Floor Statements

Canadian oil sands transported via pipelines play a major role in supplying the energy needs of southern Illinois. Two weeks ago, I visited the oil sands in Alberta, Canada, and here is exactly what we saw.

On Monday of this week, I visited three facilities also, but before I talk about those three facilities, Daniel Yergin yesterday in The Washington Post said this about the oil sands of Canada: ``Oil sands production in Canada today is 1.5 million barrels per day--more oil than Libya exported before its civil war. Canadian oil sands output could double to 3 million barrels per day by the beginning of the next decade. This increase, along with its other oil output, would make Canada a larger oil producer than Iran--becoming the world's fifth largest, behind Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and China.''

On Monday of this week, I visited three facilities in southern Illinois that utilize Canadian oil sands: Robinson refinery, the Patoka tank farm, and the Wood River refinery.

Pipelines play a vital role in providing the energy needs for our daily lives. There are over 2.5 million miles of pipelines in this country: 175,000 miles of onshore and offshore hazardous liquid pipelines, mostly oil; 321,000 miles of onshore/offshore gas transmission and gathering lines; and 2,066,000 miles of natural gas distribution mains and service pipelines.

Keystone XL would stretch about 1,700 miles. Again, going back to Yergin's article, he says: ``Though large''--he's referring to the Keystone XL pipeline. ``Though large, it would increase the length of the oil pipeline network in the United States by just 1 percent.''

Due to the high volumes of various liquids and gasses that must be transported, pipelines are the feasible mode of transportation. Imagine trying to transport this gas, crude oil on rail, on trucks, in our major waterways. In fact, just today there was a supertanker that was just hijacked by pirates on the high seas. That's the challenge of moving crude oil other than the pipeline system.

We continue to import oil from countries that are not our closest friends. Further blocking of this pipeline development will only increase foreign oil imports from far-off places that are not our neighbors.

This pipeline application is a jobs plan. Five major labor unions have endorsed this project, and there would be 20,000 construction jobs. As refineries expand, there's an estimated 100,000 new jobs as a whole. This Keystone XL pipeline is supported by the AFL-CIO and several other organized labor groups. In fact, they have started to run ads today in support of the pipeline and encouraging the Obama administration to approve it. Canadian oil sands are already creating jobs in my district in southern Illinois.

Caterpillar, which my friend Joe Wilson is going to talk about too-- you'll see a larger mock than this. This is one of their major pickup trucks, lightly said. It's about four stories tall. The major place that this goes to is the oil sands in Canada. The tires, themselves, are two stories tall. The Caterpillar 797 is the largest truck they make. It's partially assembled in Decatur, Illinois. The truck is so large, final assembly must be done at the delivery site. The largest concentration of these Caterpillar trucks are in Alberta, Canada. These are manufactured in the good old U.S.A. These are great Midwestern manufacturing jobs that are directly tied to the oil sands development.

At my last stop on Monday to the ConocoPhillips refinery, I just posed this basic question to the reporters who attended the press conference: Would you rather have the oil being refined in Wood River, Illinois, come from Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, the Middle East, or Africa, or would you have that oil rather come from Canada? I think the answer is simple. So this administration must approve the Keystone XL pipeline.

Mr. Speaker, before my freshman colleagues get too concerned, I am only going to go a couple of minutes to talk about why I have been coming to the floor once each week for a whole debate on high-level nuclear waste and a national repository that is defined in law, a law passed in 1982 that that national repository would be at Yucca Mountain. So I have been going through a geography lesson about where we have nuclear waste in this country, comparing it to the site at Yucca Mountain, and then addressing the positions of our colleagues on the Senate side from those affected States.

The House has spoken on Yucca Mountain again this year in a vote in which 297 of my colleagues joined me in ensuring that we had enough money to finish the scientific study to finally bring closure to Yucca Mountain and, if the science is sound, then start moving high-level nuclear waste from all over this country to a single repository. So today I come to the floor to highlight another location.

This is Yucca Mountain. And I want to remind folks that Yucca Mountain has no nuclear waste onsite right now. The waste, once it gets to Yucca Mountain, will be stored 1,000 feet underground. The nuclear waste will be 1,000 feet above the groundwater. And Yucca Mountain is 100 miles from the Colorado River. So it's pretty far. It's in a mountain. It's in a desert. It is pretty far from ever being close to major bodies of water. And what's been interesting is, as we go around geographically, we find that we have high-level nuclear waste right next to major rivers and major lakes throughout the country.

This is one of the most compelling sites in our tour so far. This is a nuclear power plant in California called San Onofre. And if you look at this--yes, this is the ocean. Here is the nuclear power plant. And yes, these are waves that are coming up to the rocky shoreline and a concrete barrier that leads to the nuclear power plant.

Now compare San Onofre with Yucca Mountain. There are 2,300 waste rods--that's nuclear waste rod material--onsite here right next to the Pacific Ocean. There's none at Yucca Mountain in the desert. The waste is stored above the ground and in pools here. The waste will be stored 1,000 feet underground at Yucca Mountain. The waste here is adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. You can see the waves. Yucca Mountain is in a desert, and it's 100 miles from the Colorado River. San Onofre is 45 miles from San Diego. Yucca Mountain is over 100 miles from Las Vegas, Nevada. So if you want to compare and contrast where we should have nuclear waste, would it be next to the Pacific Ocean? Or should it be in a desert underneath a mountain? I would think most Americans and my colleagues on the House floor agree, based upon our 297-vote total, that it should be in a geological repository underneath a mountain in a desert.

So let's look at the surrounding Senators and what are their current positions as far as we can determine. Senator Boxer says that if the Yucca project is constructed, there will be thousands of shipments of high-level nuclear waste transported through California. She voted ``no'' on Yucca Mountain in 2002. Senator Feinstein, after Fukushima Daiichi, said, ``I had always thought we didn't need one. Yesterday''-- and that was the day after the damage done because of the tsunami in Japan--``yesterday candidly changed my mind.'' She voted ``no'' to Yucca in 2002. I think she might be reconsidering.

