Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2273) to amend subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to facilitate recovery and beneficial use, and provide for the proper management and disposal, of materials generated by the combustion of coal and other fossil fuels.

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, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2273 and to insert extraneous material.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Fifty percent of our Nation's electricity generation comes from coal. This means that we need to do something to address the long-term disposal issues presented by these wastes. This bill is a measured, appropriate, protective response to the issue of coal waste generated to safely, responsibly, and affordably provide heat to communities across the country.

The trash we throw out daily contains everything from milk cartons to household cleaning items and pesticides, all mixed and destined for the same destination. The chemical characteristics of coal ash put it somewhere in between these two extremes. For years, States have been successfully managing these nonhazardous wastes through their municipal solid waste programs.

Yet even though EPA has confirmed on multiple occasions that coal ash does not trigger its own toxicity test to be labeled as hazardous, regulation was proposed by the EPA in June 2010 that would do just that. EPA's regulation would have prevented coal ash from being governed under the municipal solid waste programs despite its nonhazardous nature and EPA saying in its proposed rule that it preferred the municipal solid waste option.

The results of EPA's regulations would have been devastating effects on jobs, higher utility rates at home, and crippling of a very successful emerging byproducts industry.

H.R. 2273 strikes the right balance to provide certainty to producers and recyclers of coal combustion byproducts at a time when recyclers do not have time to wait. It also facilitates a safe and appropriate disposal and monitoring of coal combustion byproducts.

The bill establishes, for the first time ever, comprehensive Federal standards specific to coal ash disposal. These new standards for the management and disposal of coal combustion residuals are based on existing Federal regulations issued by EPA to protect human health and the environment.

H.R. 2273 provides a benchmark for States to regulate under their existing municipal solid waste programs, which are already required to meet this Federal baseline of protection. These standards will include groundwater protection and detection and monitoring, liners at landfills, corrective action when environmental damage occurs, structural stability criteria, financial assurance, and recordkeeping.

EPA will continue to have an oversight role to ensure States are meeting their obligations. EPA will review the contents of a State permit program and determine whether it meets the minimum specifications set in H.R. 2273. They will also review State implementation of permit programs to make sure States are implementing a permit program meeting the minimum specifications.

However, discretion will remain with the States to regulate coal ash even more stringently than the Federal standards set in H.R. 2273. And should a State fail to meet these baseline standards or decline to regulate coal ash, EPA has the authority under the bill to come into a State and operate a program.

H.R. 2273 received strong 3-1 bipartisan support when it was favorably passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. We have continued to work hard since then with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to clarify and address additional concerns reflected in the manager's amendment. This has resulted in a bipartisan product that empowers States, saves jobs, controls public and private costs, and protects people and the environment.

H.R. 2273 has endorsements by a diverse stakeholder community as well from the Environmental Council of the States, State environmental officials, the beneficial use community, labor unions, and a coalition of regulated stakeholders.

Mr. Chairman, some of our colleagues are going to oppose this bill based upon this information or misguided policy. That is unfortunate. We will hear plenty about that in this debate. I urge Members to pay attention to the debate as many of our Nation's environmental laws already apply to the concerns being raised. More laws requiring the same thing to be done that is required in other laws do not improve the environment nor the law. We need to be serious about that point.

Most importantly, our economy continues to struggle and businesses are trying to figure out how to get out from underneath the weight of overly burdensome regulations. H.R. 2273 is a jobs bill that gives us yet another chance in the House to regulatory certainty and unemployment relief with passage of H.R. 2273.

This bill protects the working men and women of this country. It encourages jobs in road building and construction industries and encourages an affordable and more secure standard of living in this country for all Americans and their families. This bill is worthy of all my colleagues' support.

I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2273, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), a primary mover on this bill.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will just tell my friend from Florida, H.R. 2273 includes structural integrity inspection requirements on impoundments that do not exist today. They allow only those facilities that are structurally sound and operating in a protective manner to continue to operate.

In this Kingston debate, what is never mentioned is that in the cleanup of the Kingston spill, all that waste went into nonhazardous landfills because they were not hazards. This is really a debate about hazardous and nonhazardous. EPA has numerous times ruled that coal combustion residual is not hazardous. That's why there's confusion.

I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, also a member of the committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Before I yield time to my colleague from Tennessee, let me ask the time remaining.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just to my friend from Virginia, I hope he will look at the manager's amendment, because in the manager's amendment it beefs up the list of constituents for groundwater detection and assessment monitoring specific to coal combustion residuals. This is something we received from your side of the aisle that they wanted more clarity. That's what the manager's amendment does on runoff aspects of the Clean Water Act.

The other thing is, if the toxic sludge, as you had defined it, was so toxic, why did it go into municipal landfills and not into toxic landfills?

The reality is the cleanup materials did not go into toxic landfills. So we just want to clear up some false statements here.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just to my friend from Minnesota, I would quote the United Mine Workers letter that says: According to a June study, there's an estimate of the 183,000 to 363,000 possible job losses if we do not pass this bill. So for those who really want to effect, there will be-- I mean, this claim that this hurts the recycling when, then, you define coal combustion residuals as ``toxic'' is nonsensical. It really makes no sense.

If you really want to encourage recycling, this bill protects the recycling industry. It protects coal, fly ash from going into concrete. If you label this ``toxic,'' which is what EPA's trying to do, that's very misleading. And I think even my friends on the other side are having a hard time grappling with what the EPA's trying to do because that's the direction we want to do, they want to move it to.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to remind my colleagues that they will be interested to know the EPA noted in its June 2010 proposed regulation for coal combustion residuals that municipal solid waste rules provide an appropriate, comprehensive framework for regulating coal combustion residuals. That's from the EPA, the same EPA people say we're trying to gut.

