Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose this bill because it's a mere political message--not a solution for the Nation's coal mining communities.

Simply put: Jobs are being lost in the coalfields because natural gas is cheaper.

Adopting this bill will do nothing to change those market forces.

Likewise, this bill has nothing to do with protecting coal miners or ensuring they return home safely after their shift.

It's been more than two years since 29 miners died in the Upper Big Branch mine. And for more than two years, families who lost a loved one in the mine have demanded congressional action.

They want to ensure that the system does not let unscrupulous mine owners cover up unsafe conditions.

All they want is to be sure that no other family will have to go through what they did.

Well, more than two years and four investigative reports later, this Congress still has not acted.

I've met plenty of miners in my day. They're smart enough to see through this stunt.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and turn our attention to job creation and job safety.

I rise with my colleagues Congressman Jerry McNerney and Congressman John Garamendi to take this opportunity to recognize and congratulate Contra Costa Times pet and wildlife columnist Gary Bogue as he retires after 42 years of public service.

Gary began his long career as a columnist in 1970 while still working at the Lindsey Wildlife Museum. During his thirteen year tenure as curator of the museum, he established one of the Nation's first wildlife rescue programs, tending to injured wildlife and raising a wide variety of orphaned animals. In 1982, Gary signed on as a full- time writer with the Contra Costa Times, using the skills and knowledge he gained as a curator to share his expertise on wildlife and domestic animals with the public in his own daily column.

As a prominent voice for preserving and protecting the environment in our region, Gary has left a lasting impact on our community. In 1990, when Oakland Athletics manager and animal-lover Tony La Russa realized that there was not a single ``no-kill'' shelter for animals in the area, he called on Gary for help. Together they cemented the idea that a nonprofit shelter was urgently needed. A year later La Russa launched his Animal Rescue Foundation (ARF), which has helped countless homeless and unwanted pets to find permanent homes. Through his column, Gary has also spread awareness about the importance of preserving our natural land and has been a valued partner with such organizations as Save Mount Diablo and the Muir Heritage Land Trust in advocating the preservation of open space in the East Bay.

Over the years, Gary's work has been widely recognized throughout the Bay Area as his writing was picked up by the Oakland Tribune, San Mateo County Times, and the San Jose Mercury News. He has also written five books that have connected with environmentalists and wildlife advocates worldwide.

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in commending Gary Bogue for his committed and diligent service to the community, our natural environment and the wildlife whose space we share on this planet. I am pleased to join his family, friends, and colleagues in congratulating Gary on an outstanding career and wish him the very best as he begins a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, on September 13, 2012, I inadvertently voted ``nay'' on Roll No. 575. I ask that the record reflect that I intended to vote ``yea,'' to approve H.R. 1775.

Mr. Speaker, on September 10, 2012, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: on rollcall vote No. 557, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall vote No. 558, I would have voted ``yea''; on rollcall vote No. 559, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, while I fully believe that the Federal Reserve is in need of greater transparency and accountability, I rise in opposition to this bill, which I believe approaches the issue in a problematic way. I want to be clear that the Fed should not take my vote against this bill as a vote of confidence.

In order for the Federal Reserve to function properly as an independent central bank, I believe that its monetary policy functions must be independent of pressure from Congress, which would be jeopardized by a GAO audit of

the Fed's monetary policy. We've seen recently the harmful impact that congressional pressure can have on the Fed's monetary policy even without this audit, such as Republican members of Congress urging the Fed to take no further actions to rescue the economy, which is why I bring to my colleagues' attention the below column by former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman, Alan Blinder, in which he points out additional options for the Fed to tackle the elevated unemployment rate that are not being used.

That said, it is clear that cultural change is needed at the Federal Reserve, which has too often put the needs of America's biggest banks ahead of the interests of the American public. As just the latest example, JP Morgan Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon, has refused to resign from the board of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, despite the fact that the New York Fed is investigating misbehavior at JPMorgan Chase's Chief Investment Office that contributed to its recent multi-billion dollar trading loss.

