RCCRA Act of 2011

I want to thank my friend from South Carolina for yielding

me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this structured rule and the underlying legislation. I should point out to my colleagues that Democrats yesterday introduced an amendment in the Rules Committee to make this an open rule, but, unfortunately, every single Republican on the Rules Committee voted against making this an open process. So much for Speaker Boehner's pledge for an open House of Representatives.

This rule makes in order six amendments; six out of 16 submitted, less than half that were offered to the Rules Committee. Included in those amendments was an amendment by Mr. Kissell which would have required, essentially, that all the components of the infrastructure that would create these holding facilities for steel ash would have to be made with American products, so that it wouldn't be made with Chinese steel, it would be made with American steel, American concrete, and American rebar. I have no idea why that was controversial. The American people are worried about jobs, and there was an opportunity to make an amendment in order that would have protected and ensured American jobs, and they wanted no part of it.

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Republicans are jamming a rule through the House that shuts down the debate and cherry-picks a handful of amendments.

I should also point out that this bill that we're debating here today didn't even have a hearing--no hearings. I thought we were going to adhere to regular order, and that means that the committees of jurisdiction hold a hearing on the legislation--not a general hearing on the topic, but on the legislation. No hearings were held on this.

Discussion on this bill the other night in the Rules Committee was, I thought, kind of comical. The chairman of the Rules Committee, someone who's served in this institution a very long time, said he would have preferred an open rule but said that the schedule forced him to vote against my amendment to make this an open rule. The schedule? The same House schedule where we go into recess every 2 weeks?

Mr. Speaker, the American people want us to address the challenges that are facing our economy. They want us to be focused on the issue of jobs. And we're not legislating under this schedule that the Republicans have put into place. Since there were no hearings on this bill and since there were a lot of amendments that were offered, we should have had an open process. And if it took us a couple of days to debate and vote on this bill, so be it. That's the way this place is supposed to work.

Yesterday on the floor, we wasted time debating an abortion bill that is going absolutely nowhere, a bill that is designed to inflame and divide our country. I would suggest to my friends on the other side of the aisle, instead of bringing up hot-button social issues designed to fire up the right-wing base, maybe they should think about bringing a jobs bill to the floor of the House of Representatives.

In reality, Mr. Speaker, we should be debating the President's jobs bill, and yet the Republican leadership has refused to allow us even to have a vote on the bill. If my friends on the Republican side don't want to vote for a jobs bill, then they can vote against it, but we ought to be able to have a vote on the President's jobs bill.

The fact is that it's been 281 days that we've been in session--281 days without a jobs bill, 281 days that the Republicans have stood on the sidelines while Americans struggle to make ends meet, struggle to put food on the table, struggle to make house payments, struggle to find a job to pay their bills. We need a real jobs plan, not another bumper sticker bill demonizing the EPA, which is what today's bill is all about.

The American people don't want us wasting time on these trivial bills, bills that are going to go nowhere. What they want us to do is to pass a jobs bill. They want, Mr. Speaker, us to pass the President's jobs bill. Don't take my word for it. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that was released this week shows that nearly two-thirds of Americans want the President's jobs bill. The poll finds that 63 percent of Americans support the President's bill and that only 32 percent oppose it. It's not even close. The American people want action on jobs. They want to go back to work. They want us to do something meaningful, and they want us to do it now.

Mr. Speaker, if there's one thing that the new House majority has been consistent on this year, it's their almost religious crusade against the EPA. H.R. 2273 fits right in with their political agenda to undermine the agency at any cost and, in the process, threaten the health and safety of the American people, all under the guise of job creation. I'm appalled that that is their idea of a jobs bill.

Mr. Speaker, coal combustion waste is enormously toxic. It contains an array of the most harmful chemicals out there--mercury, lead, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and arsenic--that are especially devastating to the development of children. Over the years, billions of tons of coal ash have been dumped in poorly designed waste pits and containment sites in communities across the country.

