To provide for the award of a gold medal on behalf of Congress to Jack Nicklaus in recognition of his service to the Nation in promoting excellence and good sportsmanship in golf.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is the second of three amendments designed to kill regulation of mountaintop mining. The amendment would prevent EPA from working with other Federal agencies and mining companies to ensure that mountaintop mining is carried out in a manner that protects public health, the environment, and the economy using the best available science.

Mountaintop surface mining removes entire mountaintops to access the coal underneath but then deposits toxic mining waste in nearby streams. Practices not carried out carefully and responsibly can be devastating to the environment and to local economies.

There's been longtime uncertainty regarding what laws applied, uncertainty about which Federal agencies to work with, and uncertainty about potential liability. This uncertainty was eliminated when Interior, EPA, and the Corps of Engineers agreed to work with mining companies and implement a common procedure for reviewing permits. And it was with the goal of--and I quote--to strengthen the Appalachian regional economy and to lay out common procedures on mountaintop mining.

This memorandum of understanding brought clarity for all the parties--States, mining companies, environmentalists, and Federal agencies--so that mining could move forward. But what we have here is an effort at good government punished by legislators with an ax to grind. Agencies are punished for not working together. Then when they do, we punish them for working together.

Permit reviews will just take longer and the process will be more confusing to companies because this amendment won't change the law. This amendment could extend the mining company's permit process for years and cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars in delays. That's why this amendment should be defeated.

I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

Well, the point is we have three agencies responsible for this permitting function. They weren't necessarily working together. Now, they're working together. We have a memorandum of understanding. They know that their goal is to strengthen the Appalachian regional economy, and to work with all the parties to bring them together. That's what memorandum of understanding says.

This amendment eliminates all the progress that has been achieved. They were attempting to promote good government and a good relationship with the mining companies. It's not going to happen. If this amendment goes through, this amendment kills that memorandum of understanding. The law remains, but they can't cooperate now if this amendment was to pass.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, these programs put together by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are designed to replenish diminishing fish stocks. They assign shares to individuals, cooperatives, other fishing communities, because what we have seen that has resulted in depleted fish stocks and overfishing is a race to fish where the concern is that the stock is being depleted. And so they run out to get what's left.

NOAA is trying to intervene and equitably divide up what's left, what we scientifically understand is left, and try to cooperate.

Now, I can understand there are many fishing communities that don't want NOAA's intervention. But NOAA has been successful in ensuring sustainable fisheries and preventing overfishing and creating more stable and lucrative fishing jobs in communities from Alaska to Florida. And they bring a lot of economic and biological benefits. They eliminate what many think are dangerous races to fish, or what are called ``derby'' conditions, and they improve safety for fishermen.

NOAA seems to know what they're doing. Where they've done it, it's been successful. I think we should look to the experts and understand that we've got to have greater sustainability of our fishing stock.

How much time do I have at this point, Mr. Chairman?

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Well, Mr. Chairman, I can understand where my very good friends are coming from. They represent a lot of professional and very responsible fishermen. And I know they know what they're talking about. On the other hand, NOAA does, too.

And NOAA has been successful. They have been successful from Alaska to Florida in allocating assigned limits to various fishing entities that were at serious risk of losing their fishing stock.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, the point is, NOAA's objective is to sustain the fish supply so that these fishermen will continue to have jobs--not just now but in the future and for their children and grandchildren. That's NOAA's objective. That's why I think we should reject the amendment.

We all agree that we all need to be financially responsible with regard to the Federal budget, but this continuing resolution already substantially reduces funds for every single agency of the government. A freeze in civilian pay for Federal employees is already in effect for 2 years. It prevents cost of living and locality pay increases for the entire Federal workforce, including civilian employees of the Defense Department, although uniformed employees can get raises. If you're a political appointee you can get an increase but not if you're a civil service employee.

Mr. Chairman, a little over a majority of the Federal workforce is eligible for retirement over the next 5 years. We are going to make their lives far more difficult with the restraints on program funding we're putting in this bill, and then we're going to say they're not going to be able to get compensated when we tell them they have to do more with less funding for their agencies? We are going to lose our best and brightest people in the government, and as a result, the American people are going to lose the quality of service they've come to trust and expect.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

With 30 seconds remaining, I think I should let the gentleman from California conclude his remarks.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Chairman, we are the world's superpower, and much of the responsibility for maintaining the status of being that superpower falls on the shoulders of our Federal civil service.

