Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have spent much time talking about the need for Congress to consider jobs legislation. This is a piece of pro-jobs legislation. This bill is unique because it is also a pro-states' rights legislation and pro-environment legislation.

But focusing on jobs for a minute, let me explain why a ``no'' vote is anti-jobs, placing anywhere from 39,000 to 316,000 jobs at risk at a time when we can least afford it.

We are here because over 3 years ago the EPA put out three proposals on coal ash, including regulating coal ash as a hazardous waste. This caused massive uncertainty in the marketplace and created an unnecessary stigma on legitimate recycling of this product, and I have a piece of shingle that's made and produced by coal ash.

And the States agree. As highlighted in a letter from the State of Michigan in support of H.R. 2218:

Enactment would end the regulatory uncertainty that has

hindered our efforts to promote the beneficial use of coal

combustion residuals.

EPA announced in litigation proceedings recently that it will not have a final coal ash rule before 2014. The fact that EPA continues to leave a ``hazardous waste'' designation on the table even though three decades of science and fact point the other way, that coal ash is not hazardous, it directly is contributing to the loss of current and future recycling.

Coal ash is not an abstract substance. It is used in important infrastructure in this country. The American Coal Ash Association informed us that uncertainty in the marketplace caused by EPA's proposal to regulate coal ash as hazardous waste is diminishing their economic prospects down to just 40 percent of eligible coal wastes--and they support this bill.

This bill establishes a solid framework for regulation of coal combustion residuals in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment, or the State environmental regulators--including the Environmental Council of States, ECOS, and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management officials--would not be endorsing this bill.

Coal ash makes concrete stronger, more durable, and cheaper. A ``no'' vote against this bill means that you support less durable, more expensive highways, schools, and green buildings. Don't take my word for it. The American Road and Transportation Builders Association and many other road and bridge builders, and also the Building and Construction Trades Union, want this bill because they want high- quality construction material for buildings, roads, and bridges.

For Members concerned about wall board from China, coal ash is a stable, domestic source for wall board and will control costs. Don't take my word for it. The American Forest and Paper Association supports this bill.

Mine workers across this country need a stable way of having America's energy future secured. This bill accomplishes that. Don't take my word for it. Ask the United Mine Workers, who supports this bill.

Coal ash is recycled and used as a raw material in making cement. Voting ``no'' means you choose to put coal ash in landfills rather than putting it back into roads and building projects. Don't take my word for it. Organizations like Portland Cement Association, the Phoenix Cement Company, the Wisconsin Ready Mix Concrete Association, and the Washington Aggregates and Concrete Association all support this bill.

A vote against this bill is a vote for prolonged regulatory uncertainty. A vote against this bill is a vote to increase costs on the Federal, State, and local governments and infrastructures. A vote against this bill is a vote to increase costs on all Americans and to dare unemployment to go even higher. A vote against this bill is a direct message to career State employees in States across this country that you do not trust them to do the right thing regarding regulation of coal ash.

This bill is a pro-jobs, pro-environment, anti-bureaucracy bill. If you want progress instead of process, protection instead of politics, and jobs instead of continued uncertainty, vote for this bill.

We find ourselves in this morass of regulatory uncertainty because of the existing approach to environmental regulation. This bill presents a new approach that will reduce the inefficiencies of the Federal rulemaking process by setting a national standard in the statute and charging the States with implementation.

If you support protecting jobs and preserving states' rights, and if you trust your State environmental regulators to protect your communities, you need to support this bill and vote ``yes'' on final passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleague to look at the 11 additional changes that have been made in this bill versus the last bill and realize how much we have moved in the direction that he speaks of.

I now yield 7 minutes to the author of the legislation from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).

Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues that the administration has not issued a veto threat on this bill.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Chairman, let me remind my colleagues of some of the special interests: United Mine Workers of America, Building and Construction Trades, and the Transportation Workers of America.

I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member who has been very helpful on this legislation, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta).

I want to thank my colleague from Texas, who has helped us move the bill forward.

I would remind my colleagues that the President has not issued a veto signal on this piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Bucshon), a neighbor to my congressional district.

Mr. Chairman, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management wrote a letter in support of this bill and its safety and protection.