Furthermore, I strongly supported a provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that has increased transparency at the Fed, providing for an audit of the emergency financial assistance provided by the Fed during the financial crisis, as well as requiring the Fed to release information going forward about parties participating in emergency lending programs and the details of those transactions. The bill also importantly limited the power of bankers like Mr. Dimon who serve on the boards of regional Federal Reserve Banks.

There is one aspect of today's bill that I strongly support, the provision of this bill added in committee by Mr. Cummings, which provides for an audit of the Independent Foreclosure Review, which has been grossly mismanaged by the Fed and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and does not appear to be on track to provide appropriate compensation to homeowners who were abused. I believe that the Fed needs to know that their role is to look out for the American public, and I hope they hear that loud and clear today.

How Bernanke Can Get Banks Lending Again

(By Alan S. Blinder)

If the Fed reduces the reward for holding excess reserves,

banks will have to find something else to do with their

money, like making loans or putting it in the capital

markets.

The U.S. economy could use another boost, and it won't come

from fiscal policy. Can the Federal Reserve provide it?

Chairman Ben Bernanke keeps insisting that the central bank

is not out of ammunition, and in a literal sense he is right.

After all, the Fed has not yet exhausted its bag of tricks.

It is still twisting the yield curve. It can purchase more

assets. It can tell us that its federal funds target interest

rate will remain 0-25 basis points beyond late 2014. It can

even nudge the funds rate down within that range. The

operational question is: How powerful are any of these

weapons?

Let's start with Operation Twist, which was recently

extended through the end of this year. The Fed seeks to

flatten the yield curve by buying longer-term Treasurys and

selling shorter-term ones. And it's probably succeeding--a

bit. But Federal Reserve activity in the Treasury markets is

modest compared with the vast volume of trading.

Realistically, the U.S. yield curve is probably influenced

far more by daily developments in Europe. In any case, the

Fed will be out of short-term Treasurys to sell by December.

The logical next step would be more quantitative easing--

QE3--or, as the Fed likes to call it, more large-scale asset

purchases. Purchases of what? There are two main choices. One

is Treasurys. But does anyone really think that lower U.S.

Treasury rates are what this country needs?

Mortgage-backed securities (MBS) are a better choice, the

idea being to reduce mortgage rates by shrinking the spread

between MBS and Treasurys. But mortgage rates are already

falling toward 3.5%. With 10-year expected inflation around

2.1%, can a 1.4% real interest rate be deterring many

prospective home buyers? No, they are shut out of the market

by the unavailability of credit. Posted rates are low, but

try getting a mortgage.

The third available weapon is what the Fed calls ``forward

guidance''--that is, indicating (please don't say promising!)

that the 0-25 basis points funds rate will be maintained for

years to come. The Fed's current guidance (please don't call

it a pledge!) extends ``at least through late 2014.'' While

that's pretty far into the future, the Fed could stretch

it to 2015, 2016 or 2025 for that matter.

In rational models, the yield curve should flatten a bit

every time the Fed pushes that date out further. But the key

words here are ``rational'' and ``a bit.'' To most bond

traders, two and a half years is already an eternity. Would

they really respond much if 2015 replaced 2014?

This brief analysis paints a pretty grim picture: The Fed

has three weak weapons, one of which will be exhausted by

year's end.

Fortunately, there is more the Fed can do. I have two out-

of-the-box suggestions to make, one in today's column and

another in a companion piece soon.

The simpler option is one I've been urging on the Fed for

more than two years: Lower the interest rate paid on excess

reserves. The basic idea is simple. If the Fed reduces the

reward for holding excess reserves, banks will hold less of

them--which means they will have to find something else to do

with the money, such as lending it out or putting it in the

capital markets.

The Fed sees this as a radical change. But remember that it

paid no interest on reserves before the 2008 crisis and, not

surprisingly, banks held practically no excess reserves then.

In early October of that year, Congress gave the Fed

authority to pay interest on reserves, which it promptly

started doing. When the Fed trimmed the federal funds rate to

its current 0-25 basis-point range in December 2008, it also

lowered the interest rate on reserves to 25 basis points,

where it has been ever since.

