[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 17, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Page S3693]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            COAL REGULATIONS

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in the Obama administration's latest 
defensive on the war on coal, it has proposed new regulations that 
threaten Kentucky's 20 existing coal-fired powerplants while 
potentially putting thousands out of work. If enacted, the massive new 
regulations would prove the single worst blow to Kentucky's economy in 
modern times and a dagger to the heart of the Commonwealth's middle 
class.
  Despite what they are called, the proposed restrictions on Kentucky's 
coal-fired powerplants amount to little more than a massive energy tax, 
and they will have a devastating effect on Kentucky.
  The administration announced it would hold four public hearings on 
the new proposed regulations, and given the dramatic effects they are 
sure to have on my home State, you would think they would hold one of 
those hearings in eastern Kentucky or, at the very least, somewhere in 
Kentucky. But then, of course, you would be mistaken.
  Once again, just like last year when the Obama administration held 
public hearings before proposing this national energy tax, not one of 
the sessions is slated for a nonmetropolitan area dependent on coal. 
The session that is the nearest to eastern Kentucky is a 10-hour 
roundtrip.
  Since coal employs 11,000 Kentuckians and is over 90 percent of 
Kentucky's electricity, I wrote a letter to Gina McCarthy, the EPA 
Administrator, formally requesting that she convene a hearing in coal 
country. Of course I have yet to get a response. However, it doesn't 
appear that Administrator McCarthy is too busy to talk to some people. 
Imagine my surprise when I found she had time to appear on an HBO late-
night comedy show where she admitted that the Obama administration is, 
in fact, waging a war on coal.

  The host asked her this question:

       Some people call it a war on coal. I hope it is a war on 
     coal. Is it?

  After a moment of indirection, Administrator McCarthy conceded that a 
war on coal is ``exactly what this is.'' The EPA Administrator said the 
war on coal is ``exactly what this is.''
  Of course, this talk show was recorded in front of a friendly anti-
coal host and audience in a television studio in Los Angeles. It almost 
sounds like the site of one of her EPA anti-coal hearings.
  So why does Administrator McCarthy have the time to appear on HBO but 
does not have the time to appear on WYMT-TV in Hazard so she can 
explain her war on coal to the people it is most directly affecting? 
Why does she have the time to sit down with a TV comedian but not with 
the editors of the Appalachian News Express in Pikeville so she can 
look my constituents in the eye and explain how these rules will impact 
them?
  Of course, for those of us who watch this administration closely, 
this kind of admission is nothing new. A year ago an adviser to the 
White House acknowledged that ``a War on Coal is exactly what's 
needed.''
  Last year, because the administration refused to hold any of its 
listening sessions in coal country, I held one of my own. We heard a 
lot of riveting testimony from those in the industry and their 
families, and I brought their stories back to the administration where 
I testified on their behalf since the Administrator would not directly 
hear from them.
  I am committed to making sure Kentucky's voice is heard on this issue 
even if the Obama administration doesn't want to listen. That is why I 
immediately responded to the administration's new regulations in my own 
legislation, the Coal Country Protection Act, to push back against the 
President's extreme anti-coal scheme. Supported by the Kentucky Coal 
Association, my legislation would require that the following simple but 
important benchmarks be met before the rules take effect.
  Here is what it would do: No. 1, the Secretary of Labor would have to 
certify that the rules would not generate loss of employment.
  No. 2, the Director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
would have to certify the rules would not result in any loss in 
American gross domestic product.
  No. 3, the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration 
would have to certify the rules would not increase electricity rates.
  And No. 4, the Chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and 
the president of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation 
would have to certify that electricity delivery would remain reliable. 
That is it.
  My legislation is plain common sense, and I urge the majority leader 
to allow a vote on my legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

                          ____________________