Senator McCain voted ``yes'' in 2002. ``I was absolutely opposed to its closure,'' he said, referring to Yucca Mountain. ``It's absolutely ridiculous to not have Yucca Mountain after developing it over a 20- year process.'' I would agree with Senator McCain. We've already spent $12.5 billion for Yucca Mountain. I think it's time that we finish the project. Senator Kyl is quoted--these are the two Senators from Arizona, next to California--and he used this example of just everyday residential waste. He says, ``It is a little like saying since every Wednesday morning, everybody in my area of Phoenix is going to put their garbage out, and because we keep producing garbage, we should not have a dump to where all that garbage is taken. If we produce more garbage and store it onsite, it is, in effect, storing it on the curb. That doesn't argue for the proposition that there should not be a central repository where that material is taken and disposed of in a proper way.''

So I come back down to the floor to highlight another location where you have high-level nuclear waste near a major body of water, the Pacific Ocean, not in the desert as defined by law we should.

Other States and locations that I've talked about, I first went to Hanford which is high-level nuclear waste, 23 million gallons in tanks that are leaking a mile from the Columbia River. Then I went to Zion.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Reclaiming my time, as my colleagues know, Senator Kirk is strongly in support of moving high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. Senator Durbin said the right things. We just want him now to lead on that issue for the importance of the State of Illinois.

Another week I talked about the Savannah River site, nuclear waste right on the Savannah River, and highlighted the Senators there. And now I end up this week talking about California. This is not the only nuclear power plant that's on the Pacific Ocean. There's one in San Luis Obispo.

I appreciate my colleagues allowing me this time to do my weekly process of talking about high-level nuclear waste. It's the law of the land, and we're going to continue to work hard until we get this done and we move and have a central repository for high-level nuclear waste in Las Vegas, in Nevada at Yucca Mountain.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is my third time on the floor to talk about high-level nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. I started talking about Hanford, which is in Washington State, comparing it to the Yucca facility. In Hanford, 53 million gallons of nuclear waste; zero at Yucca. Nuclear waste is stored 10 feet underground in Hanford; waste will be stored 1,000 feet underground in Yucca. Waste 1,000 feet from the water table at Yucca; 250 feet from the water table in Hanford.

At Yucca the nuclear waste will be 100 miles from the nearest river. At Hanford, it's 1 mile from the nearest river. So what are the Senators' positions on Yucca Mountain in Washington State and Oregon, knowing that we have 53 million gallons of high-level nuclear waste 1 mile from the Columbia River?

Senator Cantwell is not supportive of Yucca Mountain. Senator Murray is supportive, at least in her public statements. Senator Wyden is not supportive. And Senator Merkley is silent. They should not be silent.

A couple of weeks ago I then moved to my home State of Illinois and the decommissioned Zion nuclear power plant that still has high-level nuclear waste on site. Again, the same statistics for Yucca are there in a desert away from a river.

Zion is on Lake Michigan. Zion has 65 casks containing 1,135 metric tons of nuclear waste, waste stored above ground 5 feet above the water table, 1,300 feet from Lake Michigan. And Wisconsin has two nuclear power plants also on Lake Michigan. So what do the senators from the two States say?

Well, Senator Durbin is supportive of Yucca Mountain. Senator Kirk is supportive of Yucca Mountain. Senator Kohl is supportive of Yucca Mountain. Senator Johnson is still silent on Yucca Mountain. I imagine we'll know soon.

Now we move to Georgia and South Carolina. Look at the difference here. Savannah River has 6,300 canisters of nuclear waste on-site. The waste is stored right below the ground. It is 0 to 160 feet above the water table, and it's right next to the Savannah River.

Again, compare that to Yucca Mountain--no nuclear waste. Waste would be stored 1,000 feet underground, 1,000 feet above the water table, and 100 miles from the Colorado River.

So where are these senators from Georgia and South Carolina? Well, Senator Isakson says ``We need to retain Yucca Mountain as our Nation's high-level waste repository.'' So he supports.

Senator Chambliss says, ``We have long advocated that the Department of Energy immediately halt all actions to dismantle operations at Yucca Mountain.'' He supports.

Senator Graham: ``No one should be required to pay for an empty hole in the Nevada desert.''

``The decision by the Obama administration to close Yucca Mountain was ill-advised and leaves our Nation without a disposal plan for spent nuclear fuel or Cold War waste.'' That's what Hanford is, Cold War nuclear waste from our weapons sector.

What does Senator DeMint say? ``Without Yucca Mountain, America will not have a safe and secure place to permanently store nuclear waste and instead waste will pile up at existing reactors.''

We will continue, and I will continue to come down on the floor and go through the Nation highlighting high-level nuclear waste all over this country when the Federal law under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 says we should have one site, and the law says that site is Yucca Mountain.

And so as we continue to go through the States, hopefully some Senators will get off the dime and state their positions, culminating with 60 Senators in support as we move this forward, this Nation forward, to a more secure location for high-level nuclear waste away from lakes, away from rivers, away from the groundwater tables.

There's no safer place on the planet than underneath the mountain in a desert, and that place is Yucca Mountain.

I'm just here to speak in support of the rule.

First of all, on April 14, 2011, the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Economy, which I chair, held a legislative hearing on the coal ash bill, H.R. 1391. Based on this hearing and working with Democrats in the subcommittee, we modified the bill. We changed the bill, and then we had a voice vote out of subcommittee. Then we went to the full committee, and we had a bipartisan vote in the full committee. I think at least six Democrat votes, and two more that would have had they been there for the process. So we are working together with Democrats to bring a sensible bill to the floor.