Now I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Chairman, to my colleague from California, we're waiting for a few Members. I'm not sure they are going to get here. I'm willing to have you close, and then I'll close after you're finished.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

It's been a great debate. It's been a great process. I'll just summarize some of the issues. Yes, the issue is about beneficial reuse, like this shingle here; but it's also about the storage.

We were very close to passing this legislation the last Congress, as the ranking member knows. This bill is better, as my colleague from Texas says. There are 12 additional changes made in this bill versus last year's bill that addresses many of the concerns that the minority asked and also concerns by the Environmental Protection Agency. We worked very closely with them. That is why--and I'll say it again--the administration has not issued a veto threat on this bill. That's a signal that they may have issues, but there's not an outright veto threat on this bill. That's a signal that we've worked with them to address some of the major concerns.

Again, I want to highlight some of the special interest groups that are forcing this legislation, like the United Mine Workers, the building and construction trades, the transportation workers. Those who are historically considered in the minority's coalition are now moving to the pro-job coalition of this bill and hopefully other bills in the future.

I want to reemphasize that the EPA in 1993 and 2000 stated that coal ash does not have the characteristics of hazardous waste, including toxicity, and should not be regulated under subtitle C. That's not us. That's the EPA, and that's the EPA making that ruling twice.

We believe that the Federal Government can set standards. We believe that the Federal Government can enforce that the State do certification, and we trust the States to be able to monitor and meet the standards. That's why I listed in support the Environmental Council of the States and Indiana's Department of Environmental Management, because what they want to do is get a handle on this. And let's not confuse the issue. If the EPA is able to label fly ash as toxic, it does depress the beneficial use. So the cheap concrete that's mixed with fly ash will not be put in. The road mitigation issues which we've done will not be put in. My colleague, Marsha Blackburn, did a great job talking about how we use today coal ash and fly ash.

So I want to thank my colleague, Mr. McKinley, for moving this bill and my colleagues on the subcommittee, who have made the changes and moved it forward. We look forward to the debates on the amendment, and we look forward to passing the bill and sending it to the other Chamber and eventually a signature by the President of the United States.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim the time in opposition, but I don't oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for working with us and making some changes that we thought were appropriate.

We agree with my colleague from Virginia that States should identify what their emergency response procedures are in the certification process, and so we are prepared to accept the amendment. He's made it a better bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, the State permit program must incorporate minimum requirements which are based on regulations promulgated by the EPA to ``protect human health and the environment,'' which include groundwater monitoring of all structures, fugitive dust control, structural stability requirements and closure of structures that cannot be corrected.

The premise of this is, if you have Federal standards, that they're not protective, and that the States will not do that.

We find this debate very curious, in that my colleagues on the other side have so much of a disrespect for the States and their environmental communities and the ability of States to ensure the protection of human health, the environment from a State position, Federal standards, State certification process, States.

Under RCRA, the States do this anyway. This is what the States do. Under the Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Act, the States are the ones who are enforcing this. All we're doing is saying we can do this now for fly ash and coal ash.

So while my colleague's amendment is well-intentioned, it really undercuts the purpose of the legislation and is unnecessary because the bill contains specific criteria by which the EPA will judge State permit programs, and I listed those earlier.

This is a politically appealing amendment, but it has many flaws, not the least of which is that any State can request that EPA review another State's coal combustion residual permit program, regardless of the location, and whether there is actually a cross-border impact.

As my colleague pointed out in the Rules Committee on Tuesday, there's no requirement in this amendment that a State that requests a review needs to even be impacted by the contamination allegedly coming from another State.

While my colleague has probably scoured the country to come up with an example or two of coal ash contamination crossing State lines, the fact of the matter is that cross boundary is not really an issue with respect to coal ash disposal because regulation of solid waste disposal is typically an issue that remains within the State.

This amendment attempts to create another hook for the EPA to measure State coal combustion residuals permit programs using the subjective yardstick of what is protective of human health and the environment, which my colleague did a good job defending in the other amendment.

I understand that my colleague believes that the Federal Government must step in to save the day, but I trust that our State environmental regulators are up to the task of making sure that our communities are protected.

This amendment diminishes the important role of the States, and I urge opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order, and I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, the basic premise of this bill is that the Federal Government can set safety standards and the States can enforce it, so reject the motion to instruct.