Already, they get about a third less than what they would be getting in the private sector for the same responsibilities. We desperately need the best and the brightest, from all over this country, to serve the American people. If we punish them by limiting their salaries, by making them scapegoats, we are doing a disservice to the American people. Let's not do this. Defeat the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to a very thoughtful and informed expert on this issue, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from West Virginia's amendment tries to prohibit EPA from carrying out section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act. It's one more effort to deregulate all aspects of mountaintop mining. Section 404(c) authorizes EPA under especially serious circumstances to pull back permits for dredging and filling with toxic material if they would have a substantially adverse effect upon the quality of water, wildlife, and fishery areas. EPA has only used this 404(c) authority 13 times in the 39 years of the Clean Water Act.

But this amendment and its backers don't want EPA using that authority to prevent the coal industry from polluting the contiguous waters to their mountaintop mining. We know that mountaintop surface mining removes entire mountaintops so that they can get to the coal underneath, but then in the process invariably deposits toxic mining waste in the nearby streams. And then that gets into the public's water supply. It costs substantial sums of money to subsequently clean it, and toxically polluted can be not only devastating to the environment, but devastating to local economies.

Only in the most egregious instances has EPA used this authority. They should have the right to pull permits when companies carelessly and seriously harm the environment. That's EPA's responsibility. It's understandable that mining companies don't want any restriction on their mining, but it's not excusable for this Congress to prevent the EPA from carrying out its lawful responsibilities and not to heed the long-term health impacts on the American people and of the quality of the water in these regions. So I urge

the defeat of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the body knows where we stand, on the side of responsible environmental preservation and clean water for our children to drink.

At this point, in deference to the chairman of the full committee, I yield what time remains to the gentleman from Kentucky, because I see him standing, and I suspect he wants to be heard on this.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would stop EPA from identifying coal ash as hazardous waste and, therefore, prevent any regulation of that waste. The fact is that coal ash contains dangerous contaminants, such as mercury, cadmium, and arsenic, and we know those can be dangerous to public health. Without further guidance by EPA, this ash will continue to be stored onsite at many large power plants, where it leaches into the groundwater and into nearby streams. EPA has found a number of communities across the country where coal ash has contaminated drinking water sources poisoning people and wildlife.

Through its public rulemaking process, it's been developing a rule. In fact, it has received more than 450,000 public comments. It's had Web-based seminars. It's done everything to get opinion on both sides of this issue. It's currently conducting risk and economic analyses of the options available.

Suspending work on a final regulation isn't going to satisfy anybody. But it will ensure that you're going to continue to have the coal ash at risk of contaminating drinking water, you are going to create uncertainty for power companies that burn coal, and you are going to eliminate potential markets for coal ash reuse. Potential users are not going to buy it if they think some day it might cause liability. The final EPA rule would eliminate that uncertainty, allow for coal ash to be properly stored and used, and eliminate the risk for health and the environment. That's why the amendment should be defeated.

At this point, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment. Presidents of both parties have used this act to increase protection to lands and waters that are already U.S. Government controlled. The act has no impact on private lands. It's a law that was passed by a Republican-led Congress and signed by a Republican President, Theodore Roosevelt.

Since then, 15 U.S. Presidents have declared 131 national monuments under the act--eight Republican Presidents, seven Democratic Presidents.

It must be remembered that the lands withdrawn are Federal lands owned by all Americans--not just the residents of certain States or localities in which they happen to be located. The Nation, not just a single State, has a vital interest in the future of these lands and their unique qualities.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield the remaining 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, this amendment would eliminate funding to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC.

The U.S. contributes only $2.3 million to the IPCC, and our $2.3 million contribution leverages a global science assessment institution with global outreach and global technical input, a process we could not carry out alone and one that could come to a halt without U.S. support.

Their work on climate change is unparalleled. In its four assessment reports to date, they have brought together thousands of scientists around the world in disciplines ranging from atmospheric science, to forest ecology, to economics to provide objective and policy neutral information. The panel has attracted hundreds of the best U.S. scientists. In fact, a majority of the research that's reviewed is undertaken in U.S. institutions.

The IPCC's work has been lauded by the U.S. Academy of Sciences and by the InterAcademy Council, a body comprised of the national academies of the world. In fact, in 2007 that organization won the Nobel Prize for its assessment work. This institution is a nonpartisan and technically extraordinarily sound organization.

The Republican majority has already voted to prevent the EPA from using funds to regulate greenhouse gases. Now we're being asked to defund the work of international scientists to learn about the threat.

