Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I rise today in favor of H.R. 1173. This bill would save hardworking taxpayer dollars and eliminate a costly and flawed ObamaCare provision known as the CLASS Act.

This program was sold as a self-sustaining program, one that would reduce Federal spending. However, the program was problematic from the start. The President and the Democrat leadership in the Congress knew this fact over 2\1/2\ years ago and still included the CLASS program in the health care bill.

During an investigation, it was revealed that Obama administration officials and Senate Democrats were very much aware that this was not going to work and that Department officials warned for a year before passage that the CLASS program would be a fiscal disaster. As far back as May of 2009, the CMS Chief Actuary sent an email that warned officials that the program doesn't look workable. These 200 pages of exhibits from the investigation show that Department officials were voicing concern to Senate leadership all the way up until passage in December of 2009. This was all concealed from Congress and the American public.

After enactment, the concerns continued. On February of 2011, Secretary Sebelius testified before the Senate Finance Committee that the CLASS program is totally unsustainable in its present form. And finally, this past October, the Department announced that the program was still not financially feasible. What we are seeing now is that, as well intended as it is, the CLASS program is unworkable.

The objective of providing long-term health care is laudable and should be a priority of Congress. Therefore, we must identify a long- term, commonsense solution for our health care. That is why last week I asked GAO to conduct a study of the Medicaid Long-Term Care Partnership Program and survey States on how to improve the partnership program so that more Americans can properly plan for their long-term care needs.

This public-private partnership between States and long-term care insurance plans was designed to reduce Medicaid expenditures by lessening the need for some people to rely on Medicaid to pay for long- term health care services.

The partnership program is not the only solution to our long-term health care, but it is a helpful tool to help Americans plan for their health care long-term needs, unlike the unsustainable and costly CLASS Act embedded in ObamaCare.

The repeal of the CLASS Act marks a small victory. Let's not try to force this costly program on the backs of hardworking American taxpayers without fully investigating how we can improve existing programs or how we can create an affordable, sustainable, long-term care program.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1173.

Mr. Speaker, on January 4, the West Virginia University Mountaineers football team faced the Clemson University Tigers in the prestigious Orange Bowl. Through an outstanding record-setting performance, the blue-collar work ethic of the West Virginia Mountaineers prevailed.

Eighty-four percent of the country had predicted that West Virginia would lose, but in case you missed it, the final score was 70-33. West Virginia's unheralded players proudly showed once again that as a team, they can dominate the best of schools on any given day, just like they've done defeating Georgia and Oklahoma in previous BCS bowl games.

Everyone in West Virginia should be proud of their State and their flagship university.

So let me end with this: For those Clemson supporters who still don't know where West Virginia is, look in your end zone.

Madam Speaker, today I am happy to announce that Company C, 150th Aviation United of the West Virginia National Guard is on the way home to their families and should arrive this afternoon after serving our Nation for the past 12 months in Kosova. Truly, there could not be a better Christmas present.

Company C is based in the First District of West Virginia in my hometown of Wheeling and was deployed 1 year

ago to Kosova on a peacekeeping mission. While overseas, the unit was responsible for all aerial operations within their area of responsibility. Company C soldiers logged 2,899 flight hours in 951 missions, they ran multiple mechanical inspections and refueling missions, and dispensed 246,260 gallons of fuel.

The West Virginia National Guard plays a key role in the defense of our country and interests around the world. America could not be prouder to have these men and women as our representatives.

Today I am thrilled to say, Welcome home, Company C.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I voted to protect the Social Security Trust Fund by opposing H.R. 3630 and would like to take this opportunity to discuss my decision. This bill was a patchwork of many policies that were thrown together at the last hour and created a flawed piece of legislation that I could not support.

Primarily, the corner stone of this legislation--the extension of the payroll tax reduction--did not create jobs for the last year it has been in effect. Over the past five months, I have been vocal in my opposition to the President's unproductive plan. Since, I do support a long-term ``doc fix'' to ensure that doctors continue to accept Medicare patients, I do not support the $17 billion cut from hospital payments, including those that are essential to help hospitals care for low-income Medicare patients. I do support the Keystone XL pipeline and efforts to reform unemployment insurance; however, these were not the central issues of the legislation we considered yesterday.