I am going to turn my comments to people who live in the coal areas of our country. Coal is just not a commodity product, it is, really, a way of lifestyle if you live in coal country.

I am a fourth-generation Lithuanian immigration family. My great- grandfather went directly into the coalfields. My grandfather went into the coal mines at age 10. He performed the job of a trapper.

In my hometown of Collinsville, Illinois, we have Miner's Theater; in a community up north, we have Miner's Park; and in Gillespie, Illinois, we have Black Diamond Days.

Coal is a culture. Coal is who we are. That is why I really appreciate my colleagues from West Virginia, David McKinley and Shelley Moore Capito. There are some States in this Union that coal is their only job, and that's why they fight and they stand up for coal.

I remember being with the late Senator Byrd in a rally on The Mall to save coal jobs. He held up his hands and he said, ``There's coal in these veins.'' This was Senator Byrd--``There's coal in these veins.''

My colleagues and my friends, that's how we feel in coal-producing States in this country. It is part of who we are. It is our culture.

Now, don't think this is a passe debate. There's a young Iraqi vet named Jimmy Rose. You may have seen him. He's 32 years old. He's also a coal miner. He's competing on ``America's Got Talent.'' Do you know what his song is? His song is ``Coal Keeps the Lights On.'' He talks about feeding his

family. He talks about putting coal in the family household. He talks about that's their livelihood, that's their culture. It's an impassioned ballad for areas of our country that feel under attack, left behind, attacked by this administration.

Mayor Dietz from McLeansboro, Illinois, is happy when new coal is opening up. Coal is keeping the lights on in the small communities and the shops and stores for a community that's kind of been left behind for 40 years. He's excited about the jobs and the tax base that's coming because of coal.

I'm asking you, my colleagues, to stand up for coal, because coal keeps the lights on. I request that you reject this amendment and support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Today, the House is considering legislation to block EPA from acting to ensure that toxic coal ash is safely disposed of. Coal ash is the result of the coal that has been burned, and this coal ash needs to be disposed of.

Now, what the Republicans who are suggesting this bill be adopted are suggesting is that we remove public health protections in order to allow polluting disposal sites to continue with business as usual. That's a little tough to justify. As we led up to today's debate, we've heard some outlandish justifications, and I just want to set the record straight.

First of all, we've been told this is a states' rights bill because we need this legislation in order for the States to impose adequate regulation on dangerous coal ash disposal sites. Well, that's not true. The States can regulate coal ash disposal today and, in fact, many do. The problem is that many States are not doing a good job.

For example, in Ohio, four coal ash disposal sites have serious groundwater contamination problems. The coal ash at these sites has contaminated groundwater with arsenic, mercury, and radioactive levels of materials higher than allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Well, in total, EPA has identified 133 cases of groundwater and surface water contamination at coal ash disposal sites. All of this has occurred under existing law, where State laws can be effective and States can act. The problem is they're not all acting.

Secondly, the proponents of this bill have argued that we have to pass this legislation to allow coal ash to be recycled. They argue that EPA wants to designate coal ash as ``hazardous.'' Well, that isn't what EPA proposed at all.

They say that this designation would be a stigma on coal ash and would ensure there would no longer be any market for recycled coal ash, but that argument is just plain wrong. Hazardous labeling and restrictions on beneficial reuse are simply not at issue.

When EPA issued its proposed coal ash rule, the agency offered a couple of alternatives. Neither of these proposals would involve labeling coal ash as ``hazardous.'' Quite frankly, even if it were designated ``hazardous,'' that doesn't mean it can't be reused. It can be reused.

Third, we've been told that we must pass this legislation because it's a careful compromise from the version of the last Congress. Well, I'm not sure who was in that compromise because the bill is even worse than the bill from the last Congress. The Republicans have refused to work with the Democrats on the committee. There's no bipartisan coal ash bill in the Senate. And the administration has identified five problems with the bill that cause it to fall short of protecting human health and the environment.

Let's focus on reality. This debate is not about a ``war on coal'' or putting a stigma on coal ash. It's not about whether State governments are inherently better than the Federal Government. It's not about job- killing regulations. This debate is about whether or not we're going to allow coal ash disposal sites to contaminate our water supplies and threaten human health.