I want to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle of the catastrophic coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee, in 2008 where 1.1 billion gallons of liquid coal waste seeped out of a contaminated pool and contaminated local drinking water. I would also remind my Republican colleagues that it cost the taxpayers more than $1 billion to clean up that disaster, and that residents in the Kingston area are still dealing with its continuing effects.

H.R. 2273 is a bad piece of legislation, and it flies in the face of commonsense safety precautions when disposing of hazardous materials. By leaving the establishment of coal ash safety standards solely to the discretion of States, this bill simply encourages a ``race to the bottom'' where the State willing to have the least protections will become the dumping ground for the entire country. And H.R. 2273 leaves taxpayers on the hook for paying for another cataclysmic disaster like the one in Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think any of my colleagues would want their families, their wives or husbands or children, living anywhere near the vicinity of a coal ash dumping site.

H.R. 2273 is another Republican bill that undermines commonsense health and safety protections from toxic chemicals and ultimately lowers the quality of living for millions of American families.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and instead send it back to the Rules Committee. Let's have an open rule. Given the fact, again, the bill didn't have a hearing, we should have an open rule here. I would urge my Republican colleagues to finally get to work on putting the American people back to work.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

To the gentleman who just spoke, I would remind him that we're debating the rule here. We could have this debate about whether or not there are health concerns here or not. I happen to believe there are, and I think most scientists believe that there are health concerns that we should take into consideration here.

But what's wrong with an open rule? What was so wrong with bringing an amendment to the floor that would have required that the components to build these containers, if you will, be made of materials made in the United States? What's wrong with U.S. steel or U.S. concrete? Why is that a controversy?

So I would say to my colleagues on the other side who like to say that they're open, let this be an open rule, especially since there were no hearings on this particular bill.

My colleague from South Carolina got up and he said he was confused. I'm sorry he's confused. Let me try to un-confuse him about one thing, which is, if you want to create jobs, bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. Economists predict that the American Jobs Act could create up to 1.9 million jobs next year and boost economic growth by about 2 percentage points. You've got a twofer here. Not only do you put people back to work, but you help to reduce our deficit when you put more people to work. If we could lower the unemployment rate in this country by a few percentage points, we could lower our deficit. Why is that so controversial?

Rather than focusing on partisan bills that don't mean much for the economy, it's time for the Republicans to take up the American Jobs Act, which is fully paid for, includes bipartisan ideas, will create jobs, and grow our economy now. What we should be doing every single day on this House floor is focusing on jobs, on putting people back to work. Instead, today is another bill attacking the EPA, and yesterday we did an abortion bill. I mean, we're talking about everything but how to put people back to work, so I would urge my colleagues to get their priorities straight.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would remind my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentlelady from North Carolina, that over half the Senate--over half the Senate-- voted to bring up the President's jobs bill. Over half the Senate supports the President's jobs bill. But under the arcane rules in the United States Senate, you need 60 votes to have lunch, never mind pass a bill.

So it wasn't defeated. A majority actually support the President's jobs bill. It is the Republicans who are obstructing this legislation, who are using procedural tricks to keep this bill from coming up before the United States Senate for a clean up-or-down vote. It is Republicans in the House of Representatives who are saying that none of us will have an opportunity to vote on the President's bill.

I mean, here's a good idea. You bring up what you want to bring up; you let us bring up what we want to bring up. The President's bill, as I said, is very popular. The legislation, I would remind my friend from South Carolina, is paid for, is paid for.

The legislation's specifics as well as the idea of taxing the very, very, very wealthy to pay for it are popular with the American public, and that's according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

So, I mean, what are you afraid of? If you don't want to vote for legislation to help put people back to work, then you don't have to vote for it. You go home and explain to your constituents why you're against the bill.