And I will continue to hold up the Veritas study that says, because of the recycling aspect of coal ash that goes into concrete, if you claim it to be toxic, you can no longer use coal ash in concrete for roads and for bridges and for buildings. That's the debate. And then when you tear down those structures, they would have to go in the toxic landfills. I also remind my colleagues that, from the spill, none of the spill cleanup went to toxic landfills.

With that, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), the author of the legislation.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

To my friend from Virginia, he is correct that some States have laxer standards. In fact, your Governor sent us a letter in which I quote, ``H.R. 2273 is a realistic approach to dealing with CCR, although it would require effort to implement in Virginia.''

So our point is this is going to help those States that are weak to implement higher standards. That's just your Governor, but that's what he says in a letter to us in support of this legislation.

If you label something ``toxic,'' it's not going to be reused, I can guarantee you, just because of the threat to the coal combustion residual community. The recyclers have no market. Who wants to build a school with concrete when the EPA may, 6 months or a year from now, say, That concrete is all toxic? So it's already had a negative impact in that job sector, and we've quoted studies both back and forth.

The manager's amendment requires an assessment for all of these constituents that you identified. I would just highlight the fact that just because it's a constituent doesn't mean it's hazardous.

This blue line is the hazardous level.

The green is the amount.

You could make the claim that there is hazardous material in Honey Nut Cheerios. The question is: What's the amount? And that's what this gets to is the amount.

EPA has consistently said this doesn't raise to the standard of toxic. Even under the Clinton administration, when I served here, their EPA said it doesn't rise to the standard. The fear of EPA involvement is what's causing a problem in the recycling sector. Where is all this waste going to go? It's going to fill up the landfills. In 2 years, all the landfills will be filled up unless we continue to recycle this coal fly ash.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, the manager's amendment that will be debated will talk about, for the first time, an analysis on run-on and runoff, which was the recommendation from the folks on your side of the aisle for us to consider, which we have now included. We'll take that up in the manager's amendment debate when we get to the amendment.

You have a lot of time, but I would be happy to yield. But I do want to have time to close.

Reclaiming my time, that's why this new standard under the municipal and solid waste act will have liners for the first time. Right now, there are no liners. That's a better argument from past years, but this is a fix. This is a fix to that issue of leaching out. This is a fix to the possibility of the damage because we're going to be able to look at that in working in conjunction with the EPA, and of course, the people closest to the citizens are the State and local levels.

I thank the gentleman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

This has been a good discussion and a good debate. With regard to the State border issue in our opening statements and comments, what we highlighted was the fact that current Federal law applies to hazardous material. CERCLA still applies, and EPA air quality standards still apply. Those laws are still in effect across States. If they are having an impact, EPA has authority under CERCLA and under RCRA, with imminent and substantial endangerment, to take action to force a remedy and cleanup.

So our debate has always been that that's covered. Let's try to address the impoundment issue, the leaching issue, some standards. The Municipal Solid Waste laws are very, very successful. I would argue, if you want to talk about toxicity, there are probably many more chemicals in a municipal solid waste landfill than the 7 to 12 that you mentioned in coal combustion residual; and out of the 80 tests, the standards are much lower than the toxic standard under this test.

So this is a focus on jobs. This is a focus on recycling. That sector is being ravaged just by the threat. This is an important bill, and I am glad my colleague from West Virginia has brought this to this Chamber. It has been a great debate, and I look forward to the amendment discussion.

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

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, for the purpose of a colloquy, I would like to yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

To my friend from West Virginia, my response is that it does not.

My amendment keeps that door to EPA alternative regulation closed and locked. The language the gentleman cites merely references law that is already on the books, as you heard in the general debate. Section 4010(c) of RCRA was enacted years ago to protect human health and the environment. My amendment merely clarifies that your bill does not change that.

Again to my colleague and friend from West Virginia, my amendment in no way reduces the administrator's authority to take into account facility capabilities. That authority is unchanged by both my amendment and your underlying bill.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the ranking member's accepting the amendment. We do think it improves the bill.

I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) to speak in support of the bill.

I want to again thank the ranking member for accepting this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I seek time in opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I appreciate the comments of my colleague from California because obviously there is a recognition that we have been talking, we have been trying to get some bipartisan support. As tough as that may seem in this Chamber and in this Congress, there is a recognition that we're trying. I think the ranking member gave us an ``atta boy'' just by allowing that voice vote on the manager's amendment, and I appreciate that.

Part of this debate is that if States are allowing any type of waste to affect their constituents, don't you think that the States are going to get involved? If you use the Maryland example, Maryland has aggressively changed its own permitting processes based upon those experiences. So they've done it. Again, States are closer to their people. I can imagine the calls State reps and State senators got when that occurred. The basic bill says coal combustion residual which doesn't rise to the level of toxicity should be treated as that in liners and the like. That's really the debate we have.

The EPA's technical assistance which was placed on the ranking member's committee's Web site mentions that this requirement could be implicitly inferred based upon the drafting of the bill. And I would just say on page 10, line 8, if the administrator determines that a State determination under this paragraph does not accurately reflect the needs for the management of coal combustion residuals in the State, the administrator may treat such State determination as a deficiency. And if it's a deficiency, then the EPA can then be involved.

So we think that the issue that my colleague from California has raised has been addressed, and we look forward to debate of the further amendments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Thank you.

My friend from Massachusetts has great rhetorical skills, and I have finally made it to the big time where I can do it as managing a bill and addressing amendments.