My suggestion is to push it lower in two stages. First,

test the waters by cutting the interest on excess reserves

(in Fedspeak, the ``IOER'') to zero. Then, if nothing goes

wrong, drop it to, say, minus-25 basis points--that is,

charge banks a fee for holding their money at the Fed. Doing

so would provide a powerful incentive for banks to disgorge

some of their idle reserves. True, most of the money would

probably find its way into short-term money-market

instruments such as fed funds, T-bills and commercial paper.

But some would probably flow into increased lending, which is

just what the economy needs.

The Fed has steadfastly opposed this idea for years. Why?

One objection is true but silly: Lowering the IOER might not

be a very powerful instrument. No kidding. Are there a lot of

powerful instruments sitting around unused?

The other objection is that making the IOER zero or

negative would push other money-market rates even closer to

zero than they are now, thereby hurting money-market funds

and otherwise impeding the functioning of money markets. My

answer two years ago was that we have more important things

to worry about. My answer today is that it has mostly

happened anyway: U.S. money-market rates are negligible.

It is noteworthy that the European Central Bank just jumped

ahead of the Fed by cutting the rate it pays on bank deposits

to zero--and European money markets did not die. Denmark's

National Bank went even further, dropping its deposit rate to

minus 20 basis points. Yet the Little Mermaid still sits in

Copenhagen harbor.

The Fed's hostility toward lowering the interest on excess

reserves is almost self-contradictory. When Mr. Bernanke

lists the weapons the Fed plans to use when the time comes to

tighten monetary policy, he always gives raising the IOER a

prominent role. His reasoning is straightforward and sound:

If the Fed makes holding reserves more attractive, banks will

hold more of them. Why doesn't the same reasoning apply in

the other direction?

But suppose it doesn't work. Suppose the Fed cuts the IOER

from 25 basis points to minus 25 basis points, and banks

don't lend one penny more. In that case, the Fed stops paying

banks almost $4 billion a year in interest and, instead,

starts collecting roughly equal fees from banks.

That would be almost an $8 billion swing from banks to

taxpayers. There are worse things.

Mr. Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at

Princeton University, is a former vice chairman of the

Federal Reserve.

Mr. Speaker, on July 23, 2012, I was in California attending to family obligations. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

On rollcall vote No. 499, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 500, I would have voted ``nay.''

On rollcall vote No. 501, I would have voted ``yea.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is nothing more than a cynical attempt to put the profits of well-connected special interests above the interests of working families and middle class Americans. But this is nothing new. In this House, ideology prevails over bipartisanship, the powerful over the middle class families, politics over job creation, and brinksmanship over cooperation.

Congress has paid the price in its approval ratings, but low approval ratings do not compare to the damage that this sort of politics inflicts upon the American people and our economy. Indeed, our Nation's working families are paying the price.

There was a chance for the House to put working people first by allowing the full debate and vote on a number of amendments filed by Democrats that would have put people first. Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership blocked many of these amendments from being considered for this legislation.

One amendment would have ensured that ``Buy America'' provisions could be implemented. Another amendment would have facilitated job protection and family leave for military families.

Another would have insured that Federal contractors recruit and employ veterans.

Another amendment would have allowed health and safety officials to continue their efforts to better protect the Nation's miners from black lung disease. The facts are indisputable. Black lung is on the rise again, and some mine operators are exploiting loopholes and obsolete rules to evade compliance. The present system is badly broken, and the improvements are desperately needed.

It's time to move forward with modern protections based upon years of careful scientific study. Blocking efforts by the Mine Safety and Health Administration to modernize miner protections will only cost the lives, careers, and family income of those who go underground every day to provide the energy that this country needs.

Mr. Chairman, this bill puts the lives and the well-being of working people in serious peril. It threatens the effort to protect American jobs. It's not what the American people sent us here to do.

It is well past time to put these transparently political efforts behind us and work together to re-energize the economy, to grow and to strengthen the middle class. And I urge my colleagues to vote against this very special interest bill.

Madam Chair, I seek to offer an amendment.