What we should be doing here in this U.S. House of Representatives is, every day, debating and legislating on ways to be able to put this country back to work. You want to reduce the deficit? Put people back to work. If you want to improve the economy, put people back to work. It's simple. And we're doing everything in this place but debating legislation to put people back to work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would say to the gentlelady from West Virginia, I don't know how many cosponsors there are on the bill, but I want to vote for the bill. I'm willing to propose a unanimous consent request that we amend this rule and we bring up H.R. 12 today. If the gentleman on the other side of the aisle is willing, let's bring it up and have that debate right now.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman if he wants to agree to that unanimous consent.

Well, the silence, Mr. Speaker, is deafening.

The fact of the of the of the matter is that we are going to finish up today at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock or whatever and then go on another week recess when the American people are struggling, when there are millions of people who are out of work, when there are millions of families struggling to try to pay their mortgages, when there are millions of families who are trying to figure out how they're going to have the resources to send their kids to school. This is the best we can do? Come on, we can do a lot better than this, Mr. Speaker.

I would again urge my colleagues to get serious and, if you don't like the President's jobs bill, then vote against it. It's that simple. But let us bring a bill to the floor that by every measure, by every public opinion poll that is out there, is popular. The American people want it. You always like to invoke polls. Well, the polls overwhelmingly show the American people support this. So let's bring that bill to the floor.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My colleague on the Rules Committee from South Carolina said we should all work in a bipartisan way, and I agree. And that's what the President attempted to do. His jobs bill represents a series of initiatives that were all bipartisan, that were all bipartisan until he announced he wanted to move on it, and then all of a sudden it became a partisan deal. Everything in the President's jobs package has been sponsored in a bipartisan way. So I don't understand why now. If you want to call it the Republican idea, I don't care what you want to call it, but bring it to the floor and allow us to be able to debate these bipartisan initiatives that will put people back to work.

Again, I would say about the rule, where's the openness here? I mean, the majority of amendments that were offered were not made in order, including an amendment that would require that the building materials for these holding tanks be made in America. Why is that so controversial? Why is making things in America a radical idea to my Republican friends? Why is it somehow a bad thing to insist that the steel used to build these plants be made in the United States of America and not China? I mean, we all should be on the side of American workers here, and that means standing up and making sure those jobs are here in the United States. So let's open this rule up so we have an opportunity to protect American jobs.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, I appreciate the words of my colleague from Illinois, but H.R. 1391 is not H.R. 2273. There was no legislative hearing on H.R. 2273.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

I reclaim my time.

So the new definition of openness under the Republican majority is you don't have to have a legislative hearing on a bill that you bring to the floor, but you can say it doesn't matter or that you did, or whatever. This is not the way this place is supposed to work. This process is not what my friends on the other side of the aisle promised.

Again, I have yet to hear a good reason why this is not an open rule. Given the fact that there was no hearing on this specific bill, given the fact that there were a number of germane amendments that were not made in order, given the fact that during the debate there may be Members on both sides of the aisle who may have ideas they may want to bring to the floor and amend this bill, and also given the fact that one of the amendments that was not made in order was an amendment that would have required that the materials that are used to make these coal ash containers be made in the United States of America, why is that such a heavy lift for my friends on the other side of the aisle?

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, a new study from Tufts University shows that we can create tens of thousands of new jobs by requiring safe disposal of coal ash. Ensuring that coal ash disposal sites protect human health and the environment will take work. It will take construction workers, equipment operators, and engineers. And this isn't a ``make work'' effort. These jobs will provide tremendous benefit to the communities in which they take place. But these jobs will not happen if we pass this bill. This bill basically preserves the status quo. So if we want to create jobs, I think we need to vote this bill down.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we're still trying to get an understanding on this side of the aisle as to why we don't have an open rule and why an amendment that would require that job stability infrastructure for all of this, that all the materials be made in America. If we want to protect American jobs and create American jobs, we have to stand up and fight for American jobs and fight for American workers.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me close by, again, first of all, saying that this rule should be an open rule and that, at a very minimum, the amendment that would require that the materials that would be used to construct any of these containers be made in the United States of America. It's important that we stand up for American jobs. It's important that we make it in America. And so this rule deserves to be defeated based on that alone.

