Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Chairman, it is in the spirit of bipartisan, commonsense, and modest safeguards that I sought to offer this amendment that would protect the 2015 Federal coal ash rule. Sadly, late last…
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chairman, it is in the spirit of bipartisan, commonsense, and modest safeguards that I sought to offer this amendment that would protect the 2015 Federal coal ash rule.
Sadly, late last night, Acting EPA Administrator Wheeler helped cement the toxic legacy of former Administrator Pruitt's reign over the EPA by rolling back Federal coal ash standards, making this amendment moot.
I remind my colleagues that the Obama-era Federal coal ash rule was not rushed nor was it onerous. In fact, some think it didn't go far enough. After years of debate, input from community and industry stakeholders, and nearly half a million public comments, the Obama administration finalized stringent but pragmatic Federal coal ash regulations to deal with post-closure requirements, groundwater monitoring, and public reporting.
The Pruitt proposal, which was announced only 5 months ago, included very few hearings, very little outreach to the public, and last night was finalized. That is warp speed, even for the Trump administration's swamp-driven EPA antiregulation movement. So, no, the 2015 rule was not rushed; the Pruitt rule most certainly was.
I also remind my colleagues of the catastrophic 2008 Kingston, Tennessee, coal ash spill and why the Federal Government got in this business to begin with. The Kingston spill was a devastating event. The breach released 5 million cubic yards of coal ash, covering 300 acres in toxic sludge, damaging and destroying homes and property, resulting in $1.2 billion in cleanup costs, mostly borne by the public.
The lasting health consequences of that spill, some of which are still unknown, are even worse. Residents still suffer from respiratory illnesses and other side effects. Arsenic levels where the coal ash runoff was disposed of were measured at 100 times, Mr. Chairman, higher than the amount allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA has already said such exposure significantly increases risk of cancers.
Earlier this year, lawyers filed suit in Federal court alleging that more than 180 members of this Superfund cleanup now face severe health effects, and 30 individuals have died from the cleanup of this toxic waste.
These coal ash spills continue to occur across the country, Mr. Chairman, including in my home State of Virginia, where a neighboring State, North Carolina, had a coal ash pond that spilled more than 39,000 tons of toxic ash and 24 million gallons of wastewater into the Dan River.
Though much of the public and media attention to this spill was focused on North Carolina's regulatory shortcomings, Virginia was exposed to the dangers of the coal ash spill. As a result, Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality secured a $2.5 million settlement against Duke Energy Carolinas, a fraction of the cost of the cleanup.
What has happened in Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee can happen in any one of our communities that have or are near coal ash impoundment ponds, which is why we must protect the 2015 Federal coal ash rule. Unfortunately, that is not what happened last night.
What happened last night will weaken groundwater monitoring and cleanup requirements without considering the widespread evidence of significant groundwater contamination recently revealed by industry's own data. Already, under the 2015 rule's reporting requirements, coal ash waste sites across the country displayed evidence of contaminating groundwater. Under Pruitt's proposal, that data may not even see the light of day. We may not know. We are not going to monitor.
Surely, if there is anything we here in Congress can agree on, it is the right of all people to have access to safe drinking water. As a result of the 2015 Federal rules, States are working to close legacy coal ash impoundments and protect water. Under the new finalized agreement that modified that rule last night, that is now in jeopardy. Because of that action, we are going to have to address coal ash in a different way, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, because of that action, I will be forced to withdraw this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I withdraw my amendment.
Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time we have remaining.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which would limit the Postal Service's ability to offer products and services on a pilot basis that could help the Postal Service find its way to financial stability.
At a time when the Postal Service is bleeding red ink, this bill takes away existing revenue and potential revenue. In fiscal year 2017, the Postal Service reported a loss of $2.7 billion, marking the 11th straight year in the red.
And just coincidentally, it got in the red because Congress, in 2006, restricted what the Postal Service could do. Well, it really worked well: 11 years of red ink, putting the Postal Service in insolvency, technically. To address the Postal Service's financial situation, the Postal Service needs financial relief, not further restrictions.
H.R. 6076, the Postal Reform Act of 2018, which I introduced with the gentleman from North Carolina, Congressman Mark Meadows, on a bipartisan basis, passed the authorizing committee unanimously, and we are hoping to take it to the floor, and that is where it belongs, in an authorization bill, not as a rider on the appropriations bill.
This bill even addresses issues raised by the gentleman from North Carolina's amendment. Under the Postal Reform Act, the Postal Service would have to limit any new nonpostal products and services to only those provided to State, local, and Tribal governments and Federal agencies. The bill would preserve existing nonpostal products and services.
However, this amendment is much more restrictive than that. This amendment includes a blanket prohibition that would prevent the Postal Service from implementing any other recommendations from a May 2015 Postal Service Inspector General Report, including improving its existing range of financial services, such as money orders.
Mr. Chairman, as the designee of Ranking Member Lowey, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chair, this amendment, as I said, includes blanket prohibitions that would prevent the Postal Service from implementing the reports and recommendations of the 2015 Postal Service Inspector General Report, including improving its existing range of financial services, such as money orders.
I might add, the assertions that have been made that there has been no congressional oversight, that is not true. My committee, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has had numerous hearings on the Postal Service, numerous briefings with the Postmaster General and her predecessor and his predecessor.
We have marked up numerous bills. We finally got one we could agree on, and it is pending. That is how this should be done--not piecemeal, not in a way that further constrains and circumscribes the Postal Service that can only lead to more red ink.
We are trying to save the Postal Service, which is mandated in the Constitution. It has a requirement for universal service that private sector firms do not. And we have allowed some pilot programs to see if they can work. They are not a threat to financial institutions.
So we are fixing a problem here that does not really exist, and we are going to do real harm to a Postal Service we have already harmed with the 2006 legislation Congress passed in a lame-duck session in the name of reform, and it backfired. It blew up, and it has done incalculable damage which we are now trying to repair to the Postal Service.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this unwarranted intrusion into the prerogatives of the authorizing committee that is doing its job and has a bipartisan bill that passed our committee unanimously, which is a remarkable statement for the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
We ought not to be legislating on an appropriations bill in this way with respect to the Postal Service. It deserves better, our consumers deserve better, Postal Service customers deserve better, and we can do better.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.