Over the last several days, I have conducted numerous town hall-like meetings to discuss this legislation with constituents. As a result of these conversations with everyday West Virginians, it was apparent to me that breaking from both President Obama and even my own party on this bill was the right thing to do.

Washington just doesn't get it. This tax cut has been in effect for the last year and it clearly did not improve the economy. And at what cost? For the second year in a row, this bill would take another $180 billion from Social Security with a promise to be paid back over the years, all to give the average West Virginia worker an extra $30 in his or her paycheck every two weeks. That's not a jobs plan--it's a re- election plan. We have seen these same unsuccessful economic plans for the past three years, and for those three years they have failed miserably. Does it make sense to continue to make choices that we know from experience do not work?

I will concede that after spending most of this past year above 9 percent, unemployment has dropped to 8.6 percent. But the primary driver of this change is simply that 315,000 Americans simply stopped looking for work. Also, at this time of year, the retail industry increases their staff by almost 50 percent; those people will be back on unemployment benefits in February. Nobody can say that the payroll tax ``holiday'' has had a meaningful impact on the unemployment rate thus far, nor will it likely prove beneficial if extended for another year.

We've all been told that Social Security's finances are in trouble, yet President Obama's plan makes the situation worse. We cannot continue to send mixed messages to senior citizens and current workers. They need to be able to trust that Social Security will be there for them. If we do not stop extending this payroll tax cut, then Social Security will cease to be a guarantee and instead become another typical government program reliant entirely on politicians' whims.

That's not fair for our seniors or current workers who are currently paying into Social Security. So the question becomes, if not now, when we will stop raiding Social Security?

H.R. 3630 is just another temporary tax reduction that only produces more uncertainty for employers and fails to protect our seniors. Real structural reforms are needed to stabilize Social Security. Past experience shows that Congress will spend the next 10 years figuring out how to spend the money designated as offsets for today's bill on other projects. It won't be used to pay for the bill; I could not in good faith support a measure that will raid the trust fund without comprehensive reform to the system.

As Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said, ``People don't generally respond well to temporary tax cuts so it's unlikely you're going to see a strong economic response.'' House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has likened the payroll tax cut to ``sugar-high economics.'' And Chris Edwards, a tax scholar at the Cato Institute, said that the president's plan ``is based on faulty Keynesian theories and misplaced confidence in the government's ability to micromanage short-run growth.'' Perpetuating the president's failed economic policies,

especially if we have to rob Social Security to do it, has to stop.

Additionally, the reductions in federal reimbursements to hospitals that are contained in this legislation are not acceptable. Hospitals in northern West Virginia are already being paid at some of the lowest Medicare rates in the country; we should not be making it even harder for the hospitals to provide quality healthcare to our seniors.

Again, since this bill was loaded up at the last minute with several items which I have already strongly supported throughout this Congress--including jumpstarting the Keystone Pipeline, relaxing EPA regulations on boilers, extending and reforming unemployment benefits and other government programs, and preventing a scheduled 27% cut to doctors' Medicare reimbursement rates--it is simply unacceptable to continue the president's misguided economic theories at seniors' expense.

This bill has a long way to go despite the short timeframe in which Congress is operating, and if significant changes are made, it may be worth another look. But I came to Washington to get something done, create jobs, and restore common sense to the process. Unfortunately this particular bill fails that test.

I rise today in support of H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust bill.

Earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 2273, the bipartisan coal ash legislation. Unfortunately, opponents of the Farm Dust bill believe that nuisance dust in this bill might include fly ash. Therefore, an amendment was offered and adopted to clarify that the definition of ``nuisance dust'' in the Farm Dust bill does not include coal ash or other coal combustion residuals. The amendment makes it perfectly clear that nuisance dust is not composed of any residuals from coal combustion. Unfortunately, opponents of the Farm Dust bill are still, apparently, unaware of the changes that have been made to the bill to address their concerns.