Now, the assumption, I assume, is that there is no threat and, therefore, let's not study it. I think that is not a wise assumption. This is a very shortsighted proposal to cut these funds. It's like putting our heads in the sand, denying the science, and then stopping the scientists from working because they might come to a different conclusion than the Republican majority's ideology in believing that there is no such problem and therefore we don't need to know about it or do anything about it. If we're not going to do anything here at home, let's at least work internationally to understand the threat and to deal with other countries to combat it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I don't understand how the gentleman from Missouri can say that this is a nefarious group of people. After all, these are people who are scientists, who've won the Nobel Prize for their scientific activities.

I used to think that people from Missouri were from the Show-Me State. Now I gather what this gentleman from Missouri is suggesting is ``I don't want to know about it.'' I don't think that is what the position ought to be of the United States Congress. Let's learn the facts and then decide what to do about it but not stop trying to know what the science is behind the global threats.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I want to tell you a story. On December 22, 2008, in Kingston, Tennessee, a coal ash impoundment structurally failed, and they released 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic sludge. This sludge blanketed the Emory River and 300 acres of surrounding land, creating a Superfund site that could cost up to $825 million to remediate. If this coal ash had been stored safely, this tragedy would never have happened. The wastes are dangerous. What EPA has tried to do is to make sure that the hazardous waste is disposed of safely to protect the health of communities.

And I find it somewhat amazing to hear the author of this amendment say that EPA is acting on an ideological agenda. How ideological do you have to be to act when you have an example of a terrible amount of coal ash poisoning areas and threatening drinking water? Is that ideological when they want to make sure that it's safeguarded and disposed of in a proper way? That's not ideological. That's the kind of thing we want EPA to do. So I would urge opposition to this amendment.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

This amendment would deny the Consumer Product Safety Commission the implementation of a searchable public consumer safety information database. Now this database was part of a bill that passed this House by 424-1. We required a database, and CPSC is ready to release this database. It's based on similar successful databases run at the present time by the Food and Drug Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It would allow consumers to report harms associated with consumer products and then to research risks associated with these particular products.

This is exactly what the American people want. They want information. They have a right to know. And, in fact, every opinion poll indicates this.

This amendment is a ``keep the consumers in the dark'' amendment. Parents want to know if a toy is dangerous. This amendment would take away their right to go to a database that would give them this information.

Now the claims against the database are pretty shocking. The manufacturers say, Well, this is going to be a problem because they're going to put things on the database that are trade secrets or inaccurate.

This is simply not the case. There is a safeguard. In fact, there are safeguards after safeguards to protect manufacturers.

The statute provides more procedural safeguards than any other public database at a Federal agency. Anonymous complaints are not allowed, only safety-related information will be included. Businesses get to see every report of harm before it is placed in the database. They have an opportunity to correct inaccurate information and to provide their own comments.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over this issue, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

May I inquire of the Chair how much time each side has left?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) who authored this particular provision in the consumer product safety legislation.

Mr. Chairman, in my last 30 seconds, let me just say this is an issue of the public's right to know. Let this database be available to them so they don't go buy a toy that they could have checked out on a Web site and found out that it was poisonous.

I urge the defeat of this amendment.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, we all should be concerned about the recent actions by the EPA and how it continues to destroy jobs by exceeding its statutory authority as envisioned by Congress. In West Virginia, our State's economy is highly dependent upon the coal and natural gas industries.

On January 13, 2011, the EPA took an unprecedented action by retroactively revoking a lawfully issued 4-year-old permit for the Spruce No. 1 surface mine in Logan County, West Virginia. This permit had been issued by the Secretary of the Army under the Clean Water Act and was approved by the Corps of Engineers in January 2007.

For nearly a decade, the Corps of Engineers worked with the EPA to rigorously review this Spruce mine project before it was approved. The permit was issued after this extensive environmental review, which included a 1,600-page Environmental Impact Statement in which the EPA fully participated and agreed to all terms and conditions included in the authorized permit.

Just to be clear, the EPA had every opportunity to address any concerns and work together with the Corps of Engineers prior to the permit being issued. By giving the EPA the funds to retroactively veto this permit, a dangerous precedent is being set for future job- producing ventures by businesses and industries throughout this country.

These actions by the EPA continue to justify why so many Americans worry about the EPA's relentless war on coal. If the EPA can be allowed to retroactively revoke a permit in West Virginia, they can continue this onslaught wherever water permits exist throughout America. Any entity discharging water is vulnerable to having their permits pulled and will put at risk city sewage treatment plans, farms, mines, steel mills, and chemical plants.