This process is also bad and flawed because there was no hearing on this particular piece of legislation, and the ranking member of the full Energy and Commerce Committee did not think, based on what he said, that this was a particularly bipartisan, open process. In fact, there are some Members who supported this bill in committee who will not support it on the floor because of promises that were supposedly made that were not kept. So, for a whole bunch of reasons on process, we should defeat this rule.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, on the underlying bill, I would remind my colleagues that part of our job here is to protect the safety and well- being of the people we represent. Coal ash contains arsenic, lead, and many other toxic materials that can escape into the air or water if the material isn't properly contained. We should be concerned about the safety implications here. We should be concerned about any consequences that may result in poor regulation and poor oversight. And to basically, again, take this time on the floor to again take another slap at the EPA because that's the favorite punching bag of my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, I think, is not a credit to this institution and is not doing what we were elected to do, and that is to make sure that we are upholding the safety and protecting the people of this country.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that the problem is all regulation, only EPA regulation. There was an interesting opinion piece that appeared in The New York Times by a fellow named Bruce Bartlett--he had held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, served on the staff of Jack Kemp--who did a piece for The New York Times entitled, ``Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs.''

I'll read a couple of the lines from his piece. He says:

``Republicans have a problem''--and he's Republican himself. ``Republicans have a problem. People are increasingly concerned about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to offer them.''

He further says: ``No hard evidence is offered for this claim'' that all the uncertainty within business is tied to regulation.'' He says that notwithstanding the lack of evidence, the Republicans repeated this assertion ``endlessly throughout the conservative echo chamber.''

He also says: ``While concerns about regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan's administration, according to an analysis of the federation's data by the Economic Policy Institute.''

He ends by saying this: ``In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment.''

I bring that up not to say that regulation isn't a problem and that we should not deal in a constructive way with needless regulation--the President said that in his speech to the House when he introduced his jobs bill--but it is not the only problem out there. And to suggest that bringing bills like this to the floor are going to somehow create jobs is just patently false.

If we want to create jobs in this country, we should bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. Again, the American people overwhelmingly support what the President outlined in his speech before the Congress; and all the things that he articulated, I say to my friend from South Carolina, were bipartisan ideas. Republicans and Democrats all cosponsored legislation on various pieces of his proposal. Why now they have become controversial is beyond me.

I'll just close with this: At some point I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will get serious about the issue of jobs; at some point I hope they will bring something meaningful to this House floor that, if passed, will actually put people back to work, because up to this point the Republican leadership has failed miserably. And I think people all across this country--and you see this reflected in the public opinion polls--have had it. They're tired of this constant agenda of hot-button issues and of trivial matters that we debate passionately and important ones not at all.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment by Mr. Garamendi of California which was submitted to the Rules Committee. They didn't make it in order even though it is germane and fully paid for and meets every requirement of the rules of the House. The amendment would make sure that construction materials used to build holding facilities for coal ash are made in America.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Again, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat, the amendment we want to make in order would make sure that construction materials used to build holding facilities for coal ash are made in America. Why that should be controversial is beyond me. Why anybody on either side should oppose that is beyond me.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

[From the New York Times, Oct. 4, 2011]

Misrepresentations, Regulations and Jobs

(By Bruce Bartlett)

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and

George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of

Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

Republicans have a problem. People are increasingly

concerned about unemployment, but Republicans have nothing to

offer them. The G.O.P. opposes additional government spending

for jobs programs and, in fact, favors big cuts in spending

that would be likely to lead to further layoffs at all levels

of government.

Today's Economist Perspectives from expert contributors

Republicans favor tax cuts for the wealthy and

corporations, but these had no stimulative effect during the

George W. Bush administration and there is no reason to

believe that more of them will have any today. And the

Republicans' oft-stated concern for the deficit makes tax

cuts a hard sell.