If this bill is enacted, coal ash disposal sites will continue to pollute our groundwater; and once contamination is confirmed, well, this bill would allow it to continue for another 10 years--and do nothing. Then, after that, they might even continue it for another indefinite period of time. So it will continue to pollute groundwater, the water we drink, and our water supplies and our water sources.

This bill says that a dump site that is contaminating groundwater today can pollute for 10 years--more arsenic, more mercury, more lead. Is that what Members of the House want to vote for? If the owners of the polluting structure can't control their contamination within 10 years, this bill says States can give them even more time to keep polluting.

New information released yesterday reveals that three-quarters of existing unlined coal ash impoundments do not have the space at their existing location to construct an additional disposal facility. Those facts practically guarantee that if this legislation were to be enacted, communities across the country--many of them poor and minority--will simply have to endure contaminated water, polluted air, and the risk of catastrophic dam failure. And why? For states' rights, where the States already have the rights? It's really for polluter rights. And polluters do not have and should not have a right to pollute our water supplies.

This can be handled effectively through a serious piece of legislation that will make clear that public health protection must be enforced.

I urge my colleagues to tune out the special interest misinformation that seeks to weaken our laws and prolong pollution, and oppose this legislation.

No matter how you voted in the last Congress, this bill is worse; and I urge Members to vote against it today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the administration and I would like to work out a bill with the Republicans, but this bill has two problems. After all is said and done, there is no requirement that they protect public health and the environment. There's all sorts of language that says we want them to. But if the States don't do that, the second problem is there's no enforcement; there's nothing to make them do it.

Now, if you have no real clear standard to protect public health and no enforcement to make sure public health is being protected, that's a bill that's asking for continuation of pollution of our groundwater supplies.

We can work together and get a bill, but this administration has said it does not adequately protect public health and the environment; it doesn't address the real problems. Even some of the changes that they have made have made this bill worse. It is a bill that we should reject and then go back to the negotiating table.

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I wish to yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the subcommittee on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, if coal ash is reused, it is not a hazardous waste. If it is stored and leaks into our groundwater or into our drinking water, it can be very hazardous.

The problem with the Republican bill is that it doesn't clearly state that public health must be protected, and when they state it, there is no clear enforcement. The EPA cannot be sure that the job is being done, and even citizens cannot file lawsuits to require it to be done. This is a special interest bill that does not serve the interests of the American people.

I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman who is the ranking member of one of our energy subcommittees, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is left on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a very distinguished member of our committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, before I yield back my time, I want to point out to my colleagues that this bill will not make it into law. The Senate will not accept it, and the President will not support it in its present form because it doesn't protect public health.

Coal ash contains arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium, and other toxic materials. It's a threat, not when the coal ash is used for other purposes, but when it's in a disposal site and leaks into our drinking water, and that's what this issue is all about.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

When coal ash is recycled, it is not a waste; and, therefore, EPA has no jurisdiction. It is not a problem. When coal ash is put into a landfill or disposal site and leaches into the water, then it is a problem. This bill doesn't address that problem. It doesn't adequately ensure protection of the public health; or if they have a law at the State level that seems to talk about public health, there's no clear enforcement of it. That is our problem with the legislation.

Recycling coal ash for any purpose doesn't make it hazardous, doesn't make it toxic. It can be reused, and we want to encourage that. But we don't want public health threatened. That's what our concern is all about.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Knowing that we want to wrap up this general debate, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I will just repeat that the EPA proposed to act, and that is what has caused this whole furor. Rather than to discuss what is the appropriate balance between the EPA and the States, the Republican bill would take this away from EPA, keep them from regulating, and turn it over to the States, where the States can already act and many have. They don't need us to give them the power to act. This bill says it's up to the States. It doesn't have a uniform standard of protecting public health. It doesn't require States to have the goal of protecting the public health. And if the States achieve the goal in their legislation to protect public health, there's no guarantee of it being enforced because EPA cannot come back in and enforce the State law and citizens cannot file lawsuits. That's one of the so-called ``improvements'' that has been made since the last time this bill was before us. It has weakened the ability to enforce protection of public health.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and in doing so tell us to go back and work on the problem and get a real, true bipartisan bill that can be supported by the majority of the Democrats and by the President of the United States.

I urge Members to vote against the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I support your amendment and urge all of our colleagues to support it as well.