If we don't do this, it's projected in the coal ash recycling industry of this country we will lose 38,000 to 119,000 jobs. So we trust the State regulators. They do it for municipal solid waste. We're just making coal ash recyclable, the same as we do for municipal solid waste. It has bipartisan support. Thank you, Rules Committee, for making the amendments in order. I think five of the six amendments are Democrat amendments. So it's not perfect, but it allows us to move forward.

Will the gentleman yield?

It's not because of the input we got from Democrats to change that original bill. So that's why. I mean, it was bipartisan.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2273 and to insert extraneous material.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2273, the Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act.

Fifty percent of our Nation's electricity generation comes from coal. This means that we need to do something to address the long-term disposal issues presented by these wastes. This bill is a measured, appropriate, protective response to the issue of coal waste generated to safely, responsibly, and affordably provide heat to communities across the country.

The trash we throw out daily contains everything from milk cartons to household cleaning items and pesticides, all mixed and destined for the same destination. The chemical characteristics of coal ash put it somewhere in between these two extremes. For years, States have been successfully managing these nonhazardous wastes through their municipal solid waste programs.

Yet even though EPA has confirmed on multiple occasions that coal ash does not trigger its own toxicity test to be labeled as hazardous, regulation was proposed by the EPA in June 2010 that would do just that. EPA's regulation would have prevented coal ash from being governed under the municipal solid waste programs despite its nonhazardous nature and EPA saying in its proposed rule that it preferred the municipal solid waste option.

The results of EPA's regulations would have been devastating effects on jobs, higher utility rates at home, and crippling of a very successful emerging byproducts industry.

H.R. 2273 strikes the right balance to provide certainty to producers and recyclers of coal combustion byproducts at a time when recyclers do not have time to wait. It also facilitates a safe and appropriate disposal and monitoring of coal combustion byproducts.

The bill establishes, for the first time ever, comprehensive Federal standards specific to coal ash disposal. These new standards for the management and disposal of coal combustion residuals are based on existing Federal regulations issued by EPA to protect human health and the environment.

H.R. 2273 provides a benchmark for States to regulate under their existing municipal solid waste programs, which are already required to meet this Federal baseline of protection. These standards will include groundwater protection and detection and monitoring, liners at landfills, corrective action when environmental damage occurs, structural stability criteria, financial assurance, and recordkeeping.

EPA will continue to have an oversight role to ensure States are meeting their obligations. EPA will review the contents of a State permit program and determine whether it meets the minimum specifications set in H.R. 2273. They will also review State implementation of permit programs to make sure States are implementing a permit program meeting the minimum specifications.

However, discretion will remain with the States to regulate coal ash even more stringently than the Federal standards set in H.R. 2273. And should a State fail to meet these baseline standards or decline to regulate coal ash, EPA has the authority under the bill to come into a State and operate a program.

H.R. 2273 received strong 3-1 bipartisan support when it was favorably passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. We have continued to work hard since then with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to clarify and address additional concerns reflected in the manager's amendment. This has resulted in a bipartisan product that empowers States, saves jobs, controls public and private costs, and protects people and the environment.

H.R. 2273 has endorsements by a diverse stakeholder community as well from the Environmental Council of the States, State environmental officials, the beneficial use community, labor unions, and a coalition of regulated stakeholders.

Mr. Chairman, some of our colleagues are going to oppose this bill based upon this information or misguided policy. That is unfortunate. We will hear plenty about that in this debate. I urge Members to pay attention to the debate as many of our Nation's environmental laws already apply to the concerns being raised. More laws requiring the same thing to be done that is required in other laws do not improve the environment nor the law. We need to be serious about that point.

Most importantly, our economy continues to struggle and businesses are trying to figure out how to get out from underneath the weight of overly burdensome regulations. H.R. 2273 is a jobs bill that gives us yet another chance in the House to regulatory certainty and unemployment relief with passage of H.R. 2273.

This bill protects the working men and women of this country. It encourages jobs in road building and construction industries and encourages an affordable and more secure standard of living in this country for all Americans and their families. This bill is worthy of all my colleagues' support.

I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2273, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta), a primary mover on this bill.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Harper).

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

I will just tell my friend from Florida, H.R. 2273 includes structural integrity inspection requirements on impoundments that do not exist today. They allow only those facilities that are structurally sound and operating in a protective manner to continue to operate.

In this Kingston debate, what is never mentioned is that in the cleanup of the Kingston spill, all that waste went into nonhazardous landfills because they were not hazards. This is really a debate about hazardous and nonhazardous. EPA has numerous times ruled that coal combustion residual is not hazardous. That's why there's confusion.

I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, also a member of the committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

Before I yield time to my colleague from Tennessee, let me ask the time remaining.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just to my friend from Virginia, I hope he will look at the manager's amendment, because in the manager's amendment it beefs up the list of constituents for groundwater detection and assessment monitoring specific to coal combustion residuals. This is something we received from your side of the aisle that they wanted more clarity. That's what the manager's amendment does on runoff aspects of the Clean Water Act.

The other thing is, if the toxic sludge, as you had defined it, was so toxic, why did it go into municipal landfills and not into toxic landfills?

The reality is the cleanup materials did not go into toxic landfills. So we just want to clear up some false statements here.

I would now like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Roe.

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

Just to my friend from Minnesota, I would quote the United Mine Workers letter that says: According to a June study, there's an estimate of the 183,000 to 363,000 possible job losses if we do not pass this bill. So for those who really want to effect, there will be-- I mean, this claim that this hurts the recycling when, then, you define coal combustion residuals as ``toxic'' is nonsensical. It really makes no sense.

If you really want to encourage recycling, this bill protects the recycling industry. It protects coal, fly ash from going into concrete. If you label this ``toxic,'' which is what EPA's trying to do, that's very misleading. And I think even my friends on the other side are having a hard time grappling with what the EPA's trying to do because that's the direction we want to do, they want to move it to.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

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

I just want to remind my colleagues that they will be interested to know the EPA noted in its June 2010 proposed regulation for coal combustion residuals that municipal solid waste rules provide an appropriate, comprehensive framework for regulating coal combustion residuals. That's from the EPA, the same EPA people say we're trying to gut.