EPA's veto at Spruce mine caused the loss of 253 mining jobs and 298 indirect jobs in West Virginia. In addition, it prevented the investment of nearly $250 million. The EPA's action has had a chilling effect on many types of companies, all of which rely on the certainty of the permitting process in order to make crucial business planning decisions. It's virtually impossible for companies to take the necessary steps to obtain financing and create jobs if they must endure the threat of retroactive revocation of the very permits that allow them to do business.

Today, this injustice happened at Spruce mine in West Virginia. Tomorrow, the EPA could very well pull an existing water permit at a steel mill in Indiana, a chemical plant in Texas, a sewage plant in Iowa.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank my colleague and fellow committee member, Cliff Stearns from Florida, for offering a similar amendment. This amendment will specifically bar the use of funds to carry out the regulation of fossil fuel combustion wastes under subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. In 2010, the EPA proposed this regulation, and here we are today standing against this emotional reaction triggered by a structurally unstable dam in Tennessee.

What happened there is tragic and should be dealt with by the proper agency regarding the dam's integrity. It should not be used to advance an ideologically motivated agenda regarding the environment.

Let me frame the issue. Fly ash is an unavoidable byproduct of electric power generation using coal. It is captured before being emitted into the atmosphere. The fine grain, dust-like particles are then recycled into concrete mixtures for our roads, our bridges, and buildings. It's an additive in masonry production of concrete blocks and bricks. It's been widely used in drywall panels used in houses, schools, and offices.

The fly ash is even used in agricultural fertilizers and soil amendments. If the EPA were allowed to continue

with their plan to designate fly ash as a hazardous material, all of these time-tested energy-saving uses would come to a halt.

The expense of handling the product would increase logarithmically, and so would our electric prices. By increasing the cost of power, it understandably causes the cost of producing American-made products to increase and put American businesses at another disadvantage against our foreign competition. This EPA rule will be an unmitigated job- killer.

Coal ash use and disposal has been studied by the EPA for over 20 years. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act directed the EPA to study the ``adverse effects on human health and the environment, if any,'' of current practices for disposal and utilization of fossil fuel combustion wastes. The EPA's conclusion was that these wastes do not warrant regulation under subtitle C. How many more reports need to be conducted by the EPA to show that fly ash is nonhazardous? Enough is enough.

According to various environmental groups, for every ton of cement manufactured, about 6.5 million BTUs of energy are consumed and about 1 ton of carbon dioxide is replaced. If we can replace that 1 ton with fly ash, we could save enough electricity to power an average American home for 24 days and reduce carbon dioxide emissions equal to a 2-month use of an automobile.

What's ironic to me is that even the EPA's headquarters right down the street from us was built with a significant amount of fly ash mixed into the concrete matrix.

The use of fly ash in concrete creates a stronger, lasting product by using less water. In using less water, we further reduce our environmental footprint.

I ask my colleagues to join me today in supporting my amendment.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My amendment would eliminate funding for the Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study, also known as MRAPS.

This $25 million study was originally earmarked under the guise of a review of the 1944 Flood Control Act and relevant court rulings to determine if current authorized project purposes are contemporary.

MRAPS comes on the heels of another comprehensive $35 million, 17- year study completed in 2004 that showed that the current authorized purposes are appropriate and do not need to be altered.

For river communities, few issues are as important as water supply, power, and navigation. This study puts in jeopardy the flow of the lower Missouri and Mississippi Rivers, which would have devastating consequences for navigation and transportation along those rivers and result in barriers for agriculture, waterways operations, and every product that depends on the Missouri and the Mississippi Rivers to get to market.

MRAPS is duplicative and wasteful of taxpayer dollars. We've already spent $35 million to examine the Missouri River Master Manual. After 17 years, hundreds of public meetings, and countless lawsuits, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concluded that the current uses of the river are appropriate.

It is careless and irresponsible to conduct another multiyear, multimillion dollar study at taxpayers' expense, particularly given the dire state of our Nation's economy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

With all due respect to the gentleman, I would appreciate some certainty, and I think that's what the purpose of this amendment is all about.

You indicate that it's still in existence; it's still being funded. We want it out. We don't want it funded any longer. The purpose of it is duplicative. The study has been done before. And I think it's time that we called a stop to it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the last study was done, completed in 2004 at a cost of $35 million. It took 17 years, and now we want to do it again. I don't believe it's appropriate for our taxpayer dollars to be used in this manner.