He wasn't on the floor when we talked about the letter from the Governor of Virginia, who admits that this bill is going to force the State of Virginia to do more. It's because of this bill, he says,--and I quoted it before--that will require effort to implement in Virginia, such as regulatory amendments for conformance, and notifying and seeking EPA approval.

So here is the Governor saying, We support this bill, and we know we're going to have to do more.

I think that's positive.

We're talking about how H.R. 2273 already includes structural integrity requirements that would allow only those facilities that are operating in a protective manner to continue to operate. Moreover, EPA has just completed a nationwide evaluation--I'm sure you're going to be happy to hear this, Mr. Markey--and in this evaluation they said that they have found none, zero, zip of these impoundments to be unsafe.

Now, that's our own EPA. And we're glad that they're out. They're now checking these impoundment areas. I think a lot of this is a result of moving this bill and having now at least a standard for liners. I think from our testimony in subcommittee, liners are important. Liners are what we do in municipal solid waste. Liners are what we should do with coal combustion residuals. Well, this bill ensures that we have liners in the coal combustion residual ponds and facilities.

So I think it's a very exciting time. It protects jobs. It helps for, obviously, the recycling of this in the industry sector. It helps save jobs. I think the amendment only hurts the passage and movement of this bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Markey amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

A couple of things. The gentleman's well-meaning amendment requires public notice and comment, including from the administrator of the EPA, before the State submits its certification paperwork to the administrator of the EPA.

There's confusion as to what this bill does. For the first time, States have to conform to the EPA standards. I read this before in another part of the debate on page 10. If the administrator determines--this is the administrator of the EPA. If the administrator determines that a State determination under this paragraph does not accurately reflect the need for the management of coal combustion residuals in the State, the administrator may treat such determination as deficient.

So there's really no purpose for my colleague's amendment. The EPA has the ability to say good State program, bad State program. The Governor of Virginia says we're already going to have to do more than we do now because of this bill. And section 7004(b) of RCRA requires public participation.

So part of our debate is: Why do we have to continue to put more laws on the books when those provisions are already covered under RCRA? Requires public participation in any enforcement of any regulation guideline, information, or program under this act, including at the Federal and State level. This requirement is not waived, it's not amended, it's not altered or affected under this piece of legislation. Those requirements under RCRA apply to H.R. 2273.

The gentleman's amendment is unnecessary, it's duplicative, and I ask my colleagues to reject it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Let me thank my colleague for offering an amendment to the bill.

A couple of things have been discussed during the debate. Obviously, she mentioned Kingston, Tennessee. What she has to remember is that was TVA. That was a government entity. That wasn't a natural disaster. That was a manmade disaster by a Federal Government, in essence, an agency.

I've stated numerous times what this bill does. It sets a standard that the States have to comply with to get certified by the EPA. Of course, in that process, under Federal law currently and locally, there is an opportunity for comment.

In addition, EPA, within the last week, announced that soon it will be seeking comments under the Notice of Data Availability, or what is referred to as NODA, on the adequacy of State programs--this would fall directly in this; that's why this amendment is duplicative--as well as the State's comments on EPA's proposed rule for coal ash.

This NODA was not required by law and certainly was not the result of a statute. This is something that the agency is doing. While the study is found to be innocuous, it does have a cost to taxpayers and the agency, and so in that aspect.

My colleague also is following this a little bit. The debate is coal ash, or fly ash, which is in impounded areas that we are now going to have some standards and liners, is used in recycling. It's used in road construction. It's used in building schools. The whole reason why we're here today is to ensure that the recycling sector can still do that if the EPA continues to label it as ``toxic,'' which does not meet the standard of a toxicity based upon an analysis.

I love this, ``toxic sludge.'' You can pick up dirt, and there's toxic elements in the dirt. The question is: To what standard does it rise? And if it doesn't rise to the level of toxicity, then it's not considered. And that's what this debate is all about, allowing the recycling of this. And if we don't do this, all our landfills will be filled with coal ash, and then we'll have to build more landfills for municipal solid waste.

So that's why I appreciate my colleague from West Virginia in this great piece of legislation. The administration has not issued a veto threat for this, and I expect it to be well received in the other Chamber once it moves over.

With that, again, I ask my colleagues to reject the Jackson amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Today the assault on the environment in this body continues. Two weeks ago the House voted to repeal the health standards in the Clean Air Act and block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating toxic emissions from power plants. Earlier

this week, we voted to block EPA from regulating toxic emissions from cement plants. And yesterday we voted to block the EPA from regulating toxic emissions from incinerators. Today we'll vote on whether to stop EPA from regulating toxic coal ash.

On December 22, 2008, a coal ash impoundment in Kingston, Tennessee, burst, releasing 5.4 million cubic yards of toxic sludge, blanketing the Emory River and the surrounding land and creating a Superfund site that could cost up to $1.2 billion to clean up.

Last year, EPA proposed regulations to ensure stronger oversight of coal ash impoundments in order to prevent disasters like the one in Kingston and to prevent groundwater and drinking water from the threat of contamination. Today we are voting to stop EPA from acting.

The agency had proposed two alternatives for regulating coal combustion residuals: One proposal was to regulate these wastes under subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, as a hazardous waste. The other proposal was to regulate under subtitle D of RCRA as a nonhazardous solid waste.

Under both proposals, there would be a minimum Federal standard developed to protect human health and the environment. Those standards would address wet impoundments, like in Kingston, and would also ensure that basic controls like the use of liners, groundwater monitoring, and dust control meet a minimum level of effectiveness.

But the legislation that is being brought to the floor today blocks both of these EPA proposals. It replaces those proposals with an ineffective program that won't ensure the safe disposal of coal ash.

At hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee, we heard testimony about the devastating impacts contamination from coal combustion waste can cause. We learned of contaminated drinking water supplies, of ruined property values. We've learned about improper disposal of coal ash presenting catastrophic risks from ruptures of containment structures and causing cancer and other illnesses from long-term exposure to leaking chemicals.

But this legislation does not reflect what we learned about the dangers of improper disposal of coal ash. Under each of our environmental laws--until the Republicans repeal them--Congress has established a legal standard when delegating programs to the States. That was done, by the way, on bipartisan votes.

These standards are the yardstick by which it is determined whether a State's efforts measure up. They ensure a minimum level of effort and protection throughout the Nation. This approach has worked well because it prevents a race to the bottom by the States.

But this legislation does not include any legal standard at all to establish a minimum level of safety. As a result, the public can have little confidence that this legislation, if enacted, will result in increased safety. And to the extent new safety requirements are established, nearly all of them can be waived at a State's discretion.

This legislation appears to create a new program for the safe disposal of coal ash. But the decisions of whether or not to provide a safe disposal or whether or not to protect groundwater or whether or not to protect against toxic dust blowing off disposal sites will remain State decisions. There will be no minimum Federal health standard.

The result will inevitably be uneven and inconsistent rules by the States. Some States will do a good job, others will do a poor job. And when they do a poor job, the public will pay the price--just as they do today.

If this legislation is adopted, no one should be fooled. This bill will not protect communities living near these waste disposal sites. It won't make high-risk impoundments of coal ash safe. It won't stop contamination of drinking water. And it won't create jobs. In fact, it won't do much of anything.

Like the cement and incinerator bills that the House has debated, this bill also violates the discretionary CutGo. CBO found the legislation will cost EPA $2 million over the next 5 years. This cost is not offset in the legislation. So once again, for the third time in 2 weeks, the Republicans are abandoning their discretionary CutGo rule.

This legislation is deficient in both process and substance, and I urge all Members to oppose it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Madam Chair, I just want to say to my good friends who feel that we've got to move the bill forward and we've got to get a better bill, I understand that, and this bill is going to move forward. But for those who really want a good bill, we're not getting one out of this House. It's better to vote ``no'' to show that you want a better bill than to vote ``yes'' for the small changes that the Republicans have given to some of our Democrats that may improve the bill on the margins, but the bill is not good enough for an ``aye'' vote.

I still urge Members to vote ``no.''

At this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, I just wanted to make a correction for the record.

Some people have suggested that it's going to be considered a hazardous waste site if they dispose of this waste, and we don't believe that's true. We don't want to treat it as if it were household garbage without the guarantees to protect the public health and the environment. It can be something in between. It doesn't have to be considered hazardous waste. And that is exactly the kind of proposal that we ought to be looking at. And to say that we're considering it hazardous waste is an incorrect statement.

May I inquire how much time each side has?

Madam Chair, at this point I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Madam Chair, the supporters of this bill claim that this legislation will save jobs. Their main evidence is a report by the Electric Power Research Institute that claims that regulating coal ash as hazardous waste would lead to the loss of 300,000 jobs, but this claim is wrong.

For example, the EPRI study estimates job loss by assuming that there would be 100 percent reduction in recycling and beneficial reuse. This assumption is based on no analysis whatsoever, and it's at odds with a survey done by the National Precast Concrete Association, which shows that 84 percent of their members would continue to use fly ash even if the waste were to be regulated as hazardous.

In fact, EPA has formally requested that EPRI issue a statement that corrects the misstatement and misrepresentations that were made in this report and which have been repeated here today. The EPRI study is flawed, should not be relied on.

We need to reject these arguments that in order to have jobs we need to allow contamination of our groundwater and allow human health to be jeopardized by coal ash impoundments.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the State of Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time we have remaining?

The gentleman from West Virginia, who just spoke, said that I was inconsistent because I voted for the Baldwin amendment in my committee, so I can't have my cake and eat it too. Well, I want to assure you that I don't want a cake made out of coal ash. Coal ash has a lot of chemicals in it that I think most people would understand raise a problem of toxicity--arsenic, antimony, barium, beryllium, cadmium, lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium, nickel, selenium, and thallium. These metals are toxic and pose both acute and chronic threats to human health and the environment. So don't give me a cake to eat made out of coal ash.

It seems to me that what we're hearing, for example, from the gentleman from Illinois, that the waste in Kingston was not disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill, and he offered this as proof that these materials are not hazardous. Well, these materials contain these toxic constituents, and if they're not disposed of properly, they will harm human health and the environment. Proper disposal does not mean disposal in a hazardous waste landfill. It means disposal in dry landfills that have the necessary safeguards.

Those safeguards are not in this bill. We've offered to work with the Republican majority to clarify this issue and to find a middle ground that I think in substance could solve those concerns. But they, again, are not interested in working with us, and so they're moving forward with a bill that does not live up to its billing.

At this point I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who is the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that deals with these very issues.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you very much.

You've made the claim that we're trying to define this and label it as hazardous, which is a stigma. I understand that and I agree with that point, but I don't think we ought to deny that

there are in coal ash relatively high concentrations that are hazardous and that, if they're improperly managed, they could leach out and pose a substantial present or potential hazard.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, your point is not accurate for existing impoundments; it would apply to future impoundments. And we think for existing impoundments they ought to have the lining and all the other protections as well.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I just want to point out that neither of us wants the stigma of the coal ash being called hazardous because, in many ways and places, it can be reused, and it would be very important to do that. But we want to make sure that all of these sites have the adequate protections.