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

Mr. Chairman, under all of our environmental laws, the Federal Government sets a standard, and then the States implement the law looking at the different circumstances in their community. For example, the Clean Air Act says, in effect, everywhere in this country, we cannot have air pollution that exceeds the standard to protect the public health, but the States decide the implementation to achieve that standard.

Under this bill, we're not setting a national standard. We're telling the States to set a standard. If we're going to let the States set the standard, my amendment would require that the standard in every State be to protect the public health, to protect human health and the environment. That's the goal of these laws, and that should be the requirement under this law.

The standards are the yardsticks under which we determine whether a State's effort measures up and ensures a consistent level of protection throughout the Nation. If we're not going to have a national standard by EPA, let's require the State to set that standard. This is an approach that has worked well because it ensures that all Americans enjoy a minimum level of protection and residents of one State are not threatened by inadequate laws in a neighboring State.

For example, if one State has a good, strong law to protect the public health, another State, trying to get the business away from that State to locate in theirs, will drop their standards lower to try to entice that business to relocate. The laxest protection becomes the dumping ground for the neighboring States. We don't want to put States in a race to the bottom.

When Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, we assigned EPA a simple mission: to protect human health and the environment from unsafe disposal of solid waste. Achieving that mission can be complex, but we have a clear goal. It provides direction for the Agency's technical work. But the bill we are considering today doesn't contain this standard.

Disposal of household garbage, for example, must be disposed of in a way that protects human health. But under this bill, coal ash would not be required to be disposed of in a way that protects human health.

My amendment would fix this serious problem by calling on the States to require measures necessary to protect human health and the environment. If we had the Republicans willing to accept the amendment that every State have an emergency plan, we're simply asking that every State have a goal, clearly stated, to achieve the protection of human health and the environment, otherwise a State's plan is not adequate; there would be no recourse as long as a State meets all of the other requirements of this law but still does not get to the goal.

The Congressional Research Service examined this legislation, and they told us that nothing in H.R. 2218 requires the States to establish programs that will achieve any specified level of Federal standard or protection. CRS concluded:

The degree to which a State program may protect human

health from risks specific to coal ash disposal would not be

known until individual States begin to interpret the bill.

That means the one thing we know for sure is that this bill will take EPA off the beat--take the EPA off the beat, like we took the SEC and other regulators off the beat, where Wall Street took huge risks and drove our economy over the cliff. It'll take EPA off the beat, and then we'll gamble on each State government doing a good job. That's a pretty risky gamble. And if it doesn't pay off, who's going to suffer? Well, the price will be borne by communities in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Alabama and elsewhere whose water supplies will suffer from toxic contamination.

Members from some of those States come in here and argue we need those jobs. Well, of course we need the jobs, and we're going to keep those jobs. But why shouldn't we, in keeping jobs, have waste disposals be constructed in a way that will not pollute our drinking water and harm human health?

So I would urge that we set this standard in the bill and adopt this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2218.

For 33 years, Congress has wrestled unproductively with how to deal with coal ash, an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal.

After countless hearings, meetings, and amendments, we come here today with a solution. Over the past 2\1/2\ years, we've listened to environmental organizations, industry, Senators, the States, the EPA.

Now the bill has strong bipartisan support with Democrat cosponsors and a broad coalition of over 300 organizations and businesses, including State environmental officials, Governors, recyclers, manufacturers, coal miners, coal operators, and labor unions, just to name a few.

If we don't act decisively, Congress will once again kick the can down the road. That would mean the status quo continues.

At the Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on the draft legislation earlier this year, EPA Assistant Administrator Mathy Stanislaus testified that States have the ability to ensure proper management disposal of coal ash under this legislation. At that hearing, my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, asked Mr. Stanislaus if the EPA was not opposed to this language in the bill. Stanislaus' response was, ``That is right.''

Even the President has become engaged in this debate. The statement from the administration this past week noted they appreciate the efforts of the House and issued no veto threat; no opposition was expressed. That ought to tell you something.

The opponents of this legislation should read the last sentence of the administration's statement:

The administration would like to work with Congress . . .

to allow for development, implementation, and enforcement of

appropriate standards for managing coal combustion residuals,

while encouraging the beneficial use of this economically

important material.

