will vote 
for the bill of Senators Alexander and Pryor that says: Let's kill 
coal, but let's put it off for 6 years.
  I repeat. It does not do any good to delay the death sentence on coal 
6 years. Contracts will already be violated and the mines will be 
closed. So I say to my colleagues that their constituents will see 
right though those of who choose a cover vote. The American people are 
pretty smart. They know there is only one real solution to stop, not 
just delay, EPA's war on coal.
  I hope they will join Senators Manchin and Nelson and me and several 
others and stand with the constituents, instead of President Obama and 
his EPA, which will make it painful every step of the way for them all. 
We need to pass S.J. Res. 37 and put an end to President Obama's war on 
coal. This is the last chance we have to do this. There is no other 
vote coming along.
  If a Senator does not want to kill coal, they have to support S.J. 
Res. 37. It is our last chance to do it. Again, we do not know when 
this is going to come up. It is locked in a time limit, unless we, by 
unanimous consent, increase that time. I have no objection to putting 
it off until after the farm bill because that is a very important piece 
of legislation. So we will wait and see what takes place.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________