And I will continue to hold up the Veritas study that says, because of the recycling aspect of coal ash that goes into concrete, if you claim it to be toxic, you can no longer use coal ash in concrete for roads and for bridges and for buildings. That's the debate. And then when you tear down those structures, they would have to go in the toxic landfills. I also remind my colleagues that, from the spill, none of the spill cleanup went to toxic landfills.

With that, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), the author of the legislation.

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

To my friend from Virginia, he is correct that some States have laxer standards. In fact, your Governor sent us a letter in which I quote, ``H.R. 2273 is a realistic approach to dealing with CCR, although it would require effort to implement in Virginia.''

So our point is this is going to help those States that are weak to implement higher standards. That's just your Governor, but that's what he says in a letter to us in support of this legislation.

If you label something ``toxic,'' it's not going to be reused, I can guarantee you, just because of the threat to the coal combustion residual community. The recyclers have no market. Who wants to build a school with concrete when the EPA may, 6 months or a year from now, say, That concrete is all toxic? So it's already had a negative impact in that job sector, and we've quoted studies both back and forth.

The manager's amendment requires an assessment for all of these constituents that you identified. I would just highlight the fact that just because it's a constituent doesn't mean it's hazardous.

This blue line is the hazardous level.

The green is the amount.

You could make the claim that there is hazardous material in Honey Nut Cheerios. The question is: What's the amount? And that's what this gets to is the amount.

EPA has consistently said this doesn't raise to the standard of toxic. Even under the Clinton administration, when I served here, their EPA said it doesn't rise to the standard. The fear of EPA involvement is what's causing a problem in the recycling sector. Where is all this waste going to go? It's going to fill up the landfills. In 2 years, all the landfills will be filled up unless we continue to recycle this coal fly ash.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, the manager's amendment that will be debated will talk about, for the first time, an analysis on run-on and runoff, which was the recommendation from the folks on your side of the aisle for us to consider, which we have now included. We'll take that up in the manager's amendment debate when we get to the amendment.

You have a lot of time, but I would be happy to yield. But I do want to have time to close.

Reclaiming my time, that's why this new standard under the municipal and solid waste act will have liners for the first time. Right now, there are no liners. That's a better argument from past years, but this is a fix. This is a fix to that issue of leaching out. This is a fix to the possibility of the damage because we're going to be able to look at that in working in conjunction with the EPA, and of course, the people closest to the citizens are the State and local levels.

I thank the gentleman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

This has been a good discussion and a good debate. With regard to the State border issue in our opening statements and comments, what we highlighted was the fact that current Federal law applies to hazardous material. CERCLA still applies, and EPA air quality standards still apply. Those laws are still in effect across States. If they are having an impact, EPA has authority under CERCLA and under RCRA, with imminent and substantial endangerment, to take action to force a remedy and cleanup.

So our debate has always been that that's covered. Let's try to address the impoundment issue, the leaching issue, some standards. The Municipal Solid Waste laws are very, very successful. I would argue, if you want to talk about toxicity, there are probably many more chemicals in a municipal solid waste landfill than the 7 to 12 that you mentioned in coal combustion residual; and out of the 80 tests, the standards are much lower than the toxic standard under this test.

So this is a focus on jobs. This is a focus on recycling. That sector is being ravaged just by the threat. This is an important bill, and I am glad my colleague from West Virginia has brought this to this Chamber. It has been a great debate, and I look forward to the amendment discussion.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, for the purpose of a colloquy, I would like to yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

To my friend from West Virginia, my response is that it does not.

My amendment keeps that door to EPA alternative regulation closed and locked. The language the gentleman cites merely references law that is already on the books, as you heard in the general debate. Section 4010(c) of RCRA was enacted years ago to protect human health and the environment. My amendment merely clarifies that your bill does not change that.

Again to my colleague and friend from West Virginia, my amendment in no way reduces the administrator's authority to take into account facility capabilities. That authority is unchanged by both my amendment and your underlying bill.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the ranking member's accepting the amendment. We do think it improves the bill.

I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) to speak in support of the bill.

I want to again thank the ranking member for accepting this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I seek time in opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I appreciate the comments of my colleague from California because obviously there is a recognition that we have been talking, we have been trying to get some bipartisan support. As tough as that may seem in this Chamber and in this Congress, there is a recognition that we're trying. I think the ranking member gave us an ``atta boy'' just by allowing that voice vote on the manager's amendment, and I appreciate that.

Part of this debate is that if States are allowing any type of waste to affect their constituents, don't you think that the States are going to get involved? If you use the Maryland example, Maryland has aggressively changed its own permitting processes based upon those experiences. So they've done it. Again, States are closer to their people. I can imagine the calls State reps and State senators got when that occurred. The basic bill says coal combustion residual which doesn't rise to the level of toxicity should be treated as that in liners and the like. That's really the debate we have.

The EPA's technical assistance which was placed on the ranking member's committee's Web site mentions that this requirement could be implicitly inferred based upon the drafting of the bill. And I would just say on page 10, line 8, if the administrator determines that a State determination under this paragraph does not accurately reflect the needs for the management of coal combustion residuals in the State, the administrator may treat such State determination as a deficiency. And if it's a deficiency, then the EPA can then be involved.

So we think that the issue that my colleague from California has raised has been addressed, and we look forward to debate of the further amendments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Thank you.

My friend from Massachusetts has great rhetorical skills, and I have finally made it to the big time where I can do it as managing a bill and addressing amendments.

He wasn't on the floor when we talked about the letter from the Governor of Virginia, who admits that this bill is going to force the State of Virginia to do more. It's because of this bill, he says,--and I quoted it before--that will require effort to implement in Virginia, such as regulatory amendments for conformance, and notifying and seeking EPA approval.