I want to read a quote from EPA because people said EPA wants to label it as hazardous. They wrote:

Many of these metals are contained in coal ash at relatively high concentrations such that, if coal ash were improperly managed, they could leach out and pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment. The risk assessment that was conducted confirms this finding, as do the many damage cases that have been documented.

I seek to put into the Record a statement of administrative policy. The administration opposes this bill because it is insufficient to address the risks associated with coal ash disposal and management, and it undermines the Federal Government's ability to ensure that requirements for the management and the disposal of coal combustion residuals are protective of human health and the environment.

I yield back the balance of my time and urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, October 12, 2011.

Statement of Administration Policy

H R. 2273--Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act

(Rep. McKinley, R-WV, and 32 cosponsors)

The Administration opposes H.R. 2273, as reported by

Committee, which is insufficient to address the risks

associated with coal ash disposal and management, and

undermines the Federal government's ability to ensure that

requirements for management and disposal of coal combustion

residuals are protective of human health and the environment.

The 2008 failure of a coal ash impoundment in Kingston,

Tennessee, which spilled more than five million cubic yards

of coal ash and will require approximately $1.2 billion for

clean-up, is a stark reminder of the need for safe disposal

and management of coal ash to protect public health and the

environment. The Administration has assessed structural

stability at active coal ash impoundments and has identified

49 units in 12 states as having a ``high hazard potential''

rating should they fail.

The Administration supports the development,

implementation, and enforcement of appropriate standards for

facilities managing coal ash, while encouraging the

beneficial use of this economically important material. Any

approach to managing coal ash would need to include: (1)

clear requirements that address the risks associated with the

coal ash disposal and management; (2) consideration of the

best science and data available; (3) adequate evaluation of

structural integrity; (4) protective solutions for existing

as well as new facilities; and (5) appropriate public

information and comment.

Because H.R. 2273 is deficient in these areas and would

replace existing authorities with inadequate and

inappropriate minimum requirements, the Administration

opposes the bill.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

To be fair, this amendment does make a few positive changes to the legislation. It adds some requirements to recordkeeping, groundwater monitoring, and runoff controls. But as with the underlying bill, this amendment makes a lot of promises and it just doesn't deliver.

Some of my colleagues believe they may have reached a major concession because this amendment adds a groundwater monitoring provision. And I'd agree, adequate detection and assessment monitoring is critically important to ensuring that when coal ash is disposed of we have the opportunity to protect groundwater from toxic contamination.

But Members should be aware that this amendment moves all of the groundwater monitoring provisions from paragraph (c)(1) to paragraph (c)(2). The effect of this change is to allow any State to waive the groundwater monitoring requirements at their discretion.

Fugitive dust has been talked about. This dust can pose a health risk because it is particulate matter that can

lodge deep in the lungs and also because it can contain the toxic constituents of coal ash. The Republicans refused to include a provision to address this issue in committee. So some of my colleagues may be pleased that this amendment includes a provision that mentions fugitive dust from coal ash disposal.

But this provision is almost a tautology. The provision merely states that the States have the authority to require dust control measures if the State determines it to be appropriate. The amendment does not require State permit programs to include dust controls. It does not provide authority for EPA to require dust controls when it is the implementing agency. If a State determines that nothing is appropriate, then nothing is required within that State.

Like the underlying legislation, this amendment is long on appearances but short on substance. Most importantly, this amendment fails to make improvements where improvements are most necessary.

First, the amendment fails to establish a legal standard that the coal ash permit program has to meet.

Second, the manager's amendment fails to ensure the structural integrity of wet impoundments. The amendment makes clear that wet impoundments can be used to hold storm water by exempting them from run-on control requirements, but it falls short of requiring that they be designed to safely hold that storm water. EPA has concluded that this legislation excludes several key design requirements that relate to long-term structural stability of the surface impoundment.

Third, the manager's amendment fails to ensure appropriate criteria for the disposal of coal ash. Rather than addressing the concerns raised by EPA about the agency's ability to revise and tailor disposal criteria to address the risks posed by coal combustion residuals, the amendment further limits EPA's potential role in helping the State by preventing EPA from offering technical assistance to States without a request from the head of a lead State agency.

And, lastly, the amendment does nothing to authorize meaningful review of State programs. EPA has raised extensive concerns about their ability to review State programs under this legislation to ensure protection of human health and the environment, and this amendment does not address those concerns.

The administration has announced its opposition to the legislation, stating that this bill is ``insufficient to address the risks associated with coal ash disposal and management, and undermines the Federal Government's ability to ensure that requirements for management and disposal of coal combustion residuals are protective of human health and the environment.''

Nothing in this amendment fixes those concerns. Madam Chair, I'm willing to accept this amendment. It doesn't address the problems with this bill, but it doesn't make the bill appreciably worse. So I wouldn't oppose the amendment, but I don't want people to think that this amendment lives up to the billing that it really makes this bill good enough.

So I will not oppose it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or RCRA, was passed to protect the public health and the environment from unsafe disposal of solid waste. It created duties reserved to the EPA and programs that could be delegated to the States. Like other environmental statutes, RCRA sets a legal standard of protectiveness for State-delegated programs. These standards are the yardstick by which it is determined whether a State's effort measures up, and they ensure our consistent level of effort and protection throughout the Nation.

This approach has worked well because it prevents a race to the bottom among the States in which a State willing to have the laxest protections becomes the dumping ground for the Nation. Congress has taken this approach for 40 years. We create a Federal floor of protection and allow States to go further as necessary. H.R. 2273 turns this approach on its head by saying that each State must have a program but that program can offer as little protection as the State chooses. Well, that's essentially the status quo.