These constraints have led Republicans to embrace the idea

that government regulation is the principal factor holding

back employment. They assert that Barack Obama has unleashed

a tidal wave of new regulations, which has created

uncertainty among businesses and prevents them from investing

and hiring.

No hard evidence is offered for this claim; it is simply

asserted as self-evident and repeated endlessly throughout

the conservative echo chamber.

On Aug. 29, the House majority leader, Eric Cantor of

Virginia, sent a memorandum to members of the House

Republican Conference, telling them to make the repeal of

job-destroying regulations the key point in the Republican

jobs agenda.

``By pursuing a steady repeal of job-destroying

regulations, we can help lift the cloud of uncertainty

hanging over small and large employers alike, empowering them

to hire more workers,'' Mr. Cantor said.

Evidence supporting Mr. Cantor's contention that

deregulation would increase unemployment is very weak. For

some years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has had a program

that tracks mass layoffs. In 2007, the program was expanded,

and businesses were asked their reasons for laying off

workers. Among the reasons offered was ``government

regulations/intervention.'' There is only partial data for

2007, but we have data since then through the second quarter

of this year.

The table below presents the bureau's data. As one can see,

the number of layoffs nationwide caused by government

regulation is minuscule and shows no evidence of getting

worse during the Obama administration. Lack of demand for

business products and services is vastly more important.

Bureau of Labor Statistics

These results are supported by surveys. During June and

July, Small Business Majority asked 1,257 small-business

owners to name the two biggest problems they face. Only 13

percent listed government regulation as one of them. Almost

half said their biggest problem was uncertainty about the

future course of the economy--another way of saying a lack of

customers and sales.

The Wall Street Journal's July survey of business

economists found, ``The main reason U.S. companies are

reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than

uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority

of economists.''

In August, McClatchy Newspapers canvassed small businesses,

asking them if regulation was a big problem. It could find no

evidence that this was the case.

``None of the business owners complained about regulation

in their particular industries, and most seemed to welcome

it,'' McClatchy reported. ``Some pointed to the lack of

regulation in mortgage lending as a principal cause of the

financial crisis that brought about the Great Recession of

2007-9 and its grim aftermath.''

The latest monthly survey of its members by the National

Federation of Independent Business shows that poor sales are

far and away their biggest problem. While concerns about

regulation have risen during the Obama administration, they

are about the same now as they were during Ronald Reagan's

administration, according to an analysis of the federation's

data by the Economic Policy Institute.

Academic research has also failed to find evidence that

regulation is a significant factor in unemployment. In a blog

post on Sept. 5, Jay Livingston, a sociologist at Montclair

State University, hypothesized that if regulation were a

major problem it would show up in the unemployment rates of

industries where regulation has been increasing: the

financial sector, medical care and mining/fuel extraction. He

found that unemployment rates in these sectors were actually

well below the national average. Unemployment is much higher

in those industries that one would expect to suffer most from

a lack of aggregate demand: construction, leisure and

hospitality, business services, wholesale and retail trade,

and durable goods.

Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution,

asserts that if businesses were really concerned about rising

regulations, they would be investing now to avoid them. But

there is no indication that this is the case. ``The real

reason for anemic investment and hiring is that businesses

are not confident there will be enough potential customers to

justify expansion or even routine capital replacement right

now,'' he says.

In my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented

by Republicans that allows them to use current economic

problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business

community year in and year out. In other words, it is a

simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to

deal with high unemployment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would just remind my friend that you have already brought up 30 measures under a closed rule since you took over. Again, I'm just trying to keep you to your promise that you made about all this new openness, which we haven't seen. And today is an example of that.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 431 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, sir.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 431 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, and makes in order six amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. The underlying bill would provide for a consistent, safe management of coal combustion residuals, or coal ash, in a way that protects jobs, while encouraging recycling and beneficial use of these materials.

This legislation, simply put, is one of the best job creation bills we can bring before the House of Representatives. By allowing States the opportunity to take control over their individual disposal needs, instead of being forced to follow an intrusive and overreaching EPA rule, we will save as many as 316,000 American jobs.

