[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 93 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5204-S5205]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              WAR ON COAL

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday morning I made a prediction 
about a speech the President was expected to give later in the day. I 
said we could expect him to announce a plan to impose the will of some 
of his most radical backers on the American middle class. I said he 
would be undeterred by Congress's rejection of his national energy tax 
even when Democrats held commanding majorities in both Houses. I said 
he would announce his intention to push through job-crushing 
regulations anyway but this time largely through the back door over the 
objections of many working-class Americans rather than through the 
regular democratic process. Lo and behold, that is essentially what he 
did.
  I was surprised by one thing, though, and that was his continued 
effort to play politics with the Keystone Pipeline jobs. Remember, we 
all know that the oil this pipeline would carry is going to come out of 
the ground either way. It is going to come out of the ground whether or 
not he approves it. In other words, whether he gives approval to the 
pipeline or not, the oil is coming out of the ground. The only question 
is whether that energy and those jobs will go to America or whether 
they will be allowed to travel across the Pacific to governments that 
harbor terrible environmental records to begin with.
  That is just one reason why the Keystone Pipeline has enjoyed such 
broad bipartisan support here in the Senate. Even Big Labor--a sector 
that is usually supportive of the President--is all behind the Keystone 
Pipeline. Yet, yesterday, when the President had the opportunity to 
side with the working-class families across the country by approving 
the pipeline, he took another pass--just took a pass.
  Sometimes you have to wonder about this administration. In making 
decisions such as these, you have to wonder if they truly understand 
the worries most Americans have to contend with in the Obama economy. I 
have long warned, for example, that the White House was determined--
determined--to wage a war on coal. They denied it, of course, but only 
just long enough to get through the last election. So it is not a 
coincidence that the President did not give his speech before the 
election or that he gave it at a university that symbolizes the DC 
elite rather than somewhere in coal country. He should have made this 
speech down at Morehead State University in my State or the University 
of Pikeville in my State. That would have been the place to make the 
speech, not here in town.
  Now the President's supporters seem all too happy to admit there is a 
war on coal. Just yesterday an adviser to the White House said, ``A war 
on coal is exactly what's needed.'' You have to give him points for 
candor.
  Look, Republicans are all for developing the fuels and the energies 
of the future. We are all for that. We just think it should come about 
as part of an all-of-the-above strategy, which is exactly what the 
White House said it supported too back before the election. But now 
with the election year over, the truth comes out.
  In truth, the administration seems to adhere to a dogma that could 
best be described as ``none of the above''--not ``all of the above'' 
but ``none of the above, except a couple of things that make our base 
happy.'' I would note that such an approach is basically nonsense since 
it ignores what is necessary to keep our country's growing energy needs 
met in order to move toward a future where renewables look set to play 
a greater role because it simply tries to pretend that it will not take 
years, if not decades, for these other types of energy to come online 
in a way that will truly meet our energy needs.
  In a phrase, it is a strategy that subordinates almost everything to 
politics. That is why Republicans believe a true all-of-the-above 
strategy means developing wind, solar, natural gas, oil, and coal, and 
embracing American jobs that come along with producing American energy.
  Here is what we believe it absolutely does not mean: It does not mean 
picking out a class of vulnerable people and declaring war on them. 
There is a depression in central Appalachia, which includes eastern 
Kentucky, because of the government itself, this administration. 
Sometimes people in Washington forget the decisions here actually 
affect the lives of others. I am often left to wonder, do they not 
care?
  Of course, coal is an important industry to my State, and I am going 
to defend Kentucky workers from out-of-touch Washington attacks, but it 
is pretty naive to think it is just about Kentucky, West Virginia, or 
Pennsylvania. As I said yesterday, a war on coal is actually a war on 
jobs. Coal is important to our entire country. It is critical to the 
growth of manufacturing, and it is important to our national economy.
  One can say a coal miner in Kentucky relies on coal for their well-
being, just as a line worker in a manufacturing plant that uses coal 
relies on it too. Pretty much everyone who lives or works in a building 
with electricity relies on coal in some way. That is why even some in 
the President's party are trying to distance themselves from his 
approach.
  As one of my Senate Democratic colleagues put it yesterday:

       The fact is clear: our own Energy Department reports that 
     our country will get 37 percent of our energy from coal until 
     2040.

[[Page S5205]]

     Removing coal from our energy mix will have disastrous 
     consequences for our recovering economy.

  I couldn't agree more with our Democratic colleague.
  It is time for the White House to stop pivoting from job-destroying 
policies to campaign-stop PR pitches for jobs right back to job-
destroying policies. It is time for the administration to get serious 
about pursuing a truly workable strategy for this country, for energy, 
for the economy, and for jobs.


                              Senate Rules

  Briefly, on another matter, another day has gone by. We are still not 
clear that the majority leader is going to keep his word given back at 
the beginning of this Congress that the issue of the rules for the 
Senate of this Congress have been settled. They have been settled as a 
result of bipartisan discussions that occurred back in January leading 
to the passing of two rules changes and two standing orders, after 
which the majority leader had said it had been settled, that we had the 
rules for this Congress.
  Later we learned that maybe we didn't, and there were these implied 
threats issued to groups around the country that he would exercise a 
so-called nuclear option. The definition of the nuclear option is to 
break the rules of the Senate in order to change the rules of the 
Senate.
  The minority, and I suspect a reasonable number of the majority, are 
waiting to find out whether the majority leader intends to keep his 
word. Your word is the currency of the realm in the Senate. His word 
has been given. We expect it to be kept.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________