The authors of this bill are attempting to model coal ash disposal on disposal of municipal solid waste. That's

what they claim. In the case of municipal solid waste, however, the legal standard is that the program must protect human health and the environment from the risks associated with municipal solid waste. But under this bill, this standard does not apply to coal combustion residuals.

If we want to hold State coal ash permit programs to that standard, the same standard to which State municipal solid waste permit programs are held, my amendment is the way to do it. Without this amendment, nothing in the bill ensures that permit programs, whether administered by the States or the EPA, will protect human health and the environment. They will not even have that as a goal.

Under the existing language, a State could put in place an insufficient program, one that threatens human health, and so long as they follow the required certification, they will meet their legal requirements. There would be no way for the public, for affected communities, or for the EPA to intervene to ensure the necessary safeguards. If we adopt this amendment, State plans will have to protect human health and the environment from the risks of unsafe coal ash disposal.

These are serious risks that this legislation should address. For example, groundwater has been contaminated from coal ash disposal in Virginia, South Carolina, Michigan, New York, Massachusetts, Indiana, North Dakota, and the list goes on. Fugitive dust from coal ash disposal has impacted neighboring communities; for instance, toxic dust has blown through people's homes in Gambrills, Maryland, harming the respiratory health of the public, and risks from the catastrophic failure of wet impoundments as serious as we saw in Kingston, Tennessee.

When EPA issued its proposed rules in June 2010, they cited more than two dozen proven cases of damage from coal ash disposal. Three of those sites are now on the national priority list for cleanup under Superfund, and the number of these incidents may be much higher. These risks are real and they are significant. If this legislation is going to address them, it needs to include a legal standard of protectiveness.

If my amendment is adopted, State programs will be required to protect human health and the environment. And if a State refuses to do so, when EPA steps in, the agency will have to implement a program that protects public health and the environment. It's a simple amendment, but it's the difference between trying to protect health and the environment and trying to protect the status quo.

I heard from my colleague and good friend from Texas saying the bill was better and the legislative process is not always to get to the perfect but to get a better bill. Well, it depends on what you consider good enough. This bill is not good enough. With this amendment, it will definitely be improved.

But it's not good enough to vote for a bill because it's better than it was when it wasn't good enough then. It's better to vote ``no'' and say ``no'' to a bill that's not good enough so you can get a better bill. And I think in the other body we'll get a better bill if we are willing to vote against this bill, say ``no'' until we get not the perfect bill, but a much better bill than what the proponents of this bill are saying is good enough, because I don't accept that conclusion.

I urge support for this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank the Chairwoman, and I thank the committee for its courtesies and the Rules Committee for their courtesies.

It would seem unusual to have a poster that says ``Make It in America'' on this discussion. But I think I'll lay the groundwork that we have no angst against the assets and natural resources that are in this particular country generating opportunities for work. But what my friends, in putting forward this legislation on the other side of the aisle, are asking us to do is to take a, if you will, word action and simply quash the EPA; take a sledge hammer and sledge-hammer the EPA.

And what we're saying is that there is a place for State regulations, and there is a place for the involvement of the Federal response.

Let me give you the most potent example. In 2008, failure of a coal ash impoundment in Kingston, Tennessee, spilled more than 5 million cubic yards of coal ash and will require approximately $1.2 billion for cleanup. It is a stark reminder that we must have mutual involvement of the State and the Federal Government.

Now, many of you may have seen the news clips on that story. I remember seeing a couple come out and look in utter amazement at the loss of their beautiful property and their home, wondering how they were going to recoup. We call that a natural disaster.

But the point in this legislation, even as I believe that we have the opportunity to grow economies with knowing how to do things in the right way, is that there is a failure to recognize the importance of the health and the safety of the American people.

My amendment is simply requiring the EPA to study the impact of these permits on our environment and health. This is a reasonable request, considering our use of coal generates 130 million tons of waste a year.

The bad part about it is that the Federal Government, the President of the United States, who has introduced a jobs bill which cannot get an iota of attention here, is indicating that this bill will be vetoed because, in fact, what it wants to do is to leave everything to the State without cooperation.

What I'm suggesting is, let's cooperate. And so my amendment says that the EPA will have a broad report containing the results of a study to determine a long-term impact of State coal combustion residuals permit programs on human health and the environment. It has nothing to do with shutdown, but it does have to do with saying that the EPA must have a role in the protection of the quality of life of all Americans.

So, for example, they have a responsibility, as the States do, to take care of Tennesseans or Illinoisans or Texans who happen to be in Texas. But remember, folks, we live in America. Most of us don't want to secede from the Union, if you will, or the Nation, and we want the protection of the Federal Government.

That $1.2 billion involves the Federal Government in helping to clean up what was a disaster. My only point is that we are champions of Make It In America. We are champions. And on this poster, you will see a number of individuals--a hard hat, a teacher, and someone who is dealing with the health and safety of Americans. We are champions of this. That's why many of us want to vote on the American Jobs Act to create jobs for our teachers, our firefighters, and our law enforcement.

But I would share with you that these are also Americans whose quality of life we have to protect. And while we're Making It In America, while we're manufacturing, while we have the assets that this bill attempts to address, can we also respect the quality of life of our children and our seniors

and those who suffer from respiratory ailments and individuals that are pregnant and newborns and toddlers who may be impacted by this particular issue? Kingston, Tennessee, is a Superfund location, as we speak, because of that terrible disaster.

So I would ask my colleagues to support a simple amendment of cooperation. That cooperation is for the EPA study to assess the impact on not only those in a State, but on Americans. I believe that we're all in this together. We live in a great country, and we're all patriots.