The EPA proposed regulation will increase the electricity cost and the construction costs around the Nation, while costing electric utilities and business owners up to $110 billion. While we all agree we must be responsible in protecting our environment, I am struggling to understand why on Earth the EPA continues to propose rules in a vacuum, as opposed to considering the overall impact on our country.

Coal ash has never been proven to be toxic. But what it has been proven to be is extremely useful in strengthening everyday products from concrete to sheet rock to bowling balls.

In my district, South Carolina's First, the American Gypsum Wallboard Plant in Georgetown County uses coal ash from Santee Cooper, our local electric utility, to produce environmentally friendly wallboard. American Gypsum has invested $150 million in this facility and created more than 100 jobs while redeveloping an old steel mill for their facility. The EPA's proposal to regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste threatens industry's ability to recycle this material in beneficial use. This, along with the increased regulatory, electric, and construction costs, is jeopardizing jobs all across America.

This legislation puts in place appropriate controls--and let me emphasize ``appropriate''--for the safe management and disposal of coal ash, while still encouraging investment in recycling and beneficial use.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. This is the way Federal regulations should be implemented, and it is the way we will protect American jobs while protecting the environment at the same time.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I'm confused. It doesn't take a lot to confuse me, but I'm confused today. The gentleman from Massachusetts consistently talks about the fact that there's been 281 days without a jobs bill. I want to know the definition of a jobs bill, because if you create jobs, my assumption is that we're talking about jobs bills. There is no question that the current legislation that we're talking about saves up to 316,000 jobs. I'm going to call that a jobs bill.

There's no question that the free trade agreements create about one- quarter of a million jobs. Those are jobs bills. The Boiler MACT saves jobs, and Cement MACT saves jobs. So what we've done in this Congress, in this House, is talk consistently about how to rein in the regulatory environment to not only create jobs but to retain jobs.

So my perspective is simple: When you have legislation that comes before the House that actually creates jobs, those are jobs bills. It is not an ultimatum. The President's jobs bill is simply an ultimatum, do it all or nothing at all. There is no question about it that even the Senate cannot find cosponsors of the President's legislation and pass the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. David McKinley.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts so much for taking the time to clarify that which is not clear as it relates to the President's objectives of creating a one-size-fits-all, take-it-or-leave-it jobs bill that doesn't create jobs but that does create another $500 billion hole for the taxpayers to take care of.

What we're talking about, however, sir, is a bipartisan approach to legislation in the House. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, with a vote of 35-12, 6 of the 23 Democrats supported this bill; of the Boiler MACT, 41 Democrats supported that bill; of the Cement MACT, 25 Democrats supported that bill. What we've done here is to create an atmosphere that is conducive to a bipartisan approach to solving the environmental concerns and challenges of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from West Virginia, Mrs. Shelley Moore Capito.

I would just say to my good friend from Massachusetts that the President's jobs perspective seems to be, since February of 2009, a loss, a net loss of 2.2 million jobs. So let's just absorb that for a moment.

We ought to get serious about not using the American people as a pawn for partisan politics and get serious about working in a bipartisan fashion, as we have on the Boiler MACT, the Cement MACT, and now on this current bill. If we work for Americans' future, we will find more jobs created and saved in America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Dr. Larry Bucshon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. John Shimkus.

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Jeff Duncan.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

We are prepared to close; so we reserve our time until then.

Mr. Speaker, history is a measure of progress. And when it comes to the two topics that I keep hearing from Mr. McGovern, my good friend to the left, it's openness and job creation. So let's examine history.