So here is the Governor saying, We support this bill, and we know we're going to have to do more.

I think that's positive.

We're talking about how H.R. 2273 already includes structural integrity requirements that would allow only those facilities that are operating in a protective manner to continue to operate. Moreover, EPA has just completed a nationwide evaluation--I'm sure you're going to be happy to hear this, Mr. Markey--and in this evaluation they said that they have found none, zero, zip of these impoundments to be unsafe.

Now, that's our own EPA. And we're glad that they're out. They're now checking these impoundment areas. I think a lot of this is a result of moving this bill and having now at least a standard for liners. I think from our testimony in subcommittee, liners are important. Liners are what we do in municipal solid waste. Liners are what we should do with coal combustion residuals. Well, this bill ensures that we have liners in the coal combustion residual ponds and facilities.

So I think it's a very exciting time. It protects jobs. It helps for, obviously, the recycling of this in the industry sector. It helps save jobs. I think the amendment only hurts the passage and movement of this bill.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Markey amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

A couple of things. The gentleman's well-meaning amendment requires public notice and comment, including from the administrator of the EPA, before the State submits its certification paperwork to the administrator of the EPA.

There's confusion as to what this bill does. For the first time, States have to conform to the EPA standards. I read this before in another part of the debate on page 10. If the administrator determines--this is the administrator of the EPA. If the administrator determines that a State determination under this paragraph does not accurately reflect the need for the management of coal combustion residuals in the State, the administrator may treat such determination as deficient.

So there's really no purpose for my colleague's amendment. The EPA has the ability to say good State program, bad State program. The Governor of Virginia says we're already going to have to do more than we do now because of this bill. And section 7004(b) of RCRA requires public participation.

So part of our debate is: Why do we have to continue to put more laws on the books when those provisions are already covered under RCRA? Requires public participation in any enforcement of any regulation guideline, information, or program under this act, including at the Federal and State level. This requirement is not waived, it's not amended, it's not altered or affected under this piece of legislation. Those requirements under RCRA apply to H.R. 2273.

The gentleman's amendment is unnecessary, it's duplicative, and I ask my colleagues to reject it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Let me thank my colleague for offering an amendment to the bill.

A couple of things have been discussed during the debate. Obviously, she mentioned Kingston, Tennessee. What she has to remember is that was TVA. That was a government entity. That wasn't a natural disaster. That was a manmade disaster by a Federal Government, in essence, an agency.

I've stated numerous times what this bill does. It sets a standard that the States have to comply with to get certified by the EPA. Of course, in that process, under Federal law currently and locally, there is an opportunity for comment.

In addition, EPA, within the last week, announced that soon it will be seeking comments under the Notice of Data Availability, or what is referred to as NODA, on the adequacy of State programs--this would fall directly in this; that's why this amendment is duplicative--as well as the State's comments on EPA's proposed rule for coal ash.

This NODA was not required by law and certainly was not the result of a statute. This is something that the agency is doing. While the study is found to be innocuous, it does have a cost to taxpayers and the agency, and so in that aspect.

My colleague also is following this a little bit. The debate is coal ash, or fly ash, which is in impounded areas that we are now going to have some standards and liners, is used in recycling. It's used in road construction. It's used in building schools. The whole reason why we're here today is to ensure that the recycling sector can still do that if the EPA continues to label it as ``toxic,'' which does not meet the standard of a toxicity based upon an analysis.

I love this, ``toxic sludge.'' You can pick up dirt, and there's toxic elements in the dirt. The question is: To what standard does it rise? And if it doesn't rise to the level of toxicity, then it's not considered. And that's what this debate is all about, allowing the recycling of this. And if we don't do this, all our landfills will be filled with coal ash, and then we'll have to build more landfills for municipal solid waste.

So that's why I appreciate my colleague from West Virginia in this great piece of legislation. The administration has not issued a veto threat for this, and I expect it to be well received in the other Chamber once it moves over.

With that, again, I ask my colleagues to reject the Jackson amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor a second time, as I promised a couple of weeks ago, to talk about high-level nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountain repository.

Two weeks ago I highlighted Hanford, Washington, a DOE site that has 53 million gallons of nuclear waste--53 million gallons of nuclear waste that's stored 10 feet underground in tanks that are leaking. The waste is 250 feet above the water table and the waste is 1 mile from the Columbia River, versus Federal law which said in 1982 that Yucca Mountain should be our national repository.

Now let's look at Yucca Mountain. Right now there's no nuclear waste on site. The waste would be stored a thousand feet underground. The waste is a thousand feet above the water table, and the waste would be 100 miles from the Colorado River; 100 miles versus 1 mile, high-level nuclear waste, especially with Hanford where you have nuclear waste that actually is leaking outside the tanks.

So then my response was: What are the Senators in these two States doing and what's their position? The reason why we're not moving to Yucca Mountain is because of one U.S. Senator, the majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, who has blocked the movement of Yucca Mountain.

Obviously, these Senators have an interest because of the Columbia River, and I was trying to encourage them, through the use of the bully pulpit, that this was a time to move to get this resolution resolved, especially after Fukushima Daiichi, everybody following the tragedy in Japan, and part of that was high-level nuclear waste in storage ponds right on site.

Since then, I have been able to get a few quotes from these Senators, or researched them. Senator Cantwell said: ``The National Academy of Sciences has concluded that the best approach is to bury nuclear waste deep underground. Since that conclusion, Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been chosen as the national repository.''

Senator Murray said this: ``I believe that it is irresponsible for the Department of Energy to discontinue the

Yucca program altogether, its funding, licensing and design.''

Senator Wyden has said: ``I don't see that (Yucca Mountain will reopen). I think that there'll be an effort to look at new technologies and on-site storage and a whole host of approaches, but I don't think that's going to happen.''