I might conclude my remarks by saying for those who are on the front lines fighting for us, they would like us to recognize that it is important to keep America great. America is great as we build, keep the quality of life that allows our citizens to thrive and prosper, protect our seniors, protect our children, protect those families and protect businesses as they continue to try and do what is right for the American people. Make It In America the right way. That means the EPA must be able to do its job as well.

With that, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment #4 to H.R. 2273, ``Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act,'' as it requires the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study to determine the long-term impacts of State Coal Combustion Residuals Permit programs on human health and the environment.

As the Representative of the 18th Congressional District, located in Houston, Texas, I understand the role that the coal industry plays in our economy and will continue to play in the future. As Houston is the Nation's energy capital. Our Nation needs a concrete and viable strategy for gaining independence from foreign energy sources.

My amendment is simply requiring the EPA to study the impact of these permits on our environment and health. This is a reasonable request considering our use of coal generates 130 million tons of waste. Most of this waste consists of coal ash which is filled with many life- threatening substances. The manner in which this coal ash is stored can have an extreme impact on the environment, public health and public safety. If this bill prevents the EPA from issuing regulations on this ash, then the EPA should at least be allowed to review the effectiveness of state level programs.

I am well versed in the importance of addressing energy industry concerns. Houston is the fourth most populous city in the United States, and is home to nearly 3,500 energy companies and related firms. There is no denying the importance the energy industry has in creating jobs in Houston and across our Nation.

We must not forget that the coal industry in the United States is responsible for producing nearly half of our Nation's electricity. At the same time we must balance environmental and public health concerns. I understand the need to put the hard-working people back to work, and I believe it can be done in compromise with the Environmental Protection Agency.

Every industry has its share of risks. Industries that have a significant impact on the environment, health and safety of people living in the United States must meet high standards to ensure that public health and the environment are protected. The waste produced by the coal industry should not receive special treatment.

Coal ash is the second largest industrial waste stream in the United States. Every year, over 130 million tons of coal ash is produced. This ash contains a significant list of cancer causing and neurotoxin chemicals including arsenic, lead, chromium, cadium and mercury. Remember mercury has possible ties to causing birth defects in pregnant women.

This ash is stored in ponds and landfills around our Nation. Today, this bill is enabling states to attain permits in order to deal with this ash. It is important to remember that these byproducts can seep into our water and fly about our air. This cancer causing ash and we need to ensure that it is properly regulated.

As it stands most states do not have regulations in place to keep coal ash, or as I would like to call it toxic ash, safely away from our air and our drinking water. When this ash is stored in dry, lined impoundments it is perfectly safe; however when this ash finds its way into the nearly 500 wet ponds across our Nation, there are serious risks poised to those living near those locations.

I remember the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the BP oil spills. I was among the first voices calling for additional scrutiny and stiffening of safety measures. Well, in Kingston, Tennessee, the residents found up to a billion gallons of coal ash coating their community.

The Kingston, Tennessee, coal ash spill was 100 times larger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill and 5 times larger than the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010. In its volume it is the largest environmental disaster in the United States. It will require approximately $1.2 billion for clean-up. We all pay when these sites fail. This legislation does not include any language to increase new safety standards. These decisions are all going to be done at the state level. When you think about this, remember the residents of Kingston, Tennessee.

The Kingston disaster should cause each of us to take a look at how this coal ash is stored and managed. At least every three years since 2002 there have been major breaks in coal ash ponds, this has resulted in millions of pounds of toxic sludge entering our waterways and thereby our drinking water sources.

My amendment would require the EPA to study the long-term effects of these ponds and landfills on public health and the environment. It also requires that the EPA reports their findings to Congress.

We must take the steps necessary to address this potentially dangerous hazard. I understand that coal ash can be stored safely, I just want to ensure that it is stored properly.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment simply provides Federal enforcement authority so that if the EPA administrator determines that a structure is in violation of a State coal combustion residuals permit program and the State has not taken appropriate action to enforce such permit program with respect to such structure, the administrator may inspect such structure and enforce the requirements of such permit program.

Madam Chair, as currently drafted, H.R. 2273 fails to require States to enforce their own permit requirements. The manager's amendment only requires States to describe their ``process to enforce,'' but there is no hint, no requirement, not a syllable to actually enforce regulations. This built-in loophole in H.R. 2273 does not require adequate State inspection of coal ash ponds and landfills, and it allows States to set up voluntary regulatory programs, which will clearly not ensure the safe design, the safe operation, and the cleanup of the Nation's many toxic coal ash disposal sites.

Madam Chair, due to a well-noted case in my district of Crestwood, Illinois, where contaminated drinking water was piped into the homes of my constituents for over 20 years, between 1986 and 2007, without any intervention from either the State or Federal EPA agencies, I, for one, am very sensitive to this issue.

Since the beginning of this current Congress, the Republican majority has been on a never-ending, nonstop, forever-and-ever crusade against the EPA and our Nation's environmental protection laws on behalf of a few industries and to the detriment of the public good. However, for many of my constituents, there is no greater role for Congress to play than to protect their lives, their livelihoods, the livelihoods of their children, and the lives of their children by ensuring that all American citizens have access to clean air and clean water.

Madam Chair, I believe that it is a false choice to try to frame these tremendously important policy decisions under the paradigm of either clean air and water or jobs and employment. As leaders, it is our job, it is our responsibility to find the right balance when crafting legislation so that our constituents are not faced with these types of lose-lose situations and decisions.

I believe that my amendment will go a long way in trying to make this legislation far more balanced so that, at the very least, we allow the Federal Government, our government, to serve as the last backstop for the American people against companies that will seek to skirt the law without regard for the families and communities these companies would do harm to.