In the 111th Congress, I would like to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts, can the gentleman tell me how many open rules he brought to the floor in the last Congress as the vice chairman of the Rules Committee? The answer is none; no, not one. Under Speaker Boehner, our record of openness in this Congress is one we can be proud of. All of the general appropriations bills have been debated under completely open rules--all of the general appropriations bills, open rules. We've brought several authorizing bills to the floor under modified open rules, only requiring preprinting of amendments.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

The good news is the gentleman from Massachusetts has once again highlighted the fact that while he looks in one direction, he refuses to look in the mirror and answer the question that simply, no, not one, not one in the 111th Congress, one open rule did he bring to the floor of the House. But I would say that the Democrats in the last Congress simply gave up on openness. They just gave up on openness and allowing the American people to see real debate on the floor of the House.

On the issue of job creation, since February of 2009, the current administration lost 2.2 million jobs. Two million Americans now out of work since February 2009, and my good friends from the left continue to talk about demagoguing and demonizing an issue when they simply have nothing to prove and nothing to show for what they've done.

I would say this, though: that this week alone in the House of Representatives we have had the opportunity to empower the job creators of America to create over 500,000 jobs in just this week. We compare our record every day to the current administration.

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, the House has passed multiple bills which would stop burdensome government regulations from destroying jobs all across America. I ask that we do so today.

Enough is simply enough. We cannot allow the EPA--or any other government agency for that matter--to unnecessarily kill hundreds of thousands of jobs when our national unemployment is as high as it has been in the last 25 years. This is a responsible, forward-thinking bill which everyone in the Chamber should support.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I rise in support of the rule.

As we stand here 30 years into this discussion on coal ash, H.R. 2273 has essentially two parts:

The first part codifies the previous EPA studies that concluded that coal fly ash is nonhazardous and can be recycled for beneficial use. This was the essence of H.R. 1391, but in H.R. 1391, we heard from the constituents about the concern for disposal.

The second part was then incorporated into the new bill, which provides for all new and existing landfills and surface impoundments to be State-run with EPA assistance, approval, and oversight. We are trying to finally resolve the issue.

The issue of disposal is taken on firsthand in H.R. 2273 by allowing requirements for composite liners, fugitive dust controls, groundwater monitoring, financial assurance, and structural stability. H.R. 2273 is strongly endorsed by State environmental officials, including the Environmental Council of States and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Officials, as well as various labor unions.

Now let's get back to the byproduct, itself.

Coal ash is an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, just like putting logs in a fireplace. Every day, coal ash is produced in nearly 700 coal-fired generating plants in 48 of the 50 States in America. Approximately 140 million tons are produced annually with 40 percent of that fly ash being beneficially recycled.

Over the years, scientists and entrepreneurs have developed uses for that coal ash through a variety of recycling options. Businesses were emboldened to recycle the material after two studies by the EPA in 1993 and 2000. Both concluded that coal ash was not a hazardous material and could be used by the public. The findings of the 2000 study specifically stated that no documented cases of damage to human health or the environment have been identified because of fly ash.

As a result, industries have sprung up all across America. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created by recycling fly ash into the concrete of our bridges, our roads, and our buildings. It's used in masonry block and brick, and is in our houses by virtue of its use in drywall panels and roof shingles.

Even the Tennessee Valley Authority, with the cooperation of the Department of Health and Human Services, comprehensively examined the health effects from the Kingston dam accident in 2009. Their conclusion was that there were no significant human health impacts from the Tennessee coal ash spill.

Those companies across America using the byproduct are caught up in the uncertainty swirling about this issue of the recycling of the material, and may be forced to switch to more expensive alternatives. According to the Veritas report, repealing this section of the bill and allowing the EPA to designate coal ash as a hazardous material would cost the consumers as much as $110 billion and cost 316,000 jobs.

Let's be frank. The opponents of this bill and this rule clearly have an anti-coal agenda. Even interagency reviews of the EPA's plan to designate coal ash as a hazardous material show that the idea is opposed by the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Council of Environmental Quality, and the Army Corps of Engineers. They want the continued use of recycled fly ash and want to reject its possibility of being treated as a hazardous material.

This is not a time for people who dislike fossil fuels to be pushing their personal agendas and ideologies. To those who lack compassion and understanding about the real world, these are real jobs at stake here. It's really that simple. Therefore, anyone who opposes this rule and this legislation embraces the loss of 316,000 jobs and higher utility bills.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act.