Let me show you what we are talking about here. This is a jar of fly ash. Every day, coal ash is produced in 48 of our 50 States across America. This is a national issue, not just one for coal States. Over 140 million tons of coal ash are produced annually. Approximately 40 percent of the material is recycled into everyday products used in households and the construction industry. The remaining 60 percent is disposed of in landfills.

Now, 2218 deals separately with both of these issues. The first part deals with recycling. Early in the Obama administration, the EPA proposed a rule to declare coal ash as a hazardous material, despite the fact that under the Bill Clinton administration the EPA had already determined in 1993 and 2000 that coal ash was not hazardous. Let me repeat that. They've already said it's not hazardous.

No industrialized nation in the world classifies fly ash as a hazardous material. Deeming it such would essentially destroy the ability to recycle coal ash, dramatically increase the cost of electricity, and crush hundreds of thousands of jobs across America.

The United States already has a much lower rate of recycling than other countries. Europe recycles over 90 percent of the fly ash; China over 65; and Japan, 95 percent of their coal ash is recycled. We should be encouraging recycling, not standing in the way.

The second part of the bill deals with processes for disposing of coal ash that is not recycled. This section has been significantly strengthened and provides for all new and existing landfills to be State-run, using the Federal law known as RCRA, which incorporates Federal standards and requirements for protecting ``human health and the environment.''

RCRA's primary goals are to ``protect human health and the environment, to reduce the amount of waste generated, and to ensure that wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner.''

Consequently, under his bill, disposal requirements will require ``composite liners, air quality and dust controls, groundwater protection standards, emergency action plans, corrective actions for deficiencies, inspections and structural stability.''

Let me make it clear. If a landfill ever becomes deficient, it must be fixed--no ifs, ands, or buts. It is just that simple.

For example, under the corrective action under section 4011, subsection (C)(2)(b):

An owner/operator of a deficient facility is not relieved

of their obligation to develop alternative disposal

capability regardless of whether they have space available

onsite.

For anyone to argue otherwise, perhaps they haven't read the bill.

For the first time, there will be a uniform, national standard for disposal. Or Congress can do nothing--it can--just as it has been for the last 33 years. But I don't think we should continue with the status quo. Working in this bipartisan fashion we've made progress.

After 30 years of debate, it is time for action. Our constituents deserve protection for their health and environment. This legislation makes it possible.

We often hear Congress isn't voting on a jobs bill. Mr. Chairman, there is not a clear jobs bill that we are going to deal with in this Congress protecting 316,000 jobs across America and preventing utility bills to increase. We must protect these jobs.

I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this pro-health, pro-environment, and pro-jobs legislation.

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

First, I want to just add a congratulations to my colleague from California whose position apparently has evolved over the last couple of years, because I remember back in 2011, he had a problem and voted against the recycling material. So to hear him today say how he favors, I appreciate that. That was on H.R. 1 in February of 2011.

But as for this amendment, this is not necessary because H.R. 2218 establishes a minimum standard of protection for coal ash permit programs. The standard of protection is the minimum requirements that are set out in this bill and includes protections such as groundwater monitoring; corrective action; financial assurance; specific cleanup and closure requirements for unlined, leaking impoundments; stringent structural stability requirements; and fugitive dust controls.

Furthermore, H.R. 2218 establishes a minimum national standard that is based on the existing criteria for municipal solid waste landfills which were promulgated by EPA to ``protect human health and the environment.''

This chart is a collection of some of the elements that are included in the bill already to deal with standards. Things like requiring that the structure be located above water tables. Groundwater monitoring is to be included in this. We have surface water controls under section 4011, controls for CCR landfills, control runoffs for CCR surface, accelerated corrective action for unlined surface impoundments.

We included in this bill, and if people would read the bill, they would see that under 4011, there are areas where the EPA can help to identify deficiencies, including specific criteria for undertaking a deficiency review. It has a backstop authority to enforce that these requirements are upheld and to correct any EPA-identified deficiency.

My colleague continues to use this ``race to the bottom'' among States, and they will compete with each other to become the dumping ground for neighbor States. That's a misguided assumption and, frankly, an insult to the hardworking State environmental regulators. It is unfortunate that he also does not trust the environmental regulators in his State, or any other State for that matter, to establish permit programs that are protective. My colleague ignores that the State regulators are tasked every day with protecting human health and the environment.