Madam Chair, my amendment would allow the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to continue efforts to prevent combustible dust and fire explosions in the workplace. Combustible dust explosions threaten lives, limbs, jobs and property across this country. And it's abundantly clear that Federal regulatory action is needed, but the bill before us today threatens to block that action.

Beginning in 2003, the Chemical Safety Board investigated three major explosions caused by combustible dust in North Carolina, Kentucky and Indiana, where 14 workers lost their lives. As part of its investigation, the board identified hundreds of other combustible dust fires and explosions, causing at least 119 fatalities and 718 injuries over 15 years. The board recommended that OSHA issue rules to protect against these hazards because the existing OSHA protections were inadequate.

The investigators were not alone. Family members have also asked that action be taken.

Tammy Miser of Kentucky testified before Congress how her brother, Shawn Boone, was killed in a metal dust fire in an aluminum wheel plant in Huntington, Indiana, in 2003.

She told us how Shawn suffered from this horrific event. She said that Shawn did not die instantly. He laid on the smoldering floor after the explosion while aluminum dust burned through his flesh and muscle tissue. His breaths burned his internal organs as the blast took his eyesight.

Shawn was still conscious and asking for help when the ambulance took him. He lived for a number of hours before he finally succumbed to his injuries.

Shawn wasn't the first to die at work this way, and he hasn't been the last.

It's been more than 4 years since the Imperial Sugar explosion in Georgia. That explosion killed 13 workers. It caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. The tragedy was the result of unchecked accumulation of sugar dust that ignited and caused a chain of explosions, and Port Wentworth sugar refinery was leveled.

These workplace explosions have not stopped. There have been 23 major combustible dust fires or explosions that have killed 15 and injured 35 since that Imperial Sugar explosion in Georgia.

The response of OSHA has been to begin the development of a rule to reduce the risk of combustible dust explosions. That rule should be allowed to go forward, and this bill threatens the opportunity of that bill to go forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

So, as for these workers who work in these dangerous conditions around all kinds of dust that explode on a moment's notice--without any notice, in fact--they should rely on the idea that we would all be compassionate here.

The subcommittee that reported this legislation asked people in the industry, and they immediately targeted this standard.

This won't be about the compassion of Members of Congress. This will be about the interests and the lobbying by the special interests to keep this dust standard from going into effect. It will not meet the requirement of imminent danger because it happens all the time. We have about 18 of these a year. It happens all the time. People are killed all of the time in different settings and with different dust. This isn't about one size fits all. This is about dust that explodes and kills people and burns them to death on the job. It destroys the workplace, and in some cases it's never rebuilt and the jobs are never brought back. In other cases, as in one of these cases, the employer is now saying, Give us this dust standard. Give us this dust standard.

The workers in this country have a right to rely on the law to protect them, not on some notion of this committee or of this Congress' sense of compassion and of whether it will be invoked on that given day or not against the lobbying efforts by these industries.

It's about the law that protects workers and their families--workers who get up and go to work every day, whose families hope they get to come home at night, but it doesn't happen for a lot of workers. In these industries with combustible dust, it happens over and over and over again. They get killed on the job. I've been here a long time working on combustible dust. Let me tell you, the industry doesn't say, Ah, gee, we've killed enough people. Let's all just kind of hold hands and see if we can come up with something.

It's complicated. You must do it right. It's based upon science. It's based upon research so that you can isolate the dust so the explosions don't happen.

But this legislation suggested by the committee notices in the committee that this is one of the regulations that they would target. They can use the old conundrum ``one size fits all.'' Do you know what? If you're working around combustible dust, you want the dust that you have taken care of. So maybe we can whittle it down. We'll take care of some of the dust but not all of the dust because we can get under the $100 million rule.

What are you talking about? These are the lives of the American people. These are the lives of working people. This is an interesting notion you have.

It just doesn't fit in the workplace. It just doesn't fit in the daily lives of these people who are threatened by these horrible, horrible, horrific incidents that take place usually through no fault of the workers. Other decisions were made about not keeping the plant clean. Other decisions were made about not installing equipment that could mitigate this under the old standards.