As I see it, the three main problems facing the American economy today are the uncertainties coming from taxation, regulation, and litigation. This tone-deaf administration continues to propose new forms of taxation on American job creators to the detriment of our workers and our economy. The administration continues the threat of litigation in the form of the unprecedented and unconstitutional attacks by the National Labor Relations Board against my home State of South Carolina. And we see the EPA creating costly regulations that are forcing businesses not to make decisions on an annual or quarterly basis, but having to make decisions to comply day to day.

Fortunately, the House has worked to turn back some of these actions, but there is much work left to be done. The House recently passed two bills, H.R. 2681 and H.R. 2250. These bills seek to prevent a pair of excessive regulations from going into effect that would put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work. One EPA regulation, the Boiler MACT rule, is expected to cost businesses and consumers around $14 billion, resulting in a loss of over 220,000 American jobs.

Today we begin discussing the administration's EPA regulation of coal ash that will drive up electricity costs for millions of Americans, as well as construction costs for roads and homes all around the country.

From 1999 to 2009, American industries successfully recycled 519 tons of coal ash, some 38 percent of the 1.35 billion tons of coal ash produced. Recycling coal ash keeps electricity costs

low, provides for low-cost durable construction materials, and reduces the amount of waste going into the landfills. In other words, continuing to recycle coal ash is good for our economy and it's good for the environment.

Yet the administration continues this headlong rush to destroy American jobs and wreck the American engineering sector. The EPA is considering treating coal ash as a hazardous waste. This is simply the latest bureaucratic overreach from this administration on behalf of their friends from the left-wing fringe and environmental movement. The impact of this government overreach would be nothing short of disastrous, with an estimated impact of $110 billion over the next 20 years and around 300,000 jobs lost. The bill we are debating today would end that nonsense before it can start.

Keep in mind, America, it allows that coal ash to be regulated not by the left-wing zealots at the EPA, but by the States. Our Founding Fathers included the 10th Amendment in the Constitution so that these issues could be handled by the States, not a burdensome Federal agency with a political agenda and an axe to grind.

Yesterday the President revealed that he had raised $70 million for his campaign. If our President spent as much effort freeing job creators from excessive regulations as he spent raising campaign donations from environmental extremists, far more Americans would be able to find work today.

I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee from South Carolina.

I would like to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts who's been talking a lot about the jobs bill and the President's jobs bill, and my question to him is: If it's such a great jobs bill, why does it only have three cosponsors on the bill? I don't think that says much for the emphasis on your side of the aisle or in this whole House behind the President's jobs bill.

But today I want to rise in support of the rule of H.R. 2273, and I want to congratulate my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) for his very dutiful work in this area. To me, this legislation is in response to the EPA's ideological war on Appalachian jobs.

The EPA is intent on regulating coal as a hazardous material. It is a wrongheaded move, given that the material has been used in household construction for years.

This bill simply allows States to regulate coal fly ash under their long existing solid waste disposal programs. This bill is environmentally and economically responsible because it allows the EPA to set enforceable minimum standards but leaves ultimate regulations and enforcement to the States, where it belongs.

If the EPA is permitted to regulate coal ash as a hazardous material, it could have a devastating effect on my State's economy. We generate 97 percent, maybe up to 99 sometimes, of our electricity from coal naturally, because we're a very large coal producer.

Regulating this as a hazardous waste would result in less coal use and would throw thousands of coal miners out of their jobs. Electricity prices would skyrocket, which would hurt manufacturers and households.

I just think that we're talking about jobs. Let's talk about creating jobs, but let's not destroy 316,000 jobs in the process of this regulatory regime that we've seen over the last several years. We know from the EPA's own statements that they don't really consider job loss or economic loss when they put forward these onerous provisions, so we cannot afford to let the EPA put more Americans out of work.

I support the rule and the underlying legislation.