So Senator Wyden is accepting this in Hanford, a mile from the Columbia River.

Senator Merkley has been quiet, as far as we could find from the Google search pairing his name and any Yucca Mountain comments.

Now, lest people think I'm picking on the Northwest, let me go to my home State of Illinois. So one facility, Zion Nuclear Power Station, it's a decommissioned plant but there's still 65 casks containing 1,135 metric tons of nuclear waste, versus Yucca Mountain, which has zero.

The waste at Zion is stored above the ground; the waste at Yucca Mountain would be a thousand feet below the surface. The waste at Zion is 5 feet above the water table; the waste at Yucca Mountain would be a thousand feet. The waste at Yucca Mountain is 100 miles from the Colorado River; the waste from Zion is 1,300 feet from Lake Michigan.

I mean, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that Yucca Mountain is safer than storing high-level nuclear waste next to Lake Michigan.

So what have our Senators said?

Well, let's start with Senator Durbin. He's quoted as saying: ``There are a lot of options out there. But I have supported Yucca in the past, and I am not walking away from that. I just think we need to consider other options as well.''

I want him to obviously continue to consider Yucca Mountain.

Senator Kirk has said: ``I think in the end Congress needs to fight and win the battle to build the Yucca Mountain facility so that we can store nuclear waste 1,000 feet below the surface.''

I agree.

Senator Kohl is quoted as saying: ``This site, on the Nevada nuclear test site''--that's what people don't know is that Yucca Mountain is also the Nevada nuclear test site. That's where we tested the nuclear bombs during the nuclear arms race and the nuclear age. So Senator Kohl is correct in saying: ``This site, on the Nevada nuclear test site, is certainly safer than leaving the waste at 132 sites nationwide, sites scattered around the country that were never designed to be a permanent solution.''

Senator Johnson is silent.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to come down here to thank the Rules Committee for the modified open rule and a chance for us to go through this bill bit by bit, amendment by amendment, to address concerns that my friends on the other side of the aisle might have about this.

I am following my good friend from Oregon, and I appreciate his passion. But I come to the floor to talk about the jobs. And the EPA, whom I've also rallied against numerous times, produced the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule in July. The result of that is two power plants in Illinois are closing. One is 369 megawatts, and the other one is 302 megawatts. That means 671 megawatts of basal power is going to be offline. If you understand the law of supply and demand--less supply plus similar demand or higher demand equals higher costs--then it's very easy to project higher energy costs for everybody across this country because of that rule.

Secondly, the job losses. In the first plant, 14 management and 39 union-represented employees will lose their jobs. That's at plant number one. At plant number two, eight management and 29 union- represented employees will lose their jobs.

We do this and we come down and we have these debates on the role of the EPA so that we can have the debate about jobs in this economy. This is not the time--in fact, I have asked the President, the best thing he could do for his own reelection and for the country is stop doing things. Put a hold on new rules and new regulations and let the economy recover. Let's put people back to work. Let's make these power plants that are employing these folks still have jobs. Let's make sure the tax base in these small rural communities that these power plants pay taxes to still have that property tax revenue going.

Boiler MACT is another example of what we did last week, and these effects on job losses are real. This announcement was done today. Boiler MACT will affect a lot of municipal power plants who have a contractual obligation with their citizens saying we will locally produce power. And so they are breaking contract with their citizens. The Cement MACT is another example of when we talk about jobs and infrastructure. The result of these cement plants closing is that we will import cement.

I would just ask my friends, does that make sense that we are now going to import cement at higher cost from countries who aren't complying with these rules and regulations? I think not. This debate is about jobs and the economy. Now is not the time to ratchet down these rules so we make it more difficult to create jobs, keep jobs, and grow this economy.

Mr. Speaker, this marks the first of what I hope to be many times to address you and my colleagues on an issue that I have been graced with having the responsibility to deal in the public policy arena, and that's the issue of nuclear waste.

When people talk about nuclear waste and this debate about where it is and why it's there, they primarily talk about our nuclear utilities. Especially after Fukushima Daiichi, people understand that when you store high-level nuclear waste onsite and if there's a disaster that occurs and if the pools run dry, then you might have a melting which might spread radioactivity, and that's not good for anybody. That's a good debate to have because we have nuclear waste stored all over this country.

But I'm not here really to talk about the private for-profit sector, the nuclear industry today. I'm here to tell another story, another story that really talks about why we have government and why there's still a need for some government entities.

Back during World War II--and we just heard my colleague talk about the Honor Flights--back during World War II, we decided as a Nation to win these wars. One way to make sure that we wouldn't lose thousands upon thousands of soldiers in an invasion of Japan was to develop the nuclear bomb. Two were dropped; the war ended. Many people historically know that development, that occurred because of the Manhattan Project.

What I think a lot of people don't know is that we still are dealing with much of the history of winning the war in the Manhattan Project and that winning the Cold War relied upon a strong military and a strong nuclear deterrence. So even after World War II, we continued to develop nuclear weapons, which we deal with today.

So I had a chance to visit during our last district work period, I took a day and visited a place called Hanford, Washington. Hanford, Washington was part of the Manhattan Project. Hanford was the site that the U.S. military picked to help produce plutonium. The ``Fat Man'' bomb was developed there. That area was picked for a lot of reasons. There weren't a lot of people there. As you can see, the Columbia River is right next to it. You had some low-cost power production, and so it was a good site. And, hence, people got moved off the land, the government took over, and the government has been controlling hundreds of acres in Washington State even today.

The result of the Cold War and winning World War II is that millions of gallons of nuclear waste now reside in Hanford, Washington. And I'm not exaggerating. In fact, 53 million gallons of nuclear waste is onsite. And what's interesting about Hanford, of course, when you started storing this nuclear waste, our technology, our information, our knowledge was not as great as it is now. The way we stored this material then would not be an acceptable process today. It is an environmental disaster and a hazard that has to be cleaned up.

