David McKinley

Who will you blame next? If we don't produce CO2, what will be your excuse for the next tornado, the next Hurricane Sandy?

But yet, with all these regulations you are putting at risk all the American workers in these powerhouses, and coal mines, and all across this country.

I am just concerned about all the coal miners, and the people that work in these mines, or the people in the industry, how they are going to find jobs, if it is less and less, and you are saying it is viable.

So my point here is, given that there is not unanimity--and I remember earlier last year when Lisa Jackson came before us, she said it is all been decided, that global warming is anthropogenic, global warming is manmade cause and it is CO2…

Clearly, there is a war on coal that is being waged by the administration.

This proposed rule would do exactly what the administration set out to do from the very start: prohibit the future use of coal in this country.

I don't think that anyone is not aware of the fact that this administration has a strong bias against coal.

President Obama himself said he wants to 'bankrupt' coal companies and that 'electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket.'

They have a responsibility to consider the cost and the impact on the health care of the thousands of people who lose their jobs.

It is their responsibility and they are responsible for where we are today as it relates to coal.

I get a kick out of you. You have been here several times before our committee.

I find it curious in my reading that they blamed the temperature of the oceans, the instability of the oceans.

I am just curious with all this money we are spending overseas, whether it is 30 million or $5 million, when the EPA itself recognizes that the biggest detriment to healthcare in America is indoor air quality.

I am curious about the follow-up, particularly there were several--well, take some of the more serious ones was the demonstration project for the abatement of nitrous oxide emissions.

But when we fund these other projects, if they just die on the vine, if they are just a one-shot deal, I am just curious, what American project that maybe could have put some people to work here and researchers, something in America that…

We seem to be so concerned with--and rightfully so--the health of our children and adults, and we put them in an indoor air quality that has--90 percent of your time you are spending indoors.

But now we are up to less than once a month they are coming in, and it is costing you $3,000-some for every one of those series of tests.

So here is a manufacturer that has never had a violation, but maybe once a quarter they have had someone come in and do some testing.

We want to go from 15 milligrams per cubic meter down to 12.

They don't answer to us in Congress. They only answer to the President.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Having that science that you claim the EPA uses, I wish you would use it to fight the right area, where people truly do have issues.

With all due respect, I think the EPA and the DOE are the worst nightmare for the working men and women of America in the coalfields all across America.

But the mercury content in coal is .17 parts per million. There is more mercury in a can of tuna fish at .39 parts per million.

I can't comprehend that. I go back on that where they are saying that there is no layoff, there have been no layoffs in coal.