Madam Chair, many of my constituents, they don't have the money. They don't have the influence that industry has. So they're counting on us, this Congress, their Congressional representatives, to protect their interests,

to fight for them just as those who are fighting for the interest of a few corporations in this body are doing.

In fact, Madam Chair, I want to end with a quote from a letter dated July 11 that my office received from a number of ordinary American families who live by coal ash dumps all across this country.

I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.

Hon. Fred Upton,

Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee, House of

Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Tomorrow, we understand that your

committee will vote on a bill that would leave oversight of

coal ash dumps to the states, and prevent EPA from taking

action against polluters who threaten Our groundwater. We

know Congress has already heard from industry lobbyists, big

contributors, and bureaucrats. But please hear our voices,

since we live near these dumps, and put up with their

pollution year after year.

We know what it is like to suffer through the daily

onslaught of blowing ash, drink water from faucets

contaminated with ash leachate, and see our wetlands and

creeks poisoned with toxic metals like arsenic. We have

complained again and again about the endless noise, dust and

pollution from trucks dumping coal ash near us while we

become more stressed out or sick and the value of our

property plummets, with no real response from our states. Two

years ago, we were promised that the US Environmental

Protection Agency would finally set national standards to

clean up these sites, and close the most dangerous ones.

Now we face legislation that would stop EPA in its tracks,

and replace real standards with state ``plans'' that

polluters could ignore without fear of enforcement by EPA.

After what is already known about the danger from storing

millions of tons of coal ash in unlined ponds, why would you

tie the government's hands from ever stopping this practice?

Do our lives matter to you?

Is protecting coal ash ``recycling'' more important than

our health or the quality of our water? Even those who

believe that cannot seriously argue that shielding leaking

dumps from EPA enforcement somehow makes recycling easier.

And ash mixed with other wastes in leaking ponds--now a

common practice--cannot be recycled at all.

What will you accomplish by requiring federal and state

bureaucrats to review, and then approve, disapprove, and

reapprove state plans that can never actually be enforced by

EPA against polluters? If your own family's drinking water

was being contaminated, would you think haggling over

``plans'' the right response?

States have had decades to clean up these dumpsites, and

have done nothing--or next to nothing--as contamination has

spread, even after the TVA spill put the issue on the

national news. We know good, hard-working people in our state

agencies, but budget cuts, political pressure, the power of

local polluters, and the lack of any serious oversight or

enforcement from EPA make their job impossible.

Put yourself in our place. Have you lived near a power

plant's landfill or ash pond like we or our neighbors do, and

found out that the water you and your children drink may be

unsafe to drink? How long would you want to wait for your

state agency to do something about the problem? Three years?

Five years? Ten? We have waited that long, and are waiting

still.

As the Americans who live next to our nation's ash dumps,

our opinions should matter. These dumps should have permits

that we can comment on. We need the right to comment on a

solid waste plan. We should be able to object to any permit

or plan that threatens our lives and property, and the

government should be given a deadline to respond. Dumps that

contaminate groundwater should be closed, and the groundwater

cleaned up. And EPA should be able to crack down on

polluters--without having to wade through endless

``planning''--or the bill you pass will mean nothing.

As you consider this legislation, please don't forget about

us. We are not `against the coal industry.' We simply want

the laws that are supposed to protect people to be enforced.

We appreciate your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Joe and Teresa Trotter, 117 South County Road 400 West,

Sullivan, IN 47882.

George Adey, 4082 W Dunes Hwy, Michigan City, IN 46360.

Terry Miller and Barbara Handley-Miller, 4649 David Court,

Bay City, MI 48706.

Patrick Race, 1004 N. Sheridan, Bay City, MI 48708.

Saleh and Hanadi Abu-Hussein, 8424 State Road 64,

Princeton, IN 47670.

George Bink, 6125 E. County Line Rd., Racine, WI 53402.

Vicki Kuzio and Shirley Stribling, 3888 W. Dunes Hwy,

Michigan City, IN 46360.

Ron and Patricia Riley, 8329 W 175 N, Princeton, IN 47670.

Daniel Brand, 5228 County Road A, Sheboygan Falls, WI

53085.

Mike and Rachel Slunder, 8245 W 175 N, Princeton, IN 47670.

Mary Tinsley, 325 Division St., Mount Carmel, IL 62863.

Vicki Hodgson, 15466 N 2250 Boulevard, Allendale, IL 62410.

Amy Bonsall, Labadie Environmental Organization, 4467 Boles

Road, Labadie, MO 63055.

Cathy Schnur, 5337 Heatherfield Ct., Sheboygan, WI 53083.

Norm and Jill Buchmann, 6508 Running Horse Road, Racine, WI

53402.

Raymond and Yelissa Pfeiffer, 806 S Arbor St, Bay City, MI

48706.

Barbara Hugier, 8741 Foley Road, Racine, WI 53402, Oak

Creek/Caledonia coal run power plant (WE).

Michael and Martha Blann, 4919 W County Rd 25 N, Sullivan

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to thank the gentleman.

I have read the bill. And under this bill, if a State fails to do an adequate job of enforcing this program there is only one remedy: EPA has to take over the entire program. And we all know that having EPA take over a State's program is unlikely and highly undesirable.

My amendment creates an additional remedy for inadequate State enforcement that is more measured than taking over a State's program. It allows the EPA to enforce State requirements if a structure is in violation and the State isn't doing anything about it. Without this amendment, a State could fail to implement their program for coal ash disposal in a way that puts human health and the environment at risk, and there would be no discrete way for the EPA to intervene to provide the necessary safeguards.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.