That's the reason we need the law, the reason the workers in this country need the law--not some expression of compassion late at night in an empty Chamber of Congress. Tell them to rely on that, that one night in an empty Chamber of Congress the proponent of the legislation said, We'll be compassionate when this comes to the floor. We understand this. We'll grant you a waiver. We'll figure it out.

* * *

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues, Congressman Jerry McNerney and Congressman John Garamendi, to recognize Mary Alice O'Connor as she retires after 7 years as Executive Director of the Mt. Diablo Peace and Justice Center.

Mary Alice, born in Chicago, Illinois, was ordained a minister by the Unity of the Spirit Ministry School in 1991 and earned her bachelor's in business administration from Golden Gate University in 2002. After many years working for industry leaders in the communications sector, Mary Alice joined the Peace and Justice Center as executive director in 2005. Over the past 7 years, her work has embodied the Peace and Justice Center's mission ``to work for a culture of peace through education, advocacy and community building,'' while at the same time increasing business operations and doubling the Center's operational budget in just 3 years.

Under Mary Alice's leadership, the Peace and Justice Center planned, expanded, and promoted a number of invaluable community programs that have raised awareness for both local and global issues of social justice. The

``Speakers' Forum'' hosts distinguished individuals to address global peace, issues of environmental justice, gun violence, and the politics of crime and punishment that affect quality of life in local communities. The ``Art and Writing Challenge'' encourages awareness and discussion among Contra Costa County students of the environment, economic inequality and the promotion of non-violence. The first ``Creating Peaceful Schools Conference'' brought together over a hundred local educators to develop strategies for promoting non- violence in the classroom and encouraging children to focus on ways to promote a more peaceful and just environment. Furthermore, through peaceful public protests against wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and many educational forums developed by Mary Alice and her board of directors, the Center has become a well-known hub for thoughtful discussion of current events in the East Bay Area.

Mr. Speaker, we invite this chamber to join us in honoring Mary Alice O'Connor for her tireless and dedicated service to the people of Contra Costa County. We join her family, colleagues, and friends in congratulating her on a successful and fulfilling career at the Mt. Diablo Peace and Justice Center, and wish her the very best on her future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of S. 2009. This legislation includes provisions adjusting the federal minimum wage schedule for American Samoa in light of GAO's findings on its unique labor market conditions. Mr. Faleomavaega of American Samoa has asked the Congress to make these adjustments for American Samoa and pass this bill.

Current law requires that the minimum wage increase in American Samoa annually until it reaches the Mainland's federal minimum wage level.

Current law also requires the GAO to regularly report to Congress on economic conditions in American Samoa over the course of these minimum wage adjustments. These GAO reports are intended to give Congress information so that, if necessary, Congress can adjust the minimum wage schedule for the territory.

Precisely because American Samoa has a unique, isolated, and relatively undiversified economy and because the path to the full federal minimum wage for this territory is a necessarily long one, Congress must be flexible over time with the minimum wage schedule in response to changing economic conditions. Congress must also maintain the clear requirement that the minimum wage in American Samoa be on a schedule to reach Mainland levels. In decades past, the use of a special industry committee to periodically review and set the minimum wage in American Samoa proved ineffective, unfairly depressing wage levels below what was economically feasible.

The minimum wage provision in S. 2009 meets these standards. The adjustment proposed by S. 2009 is the result of the GAO's latest report, which lays out certain economic difficulties confronting American Samoa. These difficulties arise from a variety of factors, including recent global economic conditions and a specific set of challenges facing American Samoa's tuna canning industry.

In response to the GAO report, this bill adjusts the schedule by delaying any minimum wage increases in American Samoa until 2015. Importantly, it maintains a clear minimum wage schedule for the territory, with new increases made triennially.

This is not the first adjustment in the schedule since the increases began in 2007. Adjustments were also enacted in 2010.