Don't oppose the Farm Dust bill because you don't like fly ash. Let's relieve one more threat to our agricultural community with the passage of this bill. We should be striving to create more jobs, not putting up more barriers with misinformation.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would reduce the threshold for a major rule from $100 million or more to $50 million. This would ensure greater accountability.

Let's keep this in perspective. I base this amendment on legislation that has already been adopted by the House--in 1995--with bipartisan support which lowered the threshold to $50 million. It passed with a vote of 277-141 with much of today's leadership who were here at the time supporting it.

Also, in perspective, in fiscal year 2011, only 2.6 percent of all the rules were classified as ``major,'' and in 2010 it was only 3 percent that met that criteria. Keep that in consideration. Would you be satisfied with only 2 or 3 percent of your food being inspected or 2 or 3 percent of the aircraft which we fly?

According to the Small Business Administration, in 2008 it cost the economy $1.75 trillion in regulations. We just went through a gut- wrenching supercommittee that tried to reduce $1.5 trillion, but yet we let, every year, hundreds of billions of dollars pass through without involvement of Congress.

Since January of this year, we have already seen 67,000 more pages of regulation, 88 million hours, man-hours, have been lost by businesses and employers trying to respond to the regulatory reform. None of this has had congressional oversight or approval.

Canada realizes there needs to be more accountability, and they require all rules and regs of $50 million or more to come before their legislative body.

Congress, having jurisdiction of only 2 or 4 percent may be better than nothing, but I believe America deserves better. We need a system of checks and balances. No wonder the American people have lost their confidence in Congress and the Federal Government. I'm hopeful that the chairman will see the issues that I have raised here today and work with me on future legislation to correct that.

With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your willingness to work with me on these issues.

Since Congress deserves to have more specific numbers that have not been available from GAO and the CBO relative to lowering this threshold from $100 million to $50 million, I ask unanimous consent, for now, to withdraw my amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, today I was proud to introduce H.R. 3451, a bill that would name the Federal Courthouse in Wheeling, WV after one of our country's leading and most respected jurists, Honorable Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Federal Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

Judge Stamp has served with distinction and honor since he was nominated by President George H.W. Bush and then confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 1990 and served as the Chief Judge of the Court from 1994 to 2001 before assuming senior status in 2006.

Born in Wheeling, WV, Judge Stamp received a B.A. from Washington and Lee University in 1956, and attended the University of Virginia School of Law before receiving an LL.B. from the University of Richmond, T.C. Williams School of Law in 1959. Upon graduation, Judge Stamp was a private in the United States Army from 1959 to 1960, and a First Lieutenant in the United States Army Reserves from 1960 to 1967. Prior to his nomination to the Federal Court, he was in private practice in Wheeling, West Virginia from 1960 to 1990.

Judge Stamp and his wife Joan are the proud parents of two children, Andy and Elizabeth.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a privilege for me to introduce this legislation to honor my friend Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, recently the Civitan Club of Wheeling, West Virginia, hosted a learning session on ``Employing Individuals with Disabilities.'' With nearly 50 million Americans living with disabilities, I applaud the efforts of the Wheeling Civitan Club for recognizing the importance of providing individuals with disabilities the tools necessary to be successful.

President Ronald Reagan called for people to provide understanding, encouragement, and opportunities to help persons with disabilities lead productive and fulfilling lives.

As an individual with a significant hearing impairment, and a grandfather of a child with special needs, I am very familiar with the hardships of overcoming the obstacles of disabilities.

Disabilities have no boundaries. They cut across the lines of racial, ethnic, educational, social, and economic backgrounds and can occur in any family. I encourage us all to learn about the people in our community who have disabilities, and to recognize that all of us have talents and abilities that can make this a better place in which to live.

I rise in support of the rule.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of this bipartisan, pro-job, pro-environment, pro-health legislation. After 30 years of debate, of charges and countercharges, we can finally get this done.

Just as an example of the disparity and misrepresentation here, we talked about mercury. That was discussed earlier. Fluorescent light bulbs in our homes contain mercury in a higher concentration than coal ash, but yet our fluorescent light bulbs are disposed of in a way that we're going to take care of now under this bill.

In fact, there are two parts of this bill. The first part removes the stigma of the EPA classifying fly ash as a hazardous material. Several studies by the EPA have concluded time and time again that the chemical characteristics within coal ash are nonhazardous.

We've already heard the advantages of the recycling.

But I just want to remind the gentleman from California that during the subcommittee markup, he supported the Baldwin amendment that prohibited the EPA from regulating coal ash as a hazardous material, yet he continues to refer to coal ash as toxic. This is simply unacceptable. One cannot have his cake and eat it, too.

The second part of the bill, which deals with disposal, was worked on with Democrats, State agencies, and a cross section of stakeholders during subcommittee, full committee, and before this bill came to the House floor.

Ultimately, should this legislation become law and new scientifically based factors arise, this legislation will allow for the flexibility of the States and the EPA to work together to adjust the coal ash program accordingly. If a State has no program, fly ash impoundments will not be permitted by the EPA until they do. If a State opts not to have a fly ash program, the EPA will have primacy. If the government should lower the drinking water standard at any time because of changes in chemical characteristics such as those found in coal ash, then the States will have to comply with those new standards.

But should a State, such as proposed in California, decide to lower their standards below the federal level, then they have the option to do that under the 10th Amendment.

H.R. 2273 simply allows for a flexible system, a working relationship with the State and Federal Governments to carry out a long overdue coal ash program at the State level with stringent requirements for liners, groundwater monitoring, financial assurance, dam safety and integrity, and most of all, protection of health and the environment. All of this will be achieved with assistance, approval, and oversight by the EPA.

I ask all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan, pro-job legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Before I agree to support the gentleman's amendment, I would like some clarification on one of the provisions it contains. It would amend the definition of ``revised criteria'' in the bill to read: ``The criteria promulgated for municipal solid waste landfill units . . . as revised under section 4010(c) in accordance with the requirement of such section that the criteria protect human health and the environment.''

Does the gentleman's amendment open the door, even a sliver, to EPA promulgating coal ash regulations not otherwise authorized in this bill under the guise of protecting human health and the environment; or for EPA to use the language as an arbitrary yardstick by which to judge State programs?

Madam Chairman, the 4010(c) of RCRA also gives EPA authority to take into account the practicable capabilities of such facilities.

Does the gentleman's amendment alter that authority in any way?

With those clarifications, I will support the gentleman's amendment.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Thank you.

To my colleague from Illinois, as the sponsor of this particular legislation and one of just two engineers in Congress that are licensed or capable of designing these structures, I wanted to make certain that in the bill there is the language that you're concerned about; that we do have the ability--under page 6, if you've not read the bill yet. But it talks about how that's to be designed, constructed, and maintained under this language.

So we have to make sure this bill, if we pass it, is going to be maintained and the State's going to look at it. If

there's a violation of that, then the EPA can step in. Because please understand that we've got numbers of protections written into this bill. The EPA enforcement inspection authority is already there.

Under page 18, if you've read the rest of the bill, it talks about imminent hazard. They can step in at any time under imminent hazard and take control over this if they have a problem with it. There's also the provision for law enforcement.

But, more importantly, if the EPA determines that a particular State coal combustion residual program is deficient--if it's deficient because of a lack of proper implementation, there are options available in the bill for the EPA to step in, administer, and enforce the program in that State.

My colleague, this amendment, although well intended, is unnecessary. It's not about giving the EPA authority it does not have and will not have. It's another vote of no confidence in the State, while, at the same time, encouraging the EPA to meddle in State matters.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Let me reclaim my time, if I could.

Again, with all due respect, I think there are at least three components there that you're overlooking in your amendment. One is that these dams are designed by professional engineers that are stamping and maintaining and seen by contractors. They have to see that those dams are maintained, those structures. So there's not a threat.

Second, you have the issue of imminent hazard under page 18. Please read the bill, and you'll see that they can step in at any time if they feel that there's a threat. They can step in and take care of that.