You have approximately 174 storage tanks. These storage tanks are from 750,000 gallons to a million gallons, all with nuclear waste in these tanks. These tanks are buried, as it says here, 10 feet underground and 250 feet above the water table, a mile from the Columbia River. Some of these tanks are leaking. It's just not a good thing for us to have. And so the government has been trying to deal with this one site of nuclear waste in this country.

Why do I bring this before you, Mr. Speaker, and why is this important? Because in 1982, part of the process of dealing with Hanford was to pass a law.

The law was called the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and in that law it says, We've got a solution. We're going to collect all the high-level nuclear waste, and we have a storage facility that we're going to place it in. And that place is Yucca Mountain. Now, many of you may have heard about Yucca Mountain before. I've visited it twice. Yucca Mountain is in a desert, and it's a mountain. So I do the side-by-side comparisons here.

Right now at Hanford we have 53 million gallons of nuclear waste on site. Yucca Mountain, which is a site we designed, we picked. We studied for decades. We spent $12.5 billion. We currently have no nuclear waste there.

The nuclear waste at Hanford is stored 10 feet underground. The nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would be stored a thousand feet underground. The nuclear waste at Hanford is 250 feet above the groundwater. The nuclear waste at Yucca will be stored a thousand feet above the water table. The nuclear waste at Hanford is a mile

from the Columbia River. The closest river to Yucca Mountain is the Colorado River, which is 100 miles away.

I'll come back to this floor throughout the year and highlight different locations around the country where there's waste and start pleading with my colleagues to help us stop two people--the President of the United States and Majority Leader Harry Reid. Majority Leader Reid has blocked our ability to continue to move forward and take nuclear waste from around this country and place it underneath a mountain in a desert.

This location is exhibit number 1. There is no more compelling location in this country that cries out for this waste to be moved than Hanford. In fact, in the clean-up process, the scientific design of the casks that will be used to clear out these 53 million gallons of waste and put into storage containers, they are designed specifically for Yucca Mountain. Again, we have spent $12.5 billion to prepare this site to receive nuclear waste.

The House went on record this year on a vote in the appropriation bill for energy and water and said, yes, Yucca Mountain is still where we believe high-level nuclear waste ought to go. And that vote was 297 Members voting to increase funding to complete the safety review of the DOA application so that Yucca Mountain could move forward.

One Senator is blocking this, one Senator from the State of Nevada. But it's time for the other Senators from these other States who are affected, regardless of their party, to say, ``I don't want this high- level nuclear waste in my State. We have a Federal law to move it to underneath a mountain in a desert.'' And it's time for them to stand up and be counted. That's why this is my first trip to the well identifying one location in this country, I think the most compelling argument for Yucca Mountain, and it's not even tied to that nuclear power generating for-profit industry. It is tied to our World War II legacy and the environment and the health of not only the land here in Washington State but also the great Columbia River.

So who are we asking to stand up and be counted and help us move this? Well, we just happen to have four U.S. Senators, two from the State of Washington, two from the State of Oregon: Senator Cantwell; Senator Murray; Senator Wyden; and Senator Merkley.

Now, if you look at this site, the Columbia River, those of you who know your geography know that the Columbia River, when it gets closer to the west side of the State, separates the State of Oregon and the State of Washington, to the north. North of the Columbia is Washington State, south is Oregon.

These Senators need to step up to the plate, and these Senators need to do their job. They need to speak to the majority leader. We understand the majority leader who wants to protect the State of Nevada. So I'm not trying to lift mountains that I can't personally lift. But what I can do is start making the clarion call to Senators around this country who have high-level nuclear waste in their States when we have already spent $12.5 billion for a single repository, and as I've said numerous times, underneath a mountain in a desert.

The numbers here in Washington--on the House side, we have an overwhelming majority. In the other body, their majority is not as big as it once was. And because of that, these centers are even empowered more to be able to go to their leader and plead for their State and make the compelling argument.

Again, if you can't make it for Hanford, you can't make it for anywhere.

I'm from southern Illinois. I don't have a nuclear facility in my congressional district, although I am from the State of Illinois, and Illinois is a huge nuclear power State. We have six locations, 11 reactors. So we have high-level nuclear waste stored 40 miles from downtown Chicago.

Now, does that make sense? Does that make sense in a day when we've already spent $12 billion to prepare, locate, research a single repository that can be kept safe, secure, and stored? It doesn't make sense.

So that's why in the coming weeks you'll see other posters like this. I'll definitely keep this one. But we'll compare Yucca Mountain to downtown Chicago. We'll compare Yucca Mountain to Boston, Massachusetts. We'll compare Yucca Mountain to Savannah, Georgia.

If you live in a State and may not have a nuclear power plant, you may very well have the legacy of World War II Manhattan-type projects and nuclear waste that has to be stored elsewhere than in the place where it is today.

As the chairman of the Environment and the Economy Subcommittee, my congressional responsibility is that of nuclear waste. It is a challenge for this country. It is a challenge that we already have a plan to deal with. In fact, ratepayers of States that have nuclear power have been paying an additional charge on their utility bills to prepare Yucca Mountain to receive this waste.

To have one man and a President who's complicit in his design to stop this is not in the best interest of this country, and I will continue to come down to the well to fight this fight so that we take full advantage of the great resources we have and follow up on the planning and the funding that we've done for decades to have a single repository.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I do apologize to my friend from California for coming late and kind of disrupting what was planned to be a closing, but this is an important debate, and my colleague from California and I have crossed sabers many times on these issues. I don't question his commitment to the environment and the regs and rules and the like.