And with that, I ask for the support of the body.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit U.S. contributions to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an entity that is fraught with waste and engaged in dubious science. The IPCC advises governments around the world on climate change, and supporters of cap-and-trade legislation have used the questionable science, the findings of the IPCC, as reasons to support onerous legislation.

Criticism of this science intensified over the last 2 years when emails publicly released from a university in England showed that leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals. Researchers were asked to delete and destroy emails so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.

Since then, more than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC in this comprehensive, independent 740-page report. These 700 dissenting scientists represent some of the most respected scientific institutions at home and around the world, including U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, U.S. Air Force and Navy, NASA, and even the Environmental Protection Agency.

Take, for example, famed Princeton University physicist Dr. Robert Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers and was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Austin told a Senate committee that ``unfortunately climate science has become political science. It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best.''

Mr. Chairman, if the families in my district have been able to tighten their belts, then surely the Federal Government can do the same and stop funding an organization that is fraught with waste and abuse. My amendment simply says that no funds in this bill can

go toward the IPCC. This would save taxpayers millions of dollars this year and millions of dollars in years to come. In fact, the President has requested an additional $13 million for the IPCC in his fiscal year 2012 budget request. Our constituents should not have to continue to foot the bill for an organization to keep producing corrupt findings that were used as justification to impose a massive new tax on every American. They deserve better.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

For the last year or two, the International Panel has been funded at the rate of about $12.5 million per year. The President has it in his FY12 budget at $13 million. This group has been in the headlines for their activities with regard to how they are trying to tinker with the data that they put out.

Why would we want to fund a group of folks who is nefarious and gives us incorrect information? It's beyond me.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for yielding, and I rise in support of my colleague from West Virginia's amendment, Mr. McKinley. This particular action in regard to the Spruce permit is an insult to the integrity of the mine-permitting process.

The particular mine in question is located in my congressional district. The permit was negotiated with the EPA in good faith by the coal company over a space of 10 years. The permit was then granted 3 years ago and just recently was revoked by the EPA. It goes against the grain of what I think should be good-faith efforts by coal companies to negotiate with the EPA, recognizing that they can't get all they want in a permit application and therefore some withdrawal, some compromise is necessary. That was done in this particular case in a painstaking process over 10 years, and the permit was granted. Now to have it revoked is indeed an insult to the integrity of the mine permitting process.

The EPA was given authority in the Clean Water Act to weigh in on permitting decisions of the Corps of Engineers to help ensure a balance between environmental protection and activities like energy development.

In that regard, the EPA could and should be a positive, constructive force. But its methods over the last two years have reformulated the permitting process in ways never envisioned under the law.

It has used its limited legal role to wrest control of the process from the Corps of Engineers where the chief responsibility for 404 permitting legally lies.

Nowhere is this more evident than in EPA's veto of the Mingo-Logan Coal Company's Section 404 permit for its Spruce Fork No. 1 mine.

In 1998, the operator of that mine applied for a permit to construct what was, at the time, the largest surface mine ever attempted. The mine was immediately the target of a lawsuit, of legislative debate, and federal regulatory action.

Over the course of the next several years, the company, the Corps, and the EPA engaged in intensive negotiations. The mine became the subject of an Environmental Impact Statement--the first ever written for a surface mine.

In the end, in January of 2007, as a result of much compromise and revision, an Individual 404 permit was awarded by the Army Corps. That was nearly ten years from the date the company first made application.

But on September 3, 2009, the EPA reneged. It sent a letter to the Corps of Engineers asking that the Corps suspend, revoke, or modify that 2-year-old permit--a request the Corps flatly refused. Then the EPA took the further, ground-breaking step of issuing its own veto.

So, under one EPA Administrator, the 404 permit for this mine was approved. Under another Administrator, it was vetoed.

If the EPA can veto this permit--a permit 10 years in the making--not a single, solitary thing stands in the way of this EPA, or some future EPA, should it decide--for whatever reason--to reach back and veto a previously granted permit for coal mining or any other activity. Without some degree of finality, permitting is worthless.

I still believe that achieving balance between energy development and environmental protection is a goal we can and must achieve.

But the EPA must not be allowed to dwell in the mindset that job losses are an inevitable result of protecting the environment. The coal miners of the Appalachian region deserve a fair, clear, and consistent regulatory process.

Toward that end, Mr. Chairman, I join in urging my colleagues to support this amendment to rein in an EPA gone too far.