Congress must continue to monitor conditions in American Samoa. Future adjustments to either accelerate or delay the minimum wage schedule may be necessary and warranted. Workers in American Samoa deserve a fair minimum wage as soon as possible, which not only improves their standard of living but generates new economic activity for everyone's benefit. To achieve that end and to be sensitive to other economic pressures on the island that may affect employment levels, it is our ongoing responsibility to calibrate the minimum wage schedule as conditions warrant.

I look forward to continuing to work with Mr. Faleomavaega and other colleagues in the House and Senate to ensure workers in American Samoa receive a just wage.

Mr. Speaker, on July 9 and July 10, 2012, I was in California attending to family obligations. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

On rollcall vote No. 452, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 453, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 454, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 455, I would have voted ``yea.''

On rollcall vote No. 456, I would have voted ``nay'' on the previous question, so that instead of voting on the Patients'' Rights Repeal Act, the House could instead vote on H.R. 5542, a bill that focuses on jobs and working families.

On rollcall vote No. 457, I would have voted ``nay'' on the rule that will govern the 31st attempt this Congress to take away healthcare benefits and patient protections from millions of Americans.

On rollcall vote No. 458, I would have voted ``nay.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As has been said, for the 31st time in this Congress the House Republicans are trying to put insurance companies back in charge of America's health care. The House Republicans are preoccupied with taking away the patient protections while they're keeping their own protections.

I recently got a letter from a woman named Annie who lives in East Bay of the San Francisco Bay area and she told me how vital this law is to her and her family. Her husband is self-employed. He has diabetes; and thanks to the Affordable Care Act, the husband will finally have access to quality, affordable coverage. Annie's daughter has a preexisting condition; and thanks to this law, the insurance companies won't be allowed to deny her daughter coverage. And Annie's son, a 25- year-old, thanks to this law, is able to get on his mother's health care plan and save the family a great deal of money.

But today, the Republicans want to take that all away. They want to take away all these protections and these benefits that American families haven't had in the past. Today, the Republicans in the Congress want to put the insurance companies back in the business--the same insurance companies that took away your policy when your child was born with a disability; the same insurance companies that didn't allow you to have cancer surgery because you had a lifetime limit or they decided you had a preexisting condition; the same insurance companies that decided that your children would be kicked off your policies when they're 18.

I don't think we should go there, America. But that's what repeal brings you. That's the Republican plan: to give it all back to the insurance companies. After a hundred years of struggling, take it away and give the power to the people to determine their own health care needs and the kind of policies that they need.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this conference agreement.

Without it, transportation projects would dry up, countless American workers would be thrown out of work, and a college education would cost an additional $1,000 for more than 7 million students and their families.

The benefits of this legislation for millions of Americans will be felt immediately. In my home State of California, this legislation will save or create nearly 180,000 construction jobs rebuilding our highways and bridges and bike paths; and it will save 570,000 California students from going deeper into debt this next academic year. With this conference report, 7 million students across this country will get another year of interest rate relief as they take out their student loans for the coming college year. More than 4.5 million of those will be women, more than 1.5 million of those will be African American, nearly 1 million are Hispanic students, all who are struggling to stay in college. This interest rate relief that we are providing today will help them.

What is happening today, though, is a rare thing in this Congress. It's a victory for college students. It's a victory for low-income families. It's a victory for the middle class. It's a victory that should not be as rare as it is in the Congress today. The American people should thank this win, and we should make sure that we continue to cooperate in this Congress. And we should also make sure that we heed the words of Mr. Young and Mr. DeFazio that we have to do more on our infrastructure to make this country a first-rate country going forward in the future.

Thank you very much for yielding me this time, Mr. Rahall, and for all of your work on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on June 29, 2012, I inadvertently voted ``aye'' on rollcall no. 450. I intended to vote ``nay,'' and that reflects that I oppose H.R. 5972.

Mr. Speaker, on June 21, 2012, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall votes 408, 409, 410, and 411.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall no. 408, the amendment to fully fund the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to limit speculation in energy markets.

I oppose the irresponsible H.R. 4480. I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall no. 409, and I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall no. 410.

Finally, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall no. 411, the motion to instruct transportation conferees to supersede the EPA's authority to permit coal waste disposal sites.