As he knows, I'm from southern Illinois. I'm from an area that was devastated in the jobs issue and during the 1992 Clean Air Act, and I'm from an area of the country that still is not being all it can be based upon the excessive rules and regulations that come out of Washington,

Madam Speaker, it's been more than 9 months since the December 19 brutal and bloody crackdown on the opposition in Belarus. Human rights of ordinary Belarusan citizens continue to be denied. Nine political prisoners still exist. Nikolay Statkevich, Andrey Sannikaw, Dmitri Uss, Dmitri Bandarenka, Dmitri Dashkevich, Eduard Lobov, Pavel Severinetz, Ales Belyatsky and Mikalai Autukovich remain in prison, and President Lukashenka is using them to bargain for economic assistance with the international community.

Anatoly Lyabedska, leader of the United Civic Party, described the conditions in the KGB pre-trial detention facility as being cruel and inhumane, and the authorities' actions against opposition activities as being brutal.

For the first time in 17 years, people in Belarus are looking for a real alternative and asking for democratic

change. It is now time to invest in democracy in Belarus. The existing window for the opposition might be temporary. People in Belarus need our support, and we have to be with them until the end of this existing brutal regime.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 30th Anniversary of the founding of the Baltic American Freedom League, an important national Baltic American organization. The Baltic American Freedom League (BAFL) was founded in February 1981 by Baltic American political activists in southern California to raise American consciousness about Baltic issues and to carry out specific and concrete goals and projects toward helping achieve freedom for the Soviet occupied Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

In 1982, BAFL initiated a Congressional resolution asking President W. Reagan to designate June 14, 1982 as Baltic Freedom Day--reiterating U.S. non-recognition of the forcible and illegal incorporation of the Baltic Republics into the U.S.S.R. This Proclamation continued each year until the Baltic countries regained their independence in 1991.

Due to the combined efforts of BAFL, other Baltic organizations, and the Senate and House Baltic Caucuses, the Senate passed SCR 35 on May 19, 2005, and the House of Representatives unanimously adopted H.R. 128 on July 22, 2005; historic resolutions stating that ``. . . it is the sense of Congress that the Government of the Russian Federation should issue a clear and unambiguous statement of admission and condemnation of the illegal occupation and annexation by the Soviet Union from 1940 to 1991 of the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the consequences of which will be significant increase in good will among the affected people''.

In February 1997, at the request of BAFL, a Baltic Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives was organized by me and my colleague, Congressman Kucinich of Ohio. The Caucus currently has 55 House Members and has played and continues to play an important role in supporting Baltic issues.

Since November 17, 2008, the citizens of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have been able to travel to the U.S. without obtaining visas, thanks to BAFL and other Baltic organizations, and all those in Congress whose dedication and persistent work overcame strong opposition, and persuaded the U.S. to expand its Visa Waiver Program to include the Baltic countries.

I want to congratulate the Baltic American Freedom League and all its members, past and present, on this 30th anniversary celebration, and to join with other Members of this House in wishing them continued success for another 30 years and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, we are in an historic heat wave in this country, and I'm not talking about the debate on the debt limit, I'm actually talking about the temperature outside. And what's noted is that many leaders throughout this country--whether they're local Mayors or Governors--are saying, if you're poor, get to a cooling shelter, stay inside, stay in the air conditioning.

Well, we're fortunate in this country to have low-cost power generated by coal. In rural Illinois, the average salary is $58,000 a year, the average utility bill is $121 a month, which means they pay about $1,500 a year for the utility cost. However, in France, they pay 20 cents per kilowatt hour. Just think what the cost would be here if we had to double our electricity rates.

Talk about a burden on the poor and rural Americans when, instead of $1,500 a year, they would have to pay $3,000 a year just to seek relief from these hot summers.

Mr. Speaker, I am not coming down here to blame one side or the other for the financial position that we are in because we all have a part to play in the story, but this is a great day. I was also asked earlier about how I felt about today, and I told them I felt relieved.

I was afraid of the credit markets. I was afraid of rising interest rates. Whatever recovery we are having, I was afraid that it could stem that tide. So I do feel a great relief. This is one of the few times, in the 103 times that we have actually cut spending, when we tried in attempting to raise the debt limit. We can no longer continue to spend and borrow 42 cents of every dollar that we spend. It's ridiculous, and this is starting to change that process.

We are going to have discretionary cuts. We are going to have entitlement reforms.

I do like the supercommittee: bicameral, bipartisan, equally divided. When have we had a committee where we have equally divided the decision-making not upon majority and minority side, but equally divided, three Republicans, three Democrats in the House; three Republicans, three Democrats in the Senate? If this committee can't start addressing our entitlement reforms, then I am afraid we are never going to do it.

So I have great faith in my colleagues who will be put on this committee. We really have to make the great choices.

I appreciate the Rules Committee for bringing this to the floor, and my good friend, David Dreier. And I hope that we will continue to move forward, pass the rule, and pass the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I taught high school government and history for 4 years. For a bill to become a law, it must pass both Chambers, and then it must be signed by the President. The House has now passed two bills which raise the debt ceiling, cut spending, and address a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This historical reform for the first time ties a debt increase to a cut in spending.

It is long past time for the Senate to pass something. Their negligence threatens the fiscal health of this Nation. Once they do, we can conference the bills, which is where compromises are then resolved. Or we can pick up their bill. But until then, the world waits.

This debate is about U.S. energy security, North American energy, and jobs.

The original Keystone pipeline cost $2 billion, a thousand U.S. jobs. The expansion of the refinery bordering my district and the chairwoman's district is thousands of jobs and an expansion of the refinery. Keystone XL will allow us to create thousands of new jobs expanding the pipeline, expanding new refineries, getting down to the refineries in Texas.

The Canadians are going to build this pipeline in one or two directions. They're either going to go south to help us become North American reliant and secure in energy, or they're going to build this pipeline west to put it on tankers and ship it to China.

Now, I would ask my colleagues: What's more environmentally safe, secure, and sound--a pipeline or a supertanker? What's better for our country--have that oil coming to the United States or that oil going to China?

I think the answer is clear. We can become North American energy independent. The Keystone XL pipeline is part of that.

I would ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment.