Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act of 2013

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and I yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor.

I thank the gentleman for his information with respect to the legislation for next week.

I note that there was not on the notice for next week--the Senate has now voted to go to conference on the farm bill. Clearly, that is a matter that I think both sides, or certainly our side, I think your side as well, feels is a priority item. Does the gentleman have any plans to move to go to conference now that the Senate has asked for a conference next week on the farm bill?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that comment; however, I'm somewhat perplexed, Mr. Leader.

You and I had a relatively animated colloquy some, I think, 2 or 3 weeks ago, at which point in time you said that we passed the farm bill that, of course, we didn't like and none of us voted for, that we passed the farm bill so that, in fact, we could follow regular order and go to conference. We passed that farm bill.

The Senate has now voted to go to conference, but what I hear the gentleman saying is, like the budget bill, we're not going to go to conference unless something else happens; in the case of the budget, until Mr. Ryan apparently gets Ms. Murray to agree on--I don't want to characterize it too heavily, but to agreeing with him as opposed to compromise.

But I'm a little, as I said, perplexed, because a few weeks ago you told me that the reason we passed that farm bill without the provision for nutrition, which had been in there for half a century, was so that we could go to conference. Well, now we're there, but there's no motion to go to conference. I'm perplexed, and I would appreciate if the gentleman--because we now have the opportunity to follow regular order. We now have the Senate who has voted to go to conference, acted on our bill that we sent there, substituted their bill for ours, and now have asked for a conference on the same. That is regular order.

Can the gentleman tell me: Are we now making a condition, as we lawyers say, precedent--that is, something's got to happen--before we go to conference? Because, very frankly, Mr. Leader, you and I both know that the nutrition bill is what made the farm bill apparently fall on the rocks, which is why you dropped it in order to pass the farm bill. It was a totally partisan bill, but now we need to get to agreement.

I tell you, we're running out of time, Mr. Leader, and I think we need to get this farm bill done; and I would hope that we could go to conference, as the gentleman said we were going to do, with the Senate on the House-passed bill.

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his observation.

The truth in legislating is that we are not legislating. We are putting forth the positions of your party in this House, not shared by the Senate, not shared by the President of the United States, also elected by the people of the United States; and absent agreement by those two entities, coequal branches of the Congress and a coequal branch of the government, the executive, absent their agreeing with your party's perspective, we're not legislating. That's the problem, Mr. Leader.

And again, I express to you, you said--and I don't have the words in front of me exactly, but we can pull them out. But I am perplexed because you said, when we passed the farm bill without the nutrition program in it--which had been done for a half a century. They had been paired by Republican Congresses and Democratic Congresses, signed by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. It's only this last 2 years that we have been unable to come to grips with bipartisan agreement on the farm bill. It's only in the past 2 years that we've been unable to get a bill that was bipartisan in fashion to the floor and, ultimately, voted on final passage.

The bipartisan bills that came out of committee both in the last Congress and this Congress were turned into--the first one, of course, in the last Congress didn't come to the floor, as the gentleman knows. He didn't bring it to the floor at all, notwithstanding the fact it had bipartisan support in the committee. And notwithstanding the fact that the bill that was brought to the floor had bipartisan support and the support of the ranking member, Mr. Peterson, notwithstanding he didn't agree with some portions that were adopted, for instance, on milk, he was, nevertheless, prepared to adopt it until three very partisan, we thought very harmful, amendments to people without means were adopted.

You knew that was the case. You then had told me--and I repeat, I know, and reiterate. But the simple representation you made was that we did that--and Mr. Sessions made that and said,

by the way, that the nutrition part of the program, getting support for people who needed food, was extraneous to the bill. That's not our perspective over here, but that was the perspective that the chairman of the Rules Committee laid out when we considered the rule.

But you then said, in that colloquy, that the reason we did that was because you wanted to get a bill through. And, frankly, that's the only way you could pick up the overwhelming majority of the 62 of your Republicans who voted against it. I can only conclude that because you got the majority to do it, failing the first time because 62 Republicans decided they didn't like, apparently, the nutrition part of the bill and they voted against it. When you dropped the nutrition part of the bill, which had been in there for 50 years, then you got the majority on your side. That's when you got zero of us. You had 24 the first time.

So I'm perplexed that now that we have done what you said we were going to do, not about budgets, not about--you and I agree we need to get a handle on it. That's not what this issue is about. This issue is about whether or not we're going to have a farm bill and whether we're going to have such in a timely way. I'm going to talk a little bit about the CR.

But we have 17 days left to go between now and September 30, and we think it's timely to move. I don't know. Your nutrition bill is not on the program here. We'll have 1 week after next week.

We're not sure because we haven't seen a nutrition bill that you have. We don't know what's going to be in that. But we have passed a farm bill. The Senate wants to go to conference. The Senate wants to go to conference--at least the Democrats do--on the budget. And we're not doing it, Mr. Leader. And we need to do it.

It takes two to be bipartisan, Mr. Leader. You know that and I know that. I've got a pretty long record of working in a bipartisan fashion. But I will tell you, I disagree with the majority leader, respectfully, that there aren't the votes on this floor to pass the SNAP program and the agriculture program.

We agree on this side that there's a relationship between those who produce food and those who eat food. We think there's a direct relationship, which is why for half a century these have been related, so that the folks in the city would understand that those on the farm are very important people and we need to make sure that we have a partnership with them. Very frankly, it's worked for half a century. Unfortunately, it didn't work this year.

I will say to my friend, you are accurate in saying there are a majority of people on this floor--not in our party--but a majority on this floor, including Mr. Lucas, who twice has reported out a bill with bipartisan support and argued for it on the floor. He argued for it and pleaded with your party to support the farm bill, even though from both parties' standpoint it wasn't a perfect bill. But 62 of your Members rejected his plea. And my view is Mr. Lucas is still in that position of where he sees the rationale of having those together. He's the Republican chairman of the committee. I respect Mr. Lucas for his comments both times the bill was considered on the floor.

I will move on. But allowing the farm bill to languish is dangerous for this country, for the farm community, and for others. It undermines our economy. Moving with dispatch is in the best interest of our country.

Now, let me ask you something. As I said, we have 17 days left to go until September 30. This Congress has not passed an appropriation bill. We've passed three appropriation bills. The Senate is going to consider one, apparently, next week. We won't be here on September 30. We're only here 2 weeks in September. There are holidays and Labor Day. So we're only going to be here 2 weeks.

I want to ask my friend if he or the majority or the Budget Committee or the Appropriations Committee and the leadership in concert has a plan for what we might do to assure stability in government and in our country's confidence that the government will be operating on October 1.

There's a way to do that, of course. It is called regular order, as we've discussed. The conference committee is where you do that. But not withstanding that fact, we have for over 100 days now seen languishing the Senate-passed budget and our budget, and an attempt by the leader in the Senate, Mr. Reid, to go to conference, but no effort to go to conference to, as you say, in a bicameral, bipartisan way to resolve differences. They're very substantial. But everybody is sitting in their corner.

Patty Murray wants to come to the midpoint to have a conference. I've talked to her. She's the chairman of the Budget Committee. But we have not moved, unlike the Senate--and they haven't succeeded because of Republican opposition--but they have tried to go to conference. We have not made any effort to go to conference, Mr. Leader, and you can't have a bicameral resolution and compromise and bipartisanship if you don't sit down and talk to one another in conference.

Mr. Ryan asking Senator Murray, Do it my way, is not going to get us there. A conference may. I don't think it's guaranteed, but it may. And I would hope we could go to conference and follow regular order on the budget. We should have adopted a budget 4 months ago. We need to adopt a funding resolution by September 30 in some form or fashion. The failure to go to conference is undermining our ability to do that.

I'm surprised to hear the majority leader say budget has no relationship to the appropriations process or the continuing resolution.

I've been on the Appropriations Committee, as the gentleman knows, for 23 years. I'm not on it now. And you've adopted a budget, not because the budget passed but because you deemed the budget passed, you've pretended it passed. We did that ourselves to get a number. Why is that important? Because that's the spending number. Ours is $967 billion. The Senate's is $1.058 trillion. It's some $91 billion more.

So there's a very substantial difference between the two Houses. It has to be resolved. Maybe the gentleman can tell me, since we don't have a resolution of what the number is going to be, which is what a budget conference does, and what I hear the gentleman saying is, unless the Senate agrees with your perception of revenues--and I know that you repeat that all the time. I get it. I know your position. I know the position of your party. My position, of course, is we need to pay for what we buy. You're right. If we don't buy it, we don't have to pay for it. And we have to make that judgment on behalf of the American people. That's what they sent us here to do.

But the fact of the matter is, if your position is that unless they agree with your perception--they have a different point of view. They were elected by the American people. By the way, this side was elected by the American people, 1.4 million more of whom voted for us than voted for your side of the aisle. You have the majority. Redistricting provided for that, God bless you. I wish I were in your position, not in mine, from that standpoint. But the fact of the matter is more of the American people voted for us than they voted on your side. But you have the majority.

You ought not to be in the position, I suggest, respectfully, Mr. Leader, of saying unless the Senate will accede to our position, we're not going to go to conference. I don't understand saying you want a bicameral, bipartisan agreement without going to conference.

Let me ask you about immigration. There's nothing on here about immigration. The Senate has passed a bipartisan bill. Does the gentleman have any reason to believe that we're going to move ahead on immigration? President Bush said just the other day the system is not working. The system is broken. Your chairman of the Budget Committee, talking about the budget, said we have a broken immigration system that needs to be fixed.

Can the gentleman tell me whether there's any action contemplated on immigration?

Mr. Leader, the last question. You said the defense authorization bill is coming to the floor. Can the gentleman tell me whether that will be coming to the floor under an open rule or a rule other than open?

I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to come and join in an aspect of our bipartisan work that is working for children, and I thank the Education Committee and Mr. Polis for their leadership in focusing on the idea that our children need the best education.

I also know the hearts of the Education Committee members and Mr. Polis in recognizing that public schools are a valuable asset, having been educated throughout my primary and secondary education in public schools. We want to have the opportunity to match excellence with excellence and to ensure that the oversight allows for excellence.

So H.R. 10, the Success and Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Act, brings all of this together: respecting teachers, holding children to a higher standard, and giving them the necessary tools.

I am glad that I had an amendment that will be in the manager's amendment that deals with requiring the Secretary to report issues regarding the age, race, and gender at charter schools, and also, the attrition and college acceptance. It has that same requirement for the teachers, as far as teacher attrition. That is important. That is already in the manager's amendment.

I also think more transparency and information to the parents on the Web sites concerning orientation materials, enrollment curriculum, student discipline, and behavior codes adds to this legislation. In that, we can ensure that there will be policies to prevent any bullying or even to have bullying intervention so that our children can have a better quality of life.

This is a holistic approach to educating our children. I believe the underlying bill speaks volumes that our children are our most precious resource. I hope that, as we continue, we will be able to work on other items, such as unemployment insurance and comprehensive immigration reform, because these are ways that we show America that we are working for them.

When we put forward legislation that focuses on the education of our children and the choices that our children can make, balanced alongside of ensuring the lifting of the boats of public education, we are in the right direction.

I am delighted to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak during the House's consideration of the Rule for H.R. 10, the ``Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act.''

The Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act would revise the Charter School Program and the Public Charter Schools of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

The rule before the House will pave the way for the consideration of a legislative proposal that consolidates two existing federal charter school programs into one:

The Charter School Program, which supports grants for charter school developers to open new charter schools. The program also provides funds to disseminate best practices and provide state facilities aid to charter schools.

The Charter School Credit Enhancement Program assists charter schools in accessing better credit terms to acquire and renovate facilities to operate a charter school.

The rule will allow the consideration of the bill that will create a new federal charter schools program to promote high-quality charter schools at the state and local level; and allows states to use federal funds to start new charter schools as well as expand and replicate existing high-quality charter schools.

The bill adds a new component--a Charter Management Organization grant program to support the opening of additional charter schools nationwide.

H.R. 10 establishes a new Charter School Program that would consist of three parts:

Grants to support high-quality charter schools will be awarded to a State Educational Agency, the State Charter School Board, the Governor, or a Charter School Support Organization.

Facilities Aid will be awarded to continue credit enhancement activities and support state facilities aid for charter schools.

National Activities will allow the secretary of education to operate a grant competition for charter schools in states that did not win or compete for a state grant and a competition for high quality CMOs.

The legislation adds five new definitions: a ``charter management organization, a charter support organization'', a ``high-quality charter school''; the ``expansion of a high-quality charter school''; and a ``replicable, high-quality charter school model.''

H.R. 10 authorizes $300,000,000 for fiscal years 2015 through 2020. The bill permits state-determined weighted lotteries and allows students to continue in the school program of their choice by clarifying students in affiliated charter schools can attend the next immediate grade in that network's school.

Jackson Lee Amendments to H.R. 10

I have long supported the need for better data on the experiences of children that Congress could use when deliberating on legislative measures intended to benefit our youngest citizens.

The Education and Workforce Committee included language in the amendment in the form of a substitute for the bill that reflected an amendment I had intended to offer as a separate amendment. The language reflects the intent of my amendment by adding rates of student attrition as a measure to be considered by charter school authorizers in monitoring the successes of schools.

Attrition data would help us better understand the impact of charter schools on student retention. It would also bring additional transparency regarding the drivers of attrition issues such as discipline, counseling, drop-outs, bullying, as well as the impact of learning disabilities like dyslexia on student retention.

Although the data reporting is not mandatory, it is my hope that charter school districts and charter schools will take up the challenge of providing hard data to make the case for their approaches to education.

I offered two amendments for consideration by the House Rules Committee that would strengthen the legislative goals of H.R. 10.

The amendments were simple and were an important addition to this strong bipartisan effort from the Education and Workforce Committee to bring clarity and improve transparency of charter schools in communities around the Nation.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1

The Jackson Lee amendment made in order by the Rules Committee for debate of this bill directs State Education Agencies that award Federally funded grants to charter schools to work with those schools so that they provide information on their websites regarding student recruitment, orientation materials, enrollment criteria, student discipline policies, behavior codes, and parent contract requirements, which should include any financial obligations such as fees for tutoring, and extra-curricular activities.

This Amendment will make it possible for parents to learn more about how schools deal with important education issues such as academic performance, enrichment programs, and quality of education life issues like reasonable accommodations for students with learning disabilities like dyslexia or physical disabilities.

Many charter schools already provide this information, and the amendment would support this good transparency practice. This Jackson Lee amendment is good for parents and for charter schools because parents would have access to information that helps them make education decisions for their children; and charter schools would speak to a larger audience regarding their education programs.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 2

The second Jackson Lee amendment was a ``Sense of the Congress'' on the promotion of, and support for anti-bullying programs in charter schools, including those serving rural communities.

I regret that this amendment was not made in order by the Rules Committee because the prevention of bullying is one of the most challenging problems focusing school officials.

I am disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make this amendment in order for consideration under this bill.

I introduced H.R. 2585, the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Reauthorization and the Bullying Prevention and Intervention Act of 2013 because of the unresolved national epidemic of school bullying. This anti-bullying bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 by expanding the juvenile accountability block grant program with respect to programs for the prevention of bullying to include intervention programs. The bill's objective is to reduce and prevent bullying and establish best practices for all activities that are likely to help reduce bullying among young people.

This year a million children will be teased, taunted, and physically assaulted by their peers. Bullying is the most common form of violence faced by our Nation's youth.

The frequency and intensity of bullying that young people face are astounding: 1 in 7 students in grades K-12 is either a bully or a victim of bullying; 90% of 4th to 8th grade students report being victims of bullying of some type, 56% of students have personally witnessed some type of bullying at school; 71% of students report incidents of bullying as a problem at their school; 15% of all students who don't show up for school report it to being out of fear of being bullied while at school; 1 out of 20 students has seen a student with a gun at school; 282,000 students are physically attacked in secondary schools each month.

Consequences of bullying: 15% of all school absenteeism is directly related to fears of being bullied at school; According to bullying statistics, 1 out of every 10 students who drops out of school does so because of repeated bullying; Suicides linked to bullying are the saddest statistic.

Statistics on Gun Violence: Homicide is the 2nd leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24 years old; Homicide is the leading cause of death for African Americans between ages 10 and 24; Thirteen young people from ages 10-24 become victims of homicide every day; 82.8% of those youths were killed with a firearm; Every 30 minutes, a child or teenager in America is injured by a gun; Every 3 hours and 15 minutes, a child or teenager loses their life to a firearm; In 2010, 82 children under 5 years of age lost their lives due to guns; One of four high school males reportedly carry a weapon to school, with 8.6% of reportedly carry a gun; 87% of youth said shootings are motivated by a desire to ``get back at those who have hurt them,'' and 86% said, ``other kids picking on them, making fun of them or bullying them'' causes teenagers to turn to lethal violence in the schools; In 2011, over 707,000 young people, aged 10 to 24 years, had to be rushed to the emergency room as a result of physical assault injuries.

I strongly believe that where our children are concerned, Congress is in a unique position to advocate on their behalf in an effective and forceful way. Letting children know by our actions that members of Congress consider the lives of children and their experience to be of the utmost importance would help them in countless ways.

We cannot gamble with our children's future, and ultimately the future of our nation. I am committed to finding ways to make sure that education is as valued as national defense--because education is crucial to our nation's global success in all areas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Foxx

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for the kind words.

I want to thank Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller for their hard work. Particularly in a week where this body has been divided over issues like Benghazi and Lois Lerner, how wonderful that we can come together around our most underserved kids and families to help extend the hope and opportunity of a quality charter school to more families.

Most Members of this House have already voted for the provisions of this bill. Substantially, a nearly identical bill was included in the Republican ESEA reauthorization, H.R. 5. All but 12 Republicans voted for that bill. Almost identical language was included in the Democratic substitute for ESEA reauthorization as well. Only two Democrats voted against that bill. The vast majority, everybody in this body, except for 14 people in this session, this 113th Congress, have voted for the provisions of this bill.

Those bills, the Democrat substitute and ESEA reauthorization, have an enormous gap between where they were. Democrats and Republicans had a different vision for accountability, the role of the Federal Government, so many issues within that. So why not take language that is nearly identical in both of those bills with regard to reauthorization of the Federal Charter Schools Program and combine it into a standalone bill that can actually pass this body and pass the Senate.

We have done enough of these one-party bills. I know when we were in the majority we did them as well, where the House acts, and we yell at the Senate for not acting; they act, and they yell at us for not acting. Here is a bill, Mr. Chairman, that, with a strong vote on the floor of the House, can send a message to the Senate that while perhaps we cannot agree on the entirety of ESEA reauthorization, yes, we can agree on upgrading the Federal Charter Schools Program first conceived in 1994 to the 2.0 version.

What does that mean, Mr. Chairman? What do these improvements in this bill mean? They are commonsense improvements. They are neither Republican nor Democratic. They simply make the bill better to make sure that our very limited Federal investment that we have, the limited resources we have, is spent and invested in a way to have the maximum possible outcome in ensuring that kids across the country have access to a quality public charter school.

For instance, rather than just supporting the formation of entirely new charter schools that are innovative, under this bill we now allow the funds to be used for expansion and replication of successful models, models that we know work, schools that we know work, schools that are transforming lives and restoring hope to families across our country if only they can expand, if only we can have more to serve kids.

We have also heard from our constituents across the country complaints that some charter schools perhaps don't serve enough special ed students or enough English language learners or enough free and reduced lunch students.

Under the old language of this authorization that we still have, charter schools that receive these funds are actually prevented from remedying that. They are not allowed to have anything other than a pure lottery with regard to determining their student composition.

What we now allow with this bill is a weighted lottery to give charter schools, in concert with their authorizing entity, the ability to make sure that they can serve the most at-risk kids, pursuant to their mission; they can serve special-needs kids, commensurate with the district averages; they can serve English language learners, and make sure that they can fulfill their mission, rather than have some of those students squeezed out by those who are in a better position to exercise their school choice because they are better informed and better connected.

The underlying bill improves charter school access and services for all students. It truly will help ensure that the limited Federal investment we have makes the biggest single difference for families across our country.

Mr. Chairman, public charter schools are simply public schools with site-based governance. Public charter schools are free to innovate when it comes to scheduling the learning day, uniforms, staffing, curriculum, and yet they are accountable for student outcomes, and this bill adds additional layers of accountability and transparency to ensure that this Federal investment has the maximum possible effect.

I am proud that before I served in this body, Mr. Chairman, I founded two public charter schools--New America School in Colorado, and now New Mexico, and the Academy of Urban Learning in Denver. New American School works with 16- to 21-year-old new immigrants to help them learn the English language and even how to access a college education.

Mr. Chairman, absent a Federal charter school program I don't think I even could have started that charter school. Hundreds and thousands of charter schools that have benefited from this program across the country will tell you the same story.

Before the State or district money for a public charter school begins, before the doors open, there are expenses. Principals and teachers have to be hired, classrooms have to be configured and outfitted. That is what this money allows. Coupled with strong support from the nonprofit sector and from foundations, we have helped give with this program life to the ideas that have existed in the minds of social entrepreneurs and that have been transformative in the lives of kids and families.

However, Mr. Chairman, not all public charter schools are high quality, just as all district schools are not high quality. That is why H.R. 10 adds strong protections to ensure that public charter schools are accountable that they serve low-income kids and English language learners and at-risk kids.

We invest in quality authorizing practices. What does that mean? Well, there are two possible thoughts in authorizing. An authorizing entity like a district can hand out charters. Too easy? Hand out them out like candy to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that comes in, including low quality providers who have no sense of how to put together a school budget. Or they can lack quality by never handing one out to anybody because they view them as competition with the district.

But a quality authorizing practice is if you have a great idea and evidence that it will work, sound budgetary policy, and a team that will make a public school work for kids, you should be able to receive that charter and operate that school. We raised the bar on authorizing practices, something on which the original authorization for this program was silent.

For those on my side of the aisle who are skeptical of public charter schools, this bill brings stronger protections for oversight, transparency, and accountability. This program, the Federal charter school program, will exist under the old authorization or the new authorization.

I implore my colleagues on my side of the aisle to support the new and better 2.0 version for all of the Democratic priorities. Whether you like charter schools or not, this program is simply better under this bill. This bill has gotten better through every phase of the process--better than the bill in last Congress, better than the bill as part of the ESEA reauthorization of the Republican bill, better than the Democratic substitute. And now as a stand-alone bill, we have the ability to send a message to the Senate and a bill to President Obama's desk.

Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss today some of the priorities that Democrats have, which are important to Members of my party, which are included in this bill.

I hope that those on my side of the aisle who are listening tonight-- or the capable Education LAs who are listening tonight, who will hopefully advise their bosses to vote ``yes'' tomorrow--will listen to how so many of our Democratic priorities are in the bill.

First of all, this bill makes sure that charter schools do not have entrance requirements, that they don't charge tuition, are not religious, and don't discriminate against students on any basis.

We also make sure that low-performing or financially irresponsible charter schools are closed and that the authorizer intercedes. We also have language in here that gives public charter schools additional tools to make sure that they recruit and serve students with disabilities.

We also improve performance oversight and the management for public charter schools, new provisions about transparency, and evaluation practices. We make sure that each public charter school considers input from parents and community members with regard to the operation of the school.

The public charter schools abide by civil rights laws, in that they can't charge tuition. We make sure that public charter schools have the same audit requirements as traditional public schools, in order to prevent fiscal mismanagement and fraud.

These are some of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, that I encourage my colleagues on my side of the aisle to upgrade this authorization--to upgrade from the version passed in 1994--to a new and better version that incorporates almost two decades of learning about what works and doesn't work within the public charter school movement.

Those on my side of the aisle support good public schools, whether they are district schools, whether they are neighborhood schools, whether they are public magnet schools, whether they are public charter schools, whether they are schools of choice operated by the district. We want to make sure that every family has access to a good, high- quality public education.

Public charter schools are not the silver bullet alone. They are not going to fix everything that is wrong and that needs to be improved about public education in the country.

What they do offer are examples of hope and opportunity for the kids they serve. Too many families, Mr. Chairman--almost a million families across the country--are languishing on the waiting lists for public charter schools; and they are forced to attend worse schools because the capacity doesn't exist to serve them.

This bill will allow quality public charter schools to expand, to replicate, and to serve more children, in order to help reduce that number. It will make sure that other generations of Americans-- particularly Americans in poverty--are not consigned to lives of reliance on government programs or on an inability to attend college, but to, instead, have every opportunity that this country can provide because they have had a good education.

In the 21st century, Mr. Chairman, a good education is more important than ever for one to be in the American middle class and to live the American Dream. At the very time that it is becoming more important than ever, we need to redouble our efforts to ensure that every family has access to a high-quality school. That is why I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to begin my remarks by correcting my friend from Texas with reference to his 1-minute statement previous to the time that we began the rule.

As I understood him, he said that for the last 20 months, Democrats have controlled every level of power. Somewhere along the line, I think my friend must be very confused about what the responsibilities of the United States House of Representatives is and are.

That said, my recollection is that in this Congress, which has consumed 6 months, and in the previous one, which took 2 years, that my friends in the Republican Party have controlled the House of Representatives. Unless there is no longer one level of power in Washington, something is misunderstood by me.

Mr. Speaker, the House faces a number of pressing issues that have bipartisan support and that we could be addressing in our limited time before the August recess. For example, we could be reforming in a comprehensive manner our Nation's immigration system. We could be ending the sequester. I have not met a Democrat or a Republican that did not say that the sequester was a bad idea. We could be addressing the doubling of student loan interest rates. We could be having a conference on a farm bill, or we could be appointing--something that I still find very strange--we could be appointing budget conferees.

It used to be that having a conference around this place was a real opportunity for Members, and Members sought to be on the conference. I know my first experience I was fascinated by the fact that I'm on a conference with the other body, the United States Senate. Little did I know that their rules provided for them to vote by proxy, but I came to learn that perhaps it wasn't as important as I thought it was, but it is important to the process.

But for any of these important issues to be addressed, Members would have to work together to resolve their differences. Instead, we're spending our time on two bills that my friends across the aisle know will never become law. I don't have to be a betting person to bet anybody in this institution that what we are discussing here today will not become the law of the land. The reason that I know that is we've already done it four times, this same measure, and it didn't see the light of day in the other body. This one ain't going to either.

These bills today show what I've been saying for quite some time now, and it's that my Republican colleagues really are not manifesting interest in actually fixing our country's problems. In fact, it seems that they're more happy to simply bring Congress to a standstill and call that success.

Mr. Speaker, political victories are not victories for struggling families. In case these bills are not clear enough evidence, my friends recently released their messaging plan for the August work period in our respective districts. That plan is called ``Fighting Washington for All Americans.'' Wow. Despite the irony, I would almost want to call it hypocrisy of sitting Members of Congress trying to paint themselves as outsiders and reformers while ignoring their key role in creating the gridlock. Fighting Washington for All Americans urges Members to consider Washington as a place where nothing good happens, so the less governing that gets done, the better. Yet these two bills today completely contradict those ideas.

H.R. 1582 gives the Department of Energy unprecedented authority to veto Environmental Protection Agency-related regulations. Not only does the bill prevent the EPA from finalizing critical public health and environmental rules, it instructs the Department of Energy to conduct a duplicative and convoluted analysis without any new resources. These are the people that say bureaucracy is a problem, and yet they're creating additional bureaucracy within the framework of these two measures.

I said yesterday in the Rules Committee I would be astounded at how much time it's going to take the Energy Department and the EPA to coordinate their efforts. Evidently, these people haven't been trying to talk to these bureaucrats the way that I have over the course of time, and it requires, this measure does, extra examination, despite the Office of Management and Budget's interagency review of all regulations, which includes the Department of Energy, in the review of EPA rules.

I did a little research, Mr. Speaker, on how many times over the course of the time that I've been here that Members on the other side have offered measures, that did not become law, to abolish the Department of Energy. Hear me loud and clear: to abolish the Department of Energy.