Another problem with this amendment is that, since it is not well defined, the EPA or a judge would have the sole discretion to determine what constitutes ``protecting human health and the environment.'' Any State failing to meet this subjective and ambiguous standard would have their permit program stripped from them to be run by the EPA.

This amendment diminishes the important role of the States and let's the EPA meddle in a program the States have proven that they are capable of handling. This amendment is not about protecting human health and the environment; it's about growing Federal control at the expense of the States. States have been tasked with implementing RCRA, and this bill allows them to continue to do just that.

If you support bigger government, support this amendment; but if you trust your State to take care of its own people, then we should oppose it. I urge opposition to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chair, once again, the House will consider a bill that will provide the States with what they already have--the authority to regulate the disposal of coal ash.

H.R. 2218 also virtually eliminates any regulatory role for the Environmental Protection Agency. Although the bill's title suggests that it is about the beneficial reuse of coal combustion residuals, it has little, if anything, to do with promulgating that worthy goal.

No one has disputed that it is preferable to reduce the amount of coal ash that ends up in disposal facilities. It saves money and lengthens the productive life of that disposal facility, and it means that a waste product is put to productive use in cement, in wallboard and in other products. All of those things happen now, and they will happen whether this bill passes or not. Actually, if the bill encouraged stronger standards for disposal, it would likely spur increased recycling--another opportunity squandered, in my opinion.

So, if it is not about recycling, what is this bill about?

It is about maintaining the status quo. The bill virtually ensures that deficient facilities will, indeed, remain deficient.

What does that mean?

It means that communities in States with weak programs and lax enforcement remain at risk.

This bill does not set credible standards to ensure that public health and the environment are protected. Communities whose groundwater sources are known today to be contaminated by toxins leaching from unlined disposal ponds will have to wait at least 10 years before a State would have to act, and even then there are provisions for granting additional time for an operator to upgrade or repair a leaking facility. We know from recent experience that some of these facilities are structurally unsound. A breach in the dam in Kingston, Tennessee, in 2008, in eastern Wisconsin in 2011, and in Martins Creek, Pennsylvania, in 2005 all sent coal ash spilling out into waterways and onto the land.

H.R. 2218 is not going to help us avoid adding accidents to this list. Very similar bills to this one passed the House several times in the last Congress. They failed to become law, and H.R. 2218, in my opinion, is going to follow that same path.

Communities living in the shadows of these facilities deserve to be protected. There is no reason to allow deficient facilities to pollute our water and our air and to jeopardize the health of people in communities across this great Nation. We can do better. We should do better. My colleagues and I will offer several amendments this morning that, if adopted, would improve this bill. A better legislative effort could resolve the uncertainty surrounding this issue and, more importantly, could ensure that our citizens' health and safety are protected.

We cannot afford more Kingstons. We do not have to. Without improvements, this legislation will proceed no further in the legislative process. Without improvements, it should not proceed any further. I oppose H.R. 2218 in its present form, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are a Nation of 50 States, but we are bound together by common history, purpose, and laws.

Prior to the passage of national environmental laws, States had individual regulatory programs that offered a patchwork of protection. We tried this system for air, for water, for toxic waste, and for many other things. That is the system we have today for the disposal of coal combustion residuals that cannot be recycled. It did not work; it does not work.

H.R. 2218 will not correct the problems with coal ash disposal. We have a State-by-State program for coal ash disposal now. H.R. 2218 codifies that situation and goes further to prevent the EPA from exercising its authority to require that State programs provide a basic standard to ensure that all citizens are indeed protected.

My amendment authorizes a proper Federal role, a role of oversight for the EPA to ensure the actions of one State do not result in negative impacts on a State with which it shares an important resource.

In addition, my amendment would enable a State to request that EPA review the permitting program of another State to ensure that the program offered sufficient protection of its citizens and its resources.

We do not allow northern States along the Mississippi River to dump toxic substances into the river for downstream States to clean up. We do not allow individual States to pollute the air and send the pollution well beyond their borders.

We need a better system for dealing with coal combustion waste, a system that applies fairly across our great country.

You might wonder how often the location of a coal ash facility is near enough to a shared resource or a State's border to cause a potential problem. Well, it turns out it is common.