And then there are other provisions in there that allow other people to file class actions or individual actions against this if they feel it's being violated. So we've got three protections already built into this bill to take care of the issue, which I agree you can be concerned about. But it's one thing we made sure was in this bill when it was drafted.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this past week, West Virginia experienced a tremendous loss. Milan ``Mike'' Puskar, cofounder, former chairman and CEO of Mylan Labs in Morgantown and the namesake of WVU's Milan Puskar Stadium, passed away.

Mike was not only a visionary entrepreneur who grew Mylan into the largest generic drug manufacturer in America, but he also was a beloved philanthropist who was passionate about our Mountain State. He was an extremely committed supporter of West Virginia University and gave selflessly of his time and treasure to the academic and athletic programs there.

Milan had a kind heart and lived his life with the utmost integrity. The life he lived and the legacy he left behind have left West Virginia a better place for our children and grandchildren.

My wife, Mary, and I, as well as all West Virginians and Mountaineer fans across this country, will keep Mike and his family in our thoughts and prayers. He will be missed by all.

Mr. Speaker, Israel is America's best and only reliable ally in the Middle East. Now the national security of Israel is being threatened by the Palestinians' rejection of the Oslo Peace Accords as they seek recognition directly from the United Nations.

America stands firmly with Israel and believes that peace in the Middle East can only be achieved through a negotiated solution.

I call on the Palestinian Authority to make peace with the democracy of Israel and the free world and to reject the terrorists of Hamas.

Prime Minister Netanyahu should be applauded for his efforts to restart direct, one-on-one negotiations with

President Abbas without the influence of outside organizations.

Today, President Abbas should abandon Palestine's push for a vote on statehood and reengage with Israel to forge a lasting peace accord.

Mr. Speaker, the size of our debt is the greatest threat to our Nation's economy, and it inhibits the creation of jobs, jobs needed in West Virginia and all across America. But there is a plan to correct this. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, which I'm cosponsoring, lays out a clear and responsible vision for solving our debt limit crisis.

President Obama must realize that his request to raise the debt ceiling without fundamental spending reforms is a non-starter. I won't deny that the President inherited a bad economic situation, but he made it worse. His failed stimulus program, the job-killing costs of ObamaCare, and the billions of dollars added to our country's spending through expanded programs have all contributed to the trillion dollars of new debt we are faced with today.

It's time to get serious and solve the problem. We have a plan. Let's pass Cut, Cap, and Balance today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Chairman Frelinghuysen and the committee for their efforts in developing legislation that is intended to streamline processes and increase efficiency within the Department of Energy. Throughout this legislation, we can see intelligent savings that will result in less spending and more efficient use of tax dollars.

However, I'm concerned that this legislation as written and reported will have the unintended consequence of destroying the National Energy Technology Laboratory's ability to manage approximately $19 billion in contracts and conduct the necessary research and

development to advance safe natural gas drilling, clean coal technologies and energy independence.

I shared my concerns with Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky in a bipartisan letter signed by my colleagues Mike Doyle, Tim Murphy, and Mark Critz.

America depends on fossil resources for 85 percent of our energy requirements, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Coal is mined in 26 States in our country and used to generate electricity in 48 of the 50 States. However, without NETL's research into clean coal technology, hundreds of thousands of jobs across America are in jeopardy.

The fossil fuel R&D program that is being cut in this bill is unique among the DOE programs because the program direction account includes funding for the operations, maintenance, and administration of the National Energy Technology Lab, along with salaries and benefits for all of the Federal researchers who work there. NETL is the only government owned, government operated national laboratory. OMB requires that all Federal costs be included in the program direction account.

This amendment would restore the funding cut within Fossil Energy Research and Development to program direction in an effort to recognize the outstanding work being done by NETL and the unique manner in which the laboratory is funded and maintained.

Mr. Chairman, these projects are in every State and almost every congressional district in the country. Virtually every one of my colleagues has a vested interest in this laboratory being funded sufficiently and effectively so we can complete these projects.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's remarks, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Offered By: Mr. McKinley

Amendment No. 25: Page 24, line 18, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $39,000,000)''.

Page 28, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $39,000,000)''.