Now we come today, after that having been done numerous times, we come today and the Energy Department is the answer. These same people wanted to, I guess everything with an ``E'' that's in the Cabinet, they wanted the Department of EPA to be abolished at one time, the Department of Education. They need to change their acronyms over there or else they'll find themselves abolished, if they don't get past A, B,

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

And would the Speaker be kind enough to tell both sides how much time we have remaining?

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

Several of our colleagues, including the previous speaker, are suggesting that this bill is better than previous versions. But this is actually the worst version yet from a public health and environmental perspective.

All you have to do is look at the Statement of Administration Policy to see how this bill has gotten worse. The administration is concerned that there's no clear and appropriate authority for taking corrective action on unlimited or leaking impoundments or units.

Unlike H.R. 2273, from the last Congress, this says that an unlined impoundment that is found to be contaminating groundwater only has to close after alternative disposal capacity is available at the same site. Well, many of these facilities don't have the space for additional capacity at the same site. That means that the pollution can go on for years, or even indefinitely.

This bill is the worst version of coal ash legislation yet. That's why all the environmental groups oppose this legislation. They even sent a letter to the House today that states, ``This bill is more dangerous to human health and environment than previous versions of this legislation.''

Mr. Speaker, I'm very sad today. One of my college classmates is being funeralized, or has been funeralized as we are speaking. Her funeral was at 11 o'clock. She lives in a community called Golden Heights. In Golden Heights, in a 2-square mile radius from a dump that dumped into that community for a considerable period of time, the incidence of cancer of dear friends of mine, male and female, is inordinately high by comparison to any other place in the State of Florida.

Something is wrong with the picture of continuing to pollute and to not be mindful of who are the victims of that pollution.

Mr. Speaker, I make the distinction that I was not talking about coal ash, and I'm glad I don't live near one of those places where they are dumping like in Uniontown, Alabama.

If we defeat the previous question, I'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2070, Representative Tim Bishop's bill to protect consumers from price gouging at the gas pump.

To discuss his bill, I would like now to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), my friend.

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

The previous speaker is a person that, there are few in Congress that I have greater respect for. I certainly understand the dynamics of living in communities. In my judgment, she's absolutely correct that what we should be doing is everything we can to constructively make sure that we are about the business of ensuring the health of the communities that we live in.

So, to that degree, while I stand by my position that I'm glad I don't live next to these facilities, unfortunately, I live close to, and have for some time, facilities that have been harmful that claimed that they were protecting the health and the environment of people.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, my friend from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) said something that I would like to correct. He'll be down here, I'm sure, later today or whenever this measure comes up. He noted that the Environmental Protection Agency testified ``that they do not oppose'' this coal ash bill.

I want to make sure that everyone knows that the Environmental Protection Agency said that because they are not permitted to take a position on legislation, only the administration is allowed to say they support or oppose legislation. And in the administration position last night, they did not say that they don't support the coal ash bill, nor was it a veto threat.

I would urge my colleague from Texas to point me to the time that Barack Obama has vetoed something.

One of the things, I've been on that committee--he's been there 7 months. I've been there years, and I've been there with other Presidents, and it is not uncommon for Congress to propose and to have the administration oppose and vice versa.

Mr. Speaker, both of these bills before us today are so tilted toward commercial operations that they reflect a warped sense of what is important to the people in this great country of ours. These bills undermine environmental laws that have been proven to protect communities and provide for the development of energy to run America.

While we need to develop laws that promote energy and commerce, snide commentary regarding failed policies at the Department of Energy ignores the number of successes through the years under different administrations and this one that the Department of Energy has put forward.

We cannot, in many respects, develop laws that promote energy and commerce and ignore the consequences of those activities. Pollution is not equivalent to progress.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bills, and I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment to the rule in the Record, along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to stop being ``Repealicans'' and be about the business of trying to do something constructive in this House of Representatives.

I would ask them 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak during House consideration of H.R. 10, the ``Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act.''

Jackson Lee Amendments to H.R. 10

I have long supported the need for better data on the experiences of children that Congress could use when deliberating on legislative measures intended to benefit our youngest citizens.

Charter Schools are a new addition to education options available to parents and their children. It is important that Congress ensures that the benefit of a good free pre-K-12 education is available to all parents and children of this nation.

The Education and the Workforce Committee included language in the amendment in the form of a substitute for the bill that reflected an amendment I intended to offer. The language in the bill that adds rates of student attrition as a measure to be considered by charter school authorizers in monitoring the successes of schools is appreciated and will help gain additional insight into children's education.

Attrition data would help us better understand the impact of charter schools on student retention. It would also bring additional transparency regarding the drivers of attrition issues such as discipline, counseling, drop-outs, bullying, as well as the impact of learning disabilities like dyslexia on student retention.

Although the data reporting is not mandatory, it is my hope that charter school districts and charter schools will take up the challenge of providing hard data to make the case for their approaches to education.

I offered two amendments for consideration by the House Rules Committee that would strengthen the legislative goals of H.R. 10.

The amendments were simple and were an important addition to this strong bipartisan effort from the Education and Workforce Committee to bring clarity and improve transparency of charter schools in communities around the nation.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1

The Jackson Lee amendment made in order by the Rules Committee for debate of this bill directs State Education Agencies that award federally funded grants to charter schools under this bill to work with those schools so that they provide information on their websites regarding student recruitment, orientation materials, enrollment criteria, student discipline policies, behavior codes, and parent contract requirements, which should include any financial obligations such as fees for tutoring, and extra-circular activities.

This amendment will make it possible for parents to learn more about how schools deal with important education issues such as academic performance, enrichment programs, and quality of education life issues programs for children with learning disabilities like dyslexia are taught.

Many charter schools already provide this information, and the amendment would support this good transparency practice. This Jackson Lee amendment is good for parents and for charter schools because parents would have access to information that helps them make education decisions for their children; and charter schools would speak to a larger audience regarding their education programs.

Jackson Lee Amendment No. 2

The second Jackson Lee amendment was a ``Sense of the Congress'' on the promotion of, and support for anti-bullying programs in charter schools, including those serving rural communities. I regret that this amendment was not made in order by the Rules Committee because the prevention of bullying is one of the most challenging problems facing school officials.

Bullying is not a new behavior. Kids have been exposed to bullying in school for generations. Now, however, bullying has taken on new heights and sometimes victims of bullies suffer severe and lasting consequences.

For victims of bullying, they go to school every day facing harassment, taunting, and

humiliation. Studies show that 25-35% of teens encountered some type of bullying in their lifetime. Bullying is a form of violent behavior that happens not only in the schools but everywhere.

The National Center for Educational Studies reports show that 14 percent of 12- to 18-year-olds surveyed report being victims of direct or indirect bullying. 1 out of 4 kids is bullied. The Department of Justice reports that 1 out of every 4 kids will be abused by another youth.

I introduced H.R. 2585, the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Reauthorization and the Bullying Prevention and Intervention Act of 2013. This bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 by expanding the juvenile accountability block grant program with respect to programs for the prevention of bullying to include intervention programs. The bill's objective is to reduce and prevent bullying and establish best practices for all activities that are likely to help reduce bullying among young people.

This year a million children will be teased, taunted, and physically assaulted by their peers. Bullying the most common form of violence faced by our nation's youth.

The frequency and intensity of bullying that young people face are astounding: 1 in 7 Students in Grades K-12 is either a bully or a victim of bullying; 90% of 4th to 8th Grade Students report being victims of bullying of some type; 56% of students have personally witnessed some type of bullying at school; 71% of students report incidents of bullying as a problem at their school; 15% of all students who don't show up for school report it to being out of fear of being bullied while at school; 1 out of 20 students has seen a student with a gun at school; 282,000 students are physically attacked in secondary schools each month.

Consequences of bullying: 15% of all school absenteeism is directly related to fears of being bullied at school; according to bullying statistics, 1 out of every 10 students who drops out of school does so because of repeated bullying; suicides linked to bullying are the saddest statistic.

Statistics on Gun Violence: homicide is the 2nd leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24 years old; homicide is the leading cause of death for African Americans between ages 10 and 24; thirteen young people from ages 10-24 become victims of homicide every day; 82.8% of those youths were killed with a firearm; every 30 minutes, a child or teenager in America is injured by a gun; every 3 hours and 15 minutes, a child or teenager loses their life to a firearm; in 2010, 82 children under 5 years of age lost their lives due to guns; one of four high school males reportedly carry a weapon to school, with 8.6% of reportedly carry a gun; 87% of youth said shootings are motivated by a desire to ``get back at those who have hurt them, and 86% said, ``other kids picking on them, making fun of them or bullying them'' causes teenagers to turn to lethal violence in the schools; in 2011, over 707,000 young people, aged 10 to 24 years, had to be rushed to the emergency room as a result of physical assault injuries.

Victims of bullying often suffer in silence and parents are the last ones to know that their child is being bullied or may be a bully. What once was thought to be a childhood ritual has been proven by school psychologists, law enforcement officials, parents, and students to be much more serious.

Anti-bullying programs can help children understand the seriousness of bullying; and assist parents in learning the signs of bullying as well as learning how to speak to their children about the issue of bullying.

H.R. 10 will consolidate two existing federal charter school programs into one:

The Charter School Program, which supports grants for charter school developers to open new charter schools. The program also provides funds to disseminate best practices and provide state facilities aid to charter schools.

The Charter School Credit Enhancement Program assists charter schools in accessing better credit terms to acquire and renovate facilities to operate a charter school.

The rule will allow the consideration of the bill that will create a new federal charter schools program to promote high-quality charter schools at the state and local level; and allows states to use federal funds to start new charter schools as well as expand and replicate existing high-quality charter schools.

The bill adds a new component--a Charter Management Organization grant program to support the opening of additional charter schools nationwide.

H.R. 10 establishes a new Charter School Program that would consist of three parts:

Grants to support high-quality charter schools will be awarded to a State Educational Agency, the State Charter School Board, the Governor, or a Charter School Support Organization.

Facilities Aid will be awarded to continue credit enhancement activities and support state facilities aid for charter schools.

National Activities will allow the secretary of education to operate a grant competition for charter schools in states that did not win or compete for a state grant and a competition for high quality CMOs.

The legislation adds five new definitions: a ``charter management organization, a charter support organization'', a ``high-quality charter school''; the ``expansion of a high-quality charter school''; and a ``replicable, high-quality charter school model.''

H.R. 10 authorizes $300,000,000 for fiscal years 2015 through 2020. The bill permits state-determined weighted lotteries and allows students to continue in the school program of their choice by clarifying students in affiliated charter schools can attend the next immediate grade in that network's school.

I strongly believe that where our children are concerned, Congress is in a unique position to advocate on their behalf in an effective and forceful way. Letting children know by our actions that members of Congress consider the lives of children and their experience to be of the utmost importance would help them in countless ways.

We cannot gamble with our children's future, and ultimately the future of our nation. I am committed to finding ways to make sure that education is as valued as national defense--because education is crucial to our nation's global success in all areas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning-hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning- hour and noon for legislative business.

On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.

On Friday, no votes are expected.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today.

In addition, the House will consider H.R. 2397, the Department of Defense appropriations bill, authored by Representative Bill Young. This bill provides the resources necessary for our men and women in the armed services to carry out their vital mission.

There are also a number of bills the Appropriations Committee has reported which may come to the floor in the near future.

Furthermore, the House may consider two energy bills out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The first bill, H.R. 2218, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act, authored by Representative David McKinley, would create an enforceable minimum standard for the regulation of coal ash by the States, allowing their use in a safe manner that protects jobs.

The second bill, H.R. 1582, the Energy Consumers Relief Act, sponsored by Representative Bill Cassidy, will require the EPA, before finalizing any energy-related rule costing more than $1 billion, to report to Congress on specific energy price and job impacts.

Both of these bills, Mr. Speaker, foster an environment of economic growth and lower energy costs for American families and businesses.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as you know, the House acted last month to prevent the doubling of the student loan interest rate. Should the Senate send us legislation, the House may act as soon as next week.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I'd respond to the gentleman by saying that we are committed to acting with urgency to bring to the floor a bill under the nutrition title of what was formerly the farm bill, which that title married up with the agricultural provisions.

It is our hope that we can get a nutrition bill to the floor, because we believe strongly that the programs under those titles, providing a safety net to the country's most vulnerable, are something important that we maintain and we implement the kind of reforms to those programs that have long been called for by the GAO and others so that we can make sure of the efficient flow of dollars to those beneficiaries who most need it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And I know that the gentleman, in his call for regular order, also knows that the House has its prerogatives, as does the other body. We believe strongly that marriage of the two constituencies of the old farm bill was a marriage that began some 40 years ago. And, frankly, it is the sense of the majority in the House that that marriage makes little sense and that, instead, if we could, as a House, opt to be transparent and look at the policies on the agricultural side the way that we did and then look at the policies under the nutrition title in the same deliberative fashion, that we can actually make for a better product.

Now, the gentleman says that the farm bill that was passed was a partisan bill. Certainly, no member of the minority voted for the bill, but I would, and not to rehash colloquy from several weeks ago, say that the same attitude was taken with the old farm bill by the minority saying it was too partisan.

We intend to proceed deliberately, looking at policies that make sense in reforming these programs in the vein of trying to get to those most vulnerable the relief they need, at the same time paying cognizance to the fact that we have fiscal challenges we must deal with.

We're trying to be about truth in legislating, Mr. Speaker, and that is making sure that the purpose of agricultural policy is adequately addressed, as well as the purpose of the nutrition title and providing relief to our country's most vulnerable.

Again, not to belabor the point but just to correct the facts and make sure that the record reflects what I did say before and what I represented, I said it was our intention to act with dispatch to bring to the floor a bill dealing with the SNAP program, that portion of which was traditionally the farm bill, and that we intend to be bringing that vehicle to the floor at some time in the near future. I did not say, Mr. Speaker, what it was the gentleman indicated.

We would like to say to all of our colleagues that we want to work together on a nutrition title. The gentleman heard what I said before. The marriage of those two bills and policies was done in an arbitrary fashion 50 years ago, as he indicated. There is no policy reason for that to be done. And we're trying to get down to what policy works and the reform of making sure that we pay attention to the efficacy of the programs, getting the dollars to the people who need it, and doing so in an efficient manner takes some deliberative approach. That is why Members on the majority side of the aisle felt very strongly that we should act in the way we did. And we intend to bring a nutrition title to the floor. We're working with the chairman of the Agriculture Committee to get that policy right.

So I hope that the gentleman, in his spirit of bipartisanship, will work with us to do that.

I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that, yes, we are looking forward to the legislative activity for the remainder of this month, as I said earlier, to include appropriations bills. We also look towards the prospect of the other body perhaps beginning to act, as the gentleman indicated, at all on appropriations bills.

It does take two to be bicameral. We need that body to act as well. I look forward to seeing how we resolve differences on spending levels and policy differences as we approach the end of the fiscal year, very well aware that we have challenges ahead, and look to find resolution to those, yes, in a bipartisan way and necessarily in a bicameral way.

The gentleman knows that he speaks of two different things when it comes to spending and when it comes to the budget blueprint.

The gentleman and I, Mr. Speaker, have had this discussion several times in these colloquies about why it is that Chairman Ryan has taken the position he has, as has our Speaker and our leadership, in that we don't want to go into a discussion if the prerequisite is you have to raise taxes. That's the bottom line. It's not process. It's substance. It is one of those issues that continues to make the divide between the parties.

Frankly, if one thinks that Washington spends tax dollars well, that we should go ahead and ask the hardworking taxpayers to pay more. Our side doesn't believe in that approach. Until we get beyond that, I'm not so sure there's going to be resolution as to a budget conference.

It does not mean that we cannot continue the work that we are doing on the appropriations bills and on the other policy measures that are coming to this floor in hopes of finding areas we can agree on. But there is a strong one we disagree on--and that is the issue of additional revenues in an environment where Washington doesn't spend what it does spend well.

We're trying to get to the bottom of that, effect good policy, act in a deliberative manner, and are willing to work with the Senate. The problem is the Senate hasn't even begun their appropriations process on the floor there. And that was my point about bicameral and, hopefully, in a bipartisan way.

I didn't say no relationship. I said the gentleman knows that we're talking about two different things when we're talking about a budget blueprint and the spending bills. Two different things.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman that, as he correctly indicated, our chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), has said that our system of immigration is broken and that he and the members of that committee are fast about trying to look at the complex issues of our immigration system and trying to deal with them in a fashion that is discrete on each issue, with a solution thereto. And in that committee we are in the process, as the gentleman knows, of looking at all of that and intend on making sure we get it right. The chairman has said rather than just doing it, we want to do it right. And we intend to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that the DOD approps bill will be coming to the floor, and the Rules Committee will decide on the structure and how that debate will occur. We will announce that, obviously, upon the Rules Committee meeting.

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.