The failure of a coal ash facility associated with the Martins Creek Power

Plant in Pennsylvania affected communities in New Jersey when coal ash spilled into the Delaware River.

Residents of the State of Michigan were upset when the failure of an old coal ash impoundment in Wisconsin sent coal ash, mud, and machinery into Lake Michigan.

And several of the coal combustion disposal facilities on the high- hazard list in Ohio and West Virginia are located along the Ohio River, a shared border and resource of these two States.

Well, I could go on. It turns out that because these facilities are often located in close proximity to coal-fired utilities where the waste is generated, they are also close to water required for cooling and steam generation. A number are located near sizable water sources that serve multiple communities and often multiple States.

So, in order to ensure good relations between neighboring States, and to ensure that all our citizens are protected from exposure to the toxic substances contained in coal ash, I believe the EPA should have the authority to step in when necessary.

The system we have used successfully, based upon common standards that ensure the protection of human health and the environment, should be applied to this situation. We cannot afford another episode like the one in Kingston, Tennessee.

The choice is not about whether we can have a clean, healthy environment or a robust economy. We can have both. Part of the formula for ensuring a robust economy includes having a clean environment.

Pollution is not cost-free. It costs us lost work days, illness, and premature deaths. It devalues property and results in expensive, unnecessary cleanup costs. We can do better.

My amendment will improve this bill and protect all our citizens and their shared resources. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I respect the work done by my colleague from Illinois, but respectfully disagree with his assessment. There's ample evidence that States have poorly regulated, in some cases, this waste stream, and it puts at risk innocent bystanders who are impacted by their actions.

And so I stand by the worthiness of this amendment, and again, encourage my colleagues to support it.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a commonsense amendment to ensure that every State that chooses to allow coal ash impoundments as outlined in this bill has a strong emergency response plan in the unfortunate event of a leak or spill.

Sadly, the 2008 failure of a coal ash impoundment in Kingston, Tennessee, highlights the very devastation a spill can have on a community. As was widely reported at the time, a breach in a surface impoundment pond at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston

facility released more than 5 million cubic yards of coal ash, covering more than 300 acres in toxic sludge, damaging and destroying homes and property. As we speak, there is still a Federal Superfund cleanup site where the total cost could top more than $1.2 billion. Absent a plan, what could go wrong?

Beyond that staggering price tag, let us not forget that the lasting economic and health impacts in the surrounding communities resulting from this spill are catastrophic. Families were displaced from their homes. Some residents still suffer from respiratory illnesses and other side effects. Arsenic levels where the Kingston coal ash runoff were disposed of are measured at 80 times higher that the amount legally allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the EPA already has said such exposure significantly increases a lifetime risk of cancer. These are just the impacts we know of today. Who knows what the unknown health consequences might be.

The Kingston incident is not an isolated event, sadly. According to Earthjustice, there have been more than 211 known cases of coal ash contamination and spills in 37 different States. According to the EPA, 45 impoundments are currently considered high hazard, meaning that a failure will probably cause loss of human life. Of course, this bill doesn't concern itself with those problems or apply the lessons learned.

In response to the Kingston incident, former Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen even acknowledged that ``the State's environmental regulations, mostly written in the 1970s, don't take into account a disaster such as the ash spill and need a top to bottom review.''

And he said we need a top-to-bottom review of those policies.

As we have already seen, the Federal Government is forced to step in when disasters such as these take place. Yet, rather than make the Federal Government a partner, or even a resource, this bill turns sole responsibility over to the States. There ought to be a clear minimum set of standards for EPA to identify and remedy State program deficiencies, stronger groundwater protection standards, and clear and appropriate authority for taking potential corrective action on unlined or leaking impoundments. That seems common sense.

The original amendment would have ensured that States certify their coal ash permitting plans annually, including up-to-date emergency response plans. The House majority thought regular reporting was nothing more than a paperwork exercise, so I now offer this revised amendment in keeping with their concerns to ensure, at a minimum, that States have thorough and comprehensive emergency response plans to address a spill or a leak. We cannot simply count on private enterprise to be prepared for a spill. The State and local governments, who are the first responders, must be active partners. By requiring them to provide EPA simply their own emergency response plans, we are taking a modest step to ensure they are prepared to respond to an emergency.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, and I look forward to working with him.

I yield to the distinguished ranking member.

I thank the gentleman.

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